Like Machiavelli in “The Prince” (published in 1532) none of this is anything new, but it’s rare that someone actually says it out loud. Government creates, sustains, and basically exaggerates problems in order to implement their desired solution. i.e. To pass their particular political agenda.

Obama did it immediately after taking office, exploiting the economic crisis to pass his “recovery” plan to funnel tax dollars to his constituents. He did it again early this year to pass health care “reform”, and he’s attempting to do it today with the oil spill – using it to advance his carbon “cap and trade” and “alternative energy” agenda.

BTW – This isn’t just me bashing Obama, ALL governments do it. Obama isn’t even particularly good at it. GWB was the master.

Bush II was adept at exploiting the crisis du jour. Is there any doubt that Bush took advantage of 9/11 in order to finish off the Hussein/Bush Family Feud once and for all? There was never the slightest connection between Saddam and 9/11, but Bush – along with his lackey Colin Powell – did their best to scare the crap out of everyone to make them think Saddam was Hitler II.

How about the way Bush used 9/11 to implement his version of security – which is way closer to Hitler’s Gestapo and SS than Saddam ever dreamed of doing – called the USA PATRIOT Act?

I swear I’m not making this up – it’s official name is the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001″. Everyone knows it as the Patriot Act, and it’s has done more to strip fundamental rights rights away from Americans than anything that Bin Laden or Saddam could ever dream of doing.

Basically every single article of it that’s made it to the Supreme Court has been ruled unconstitutional. Eventually, the whole thing will be thrown out, but that takes years of court battles – and someone with the balls (and money) to challenge the law – instead of meekly doing whatever the Gestapo tell them what they are allowed to do.

Bush also used 9/11 to implement the gigantic, overblown, over-funded, mismanaged, best-example-of-big-government-gone-awry-since-LBJ’s-Great-Society, stupidity-enshrined-in-law-monstrosity-that-we-call-the “Department of Homeland Security”.

I mean really, WTF are we all doing standing in lines at airports so federal agents can be voyeurs to enable them to find and take away those fingernail files and 3.6oz tubes of toothpaste that we’re going to use to take over the plane and crash it into the Podunk State Fair?

And then there’s the $700 billion bailout of the banks (aka TARP) that Bush pushed through as he was leaving office. I could write hundreds of pages about the stupidity and ultimate uselessness of that alone.

And please don’t forget one of the most obnoxious and intrusive laws ever imposed on Americans – the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. SOX was passed in response to the Enron fiasco. AFTER Enron had already collapsed. The free market, on it’s own, without government doing a damn thing, had already corrected the problems with Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms cooking the books and basically making up numbers. The bad companies disappeared and their stockholders lost money – precisely what should have happened. No additional regulation required.

SOX reporting requirements have sucked hundreds of billions – if not trillions – from companies over the past decade. How many millions of productive workers could have – would have – been employed with that money instead?

I gotta give credit where credit is due though – Bush II (or King George II, whichever moniker you prefer) was even able to take something which was a “good thing” and turn it into a crisis. He inherited surpluses (they were fake, but no need to get into that here) “as far as the eye can see” into the future, and turned them into the largest deficits ever known in the history of man.

He did this by convincing people that the “surpluses” were simply the government taking away their hard earned wealth and squandering it. Seriously. Look up his acceptance speech when he won the nomination. He said “Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend. But they’ve got it backwards. The surplus is not the government’s money; the surplus is the people’s money.”

In the first place, there was no surplus, but more importantly, IF there had been a surplus, it should have been used to pay down the existing debt. Bush seriously thought he could cut taxes AND increase spending AND pay down the debt AND everything would be just fine. He was – and is – a world class moron.

Instead of paying down the (approximately) $5.6 trillion in debt he inherited, Bush II fricking doubled it during his term. In just 8 years, Bush II increased our debt as much as ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED!

This is so hard to comprehend that I’ll try saying it another way. During the first 212 years (from 1789 until 2001) that the US had been in existence, we accumulated about $5.6 trillion in debt. Total. The first 42 US Presidents combined spent a total of $5.6 trillion more than they collected via taxes. Got it?

Now Bush II becomes President. Starting with $5.6 trillion in debt. With his budget for 2009, he left us over $11 trillion in debt. I can spend money, but DAMN, that boy was good! Even a drunken sailor has to stop when he runs out of money. Bush didn’t.

Can you tell that I think Bush II was (and still is) the Worst. President. Ever? He even beats Carter who previously held that title in my opinion. (Hmmm… I may have to rethink this. Carter couldn’t even successfully exploit the numerous crisis he had (oil embargo, Iranian Hostage, giant swamp rabbit, etc), so it’s conceivable that he was even dumber than Bush…. I need to ponder this at length sometime.)

Anyway, Obama isn’t doing anything that previous Presidents haven’t done as well, but that doesn’t mean I like it. Just because your predecessor sucked, and you happen to (in the immortal words of a team member) “suck less” doesn’t mean I like it. It doesn’t mean I think you’re doing a good job either.

Just because I think Obama “sucks less” than Bush II doesn’t mean I agree with his policies. As with Bush II, I can name a dozen areas where I disagree with Obama. And Obama obviously learned from Bush – he isn’t going to to let a crisis go to waste. Betcha thought I’d never get back to that point, but I did.

So he’s going to use the Gulf Oil Spill crisis to impose restrictions on drilling, and oil companies, and to impose new taxes to “punish” those responsible, and whatever else he thinks he can get away with to advance his agenda.

While I totally support “alternative energy” I do not agree with his agenda. I am a HUGE proponent of wind and solar power, and I would cover my south facing roof with solar panels and put a wind turbine in my backyard tomorrow morning – IF it made economic sense to do so. It does not.

The ONLY way it could possibly make economic sense (to individuals like me) at this point in time would be to tax the hell out of traditional power sources. Which is stupid. If I actually need to explain WHY that would be stupid, then you are too stupid to understand it.

Seriously. Read a Econ 101 textbook (or better yet, read Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” (http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html) particularly “The Lesson Applied”) then ask me to explain it if you still don’t get it.

When alternative energy sources become economically viable – either by the price of them dropping or by the price of traditional sources rising via free market forces – I won’t be the only one buying and using them. Everyone will want a “cheap energy thingy” in/on their house. And they’ll have one.

Just as petroleum based kerosene displaced whale oil as fuel for lights, and gasoline beat out electric and steam powered automobiles in the early 1900’s, when “alternative” energy costs drop below the cost of fossil fuels, everyone will use it. No government interference, regulation, increased taxes, “cap and trade”, or whatever else they what to call it is required to make that happen.

Leave the market alone (no subsidies for anyone – oil companies or ethanol producers or corn growers or solar panel factories or wind turbine generator manufacturer’s or biomass methane producers or hydro wave action scheme of the day, etc.) and everyone will do what makes cents (I know it’s a bad pun, but I’m bored) for them to do.

That’s what a free market does best. No government policy can change that. And crisis management – or management by crisis – will have no lasting effect. Unfortunately, we’re not doing that.

I read somewhere that “you can sway 1000 people by emotion faster than you can convince one with logic” – or words to that effect. The problem is that those thousand people can be “swayed” back to the opposite viewpoint the next day by a new demagogue. The one who you convinced with logic will stay convinced.

Hopefully, I’ve given enough examples, and used enough logic to convince the 2 people who actually read through this rant that they shouldn’t blindly agree with the proposed solution(s) to the crisis du jour.

Please think about it. Think it through. Think about the implications of the new policy. Not simply what it means today, or what feels good, or makes you feel better because you (or your proxy the government) are sticking it to “the man”, but what the new policy will actually accomplish.

There, I feel better.

Share on Facebook

I sent this email to Jiffy Lube today, after wondering how many other people had been adversely impacted by this practice.  I decided to post it here as well, as many people seem to be unaware of how much difference temperature has on tire pressure.  The email (with personal info removed) follows.

I went to Jiffy Lube for an oil change on my wife’s (vehicle) on the afternoon of May 24th.  One of the guys working on it popped into the customer lounge and proudly announced that my tires were at “almost 40 PSI”, and the sticker on the door said “they should be 35″ so he had “adjusted the pressure” (let some air out) in order to put them all at 35 PSI.

It was a hot day, and I had been driving for quite some time around town before I went to Jiffy Lube.  I told the guy that yes, I know the sticker says 35 PSI, did he read the part that says “Cold”?  Did he know that tire pressure should always be set when tires were “cold”?  I got a blank stare after asking those questions.  It’s obvious that he thought I was driving around with my tires over-inflated when they were in fact correctly inflated.

I do not know about other Jiffy Lube locations, but this location had caused my tires to be under-inflated by almost 5 PSI when I later checked them “cold”.  The tires are 100% brand new Michelin’s, having just been purchased and installed the day before – May 23rd.  And I had verified that they had the correct pressure myself.

Please ensure that the people working on vehicles at your locations know what they are doing BEFORE THEY DO IT, as I do NOT want to run my tires at 30 PSI “cold” when they should be at 35 PSI “cold”.  Considering that it was about 90 degrees on the afternoon of the 24th, and that I had been driving, I would expect the tires to be at “almost 40 PSI”. Or even at 40 or 42PSI.

Have them read this: http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=73
Or this: http://www.michelinman.com/tire-care/tire-saving-tips/air-pressure-tips/

I expect your service locations to check tire pressure and to add air if the pressure is low.  But unless they know absolutely, positively, with 100% certainty that the tires (not just a single tire) are dangerously over-inflated, they should NEVER “adjust” tire pressure by removing air from all the tires.  Even then, they should probably ask the owner first.

How many people are driving around today with under-inflated tires because of an uninformed person at Jiffy Lube?  What happens when a tire blows because of it?  How much needless tire wear and excessive gas usage is happening because this guy doesn’t know what he’s doing?

Please correct your tire pressure “adjusting” procedures before more damage is done.

gk

Share on Facebook

A few quotes from the article:  Today, he stopped at a beach where absorbent booms and sandbags have been laid for miles to try to keep more oil from washing ashore. Hmmm….  Where did those “miles” of “absorbent booms and sandbags” to keep the oil off the shore come from?  You think the Federal government did it?  Or BP?  Be honest now…. 

“It’s a dog and pony show. What can he really do?” said Billy Ward, 53, who comes to his beach house here every weekend. It’s always a dog and pony show when any official visits any disaster area.  They can’t do anything, and they distract from the work that the people (who can do something) are doing.  But it makes for nice photo ops for the politician.

To be fair, the politician is in a no win situation.  He’s accused of being aloof and non-caring if he doesn’t show up, and people like me (and Billy Ward) point out the hypocrisy involved if he does show up.

No oil could be seen in the water during Obama’s helicopter ride from New Orleans, over Louisiana bayous, to Port Fourchon down the coast from Grand Isle. I think that bears repeating – Obama took a helicopter ride from New Orleans, down the coast in order to see the damage.  He found none.  Zero.  “No oil could be seen”.

Go ahead, look up Port Fourchon LA on a map.  Look up Grand Isle LA.  Look at the amount of coastline and water that Obama flew over attempting to see oil washed up and polluting the beaches.  Damn.  Couldn’t find any.  (Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t as big of a disaster as some media outlets are making it out to be.)

That changed when he arrived at Fourchon Beach, however. A shirt-sleeved Obama walked to the water’s edge, stooping as Adm. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard explained what he was seeing.

The beach, sealed off with crime-scene-style yellow tape, is one of the few sandy stretches on Louisiana’s coast, where most is marshland. Obama called reporters traveling with him to the water’s edge and picked up a few pebble-sized tar balls. No other oil was visible. Again, I think it’s important to point this out -mainly because it seems to be hard to find oil on the LA coast.  I could be wrong about this, but assuming Obama was looking for a photo op and this was the best he could do, I think we’re in pretty damn good shape so far.

It’s also important to note that “tar balls” wash up on beaches all the time from oil that oozes naturally from the floor of the gulf.  When they found some on FL beaches last week, everybody freaked.  But when it turned out that the tar balls couldn’t be blamed on BP the frenzy quickly faded away and it stopped being news.  Morons.  A tar ball is a tar ball.  Why would one be ok but another be a disaster?

“These are the tarballs that they’re talking about,” he said. “You can actually send out teams to pick up as they wash on shore.” So send em out!  WTF are you doing?  If it’s that easy to clean up, station people on the beaches and clean it up.

More from the story: Early in the morning in advance of the president’s arrival, hundreds of workers clad in white jump suits and rubber gloves hit the beaches to dig oily debris from the sand and haul it off. Workers refused to say who hired them, telling a reporter only they were told to keep quiet or lose their jobs. Sounds like someone is cleaning up the oil.  Maybe BP?  It also sounds like where Obama was going to visit was a poorly kept secret, and that perhaps someone decided to clean it before he got there to keep from being embarrassed.  But if a beach can be cleaned in one morning, there obviously wasn’t much there to begin with.

I do not want to diminish the impact of this spill.  It’s obviously not a good thing, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.  On the other hand, I’ve seen blogs and comments on news stories where they basically say that BP could have stopped this a long time ago, but they didn’t want to have to seal the well because they wanted to be able to get that oil.  That’s simply BS.   If they could have shut down the well at once they would have done so.   Does anyone honestly think BP wants this publicity?  Maybe leftist conspiracy nuts would go there, but as a Libertarian nut, I won’t. 

gk

Share on Facebook

As I was watching a documentary “Decisions that shook the world” about Ronald Reagan last night, I just had to make a comment about it because the documentary did a good job of capturing the mood of the late 70’s early 80’s.

I’ll try to capture some of it here for those of you who don’t remember. Jimmy Carter was President. He was quite possibly the most inept President ever. Even worse than Bush I. Maybe even worse than Bush II. For example, there was a revolution in Iran and a bunch of students took over the American Embassy late in 1979.

The Iranians held 53 Americans hostage for 444 days. Carter’s response was to negotiate. When (after months and months) it was obvious to even the thick headed dufus President that negotiations weren’t working, Carter authorized a rescue mission. Due in large part to Carter’s interference and general ineptitude in military matters (even though Carter was a former submariner) the rescue mission failed miserably.

I’m too lazy to look it up right now, but I know the US only sent like 6 or 8 helicopters and 2 or 3 or them crashed on the way. None of them even made it to the embassy before turning around. It was a PR (and military) disaster.

Another item – the Soviets had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Carter’s response was to boycott the 1980 Olympics being held in Moscow. That really taught those commie bastards a lesson….

Another – Communists took over El Salvador sometime late in Carter’s term. His response was nothing.

Another – The Sandanista’s (Communists) took over Nicaragua about the same time. Carter again did nothing. In the post Vietnam era, Carter wasn’t about to do a damn thing with the military. He was “born again” (hey, like Bushie II – maybe that should tell us something?) and everyone assumed he meant well, but he truly sucked as a President.

Oil embargo – Carter’s response was to wear a sweater and order the heat to be turned down in th White House.

Inflation at 12% and 13% and unemployment at 7% and interest rates over 20%. The economy was so bad new terms were being invented to describe how bad it was. Terms like STAGFLATION and MISERY INDEX.

With very few exceptions, everyone in the world was convinced that America was done. The cold war was over and the Russians had won. After all, we had lost Vietnam, Communists/right wing dictators – I paint with a broad brush, both are totalitarian – were taking over Central and South America, Japan was buying up American real estate and businesses, Americans waited in gas lines to buy gas (even numbered days only if your license plate was an even number and vice versa), and drugs…

Crap, if you were a teenager from 1977 through 1980 (I turned 16 in 1978) and you say you didn’t do drugs, you’re almost certainly a liar. I was in a small town, Bonnots Mill, MO, population about 70, and pot was everywhere. If it was available there, it was available everywhere. Seriously. Something like 1/3 of all military personnel admitted to using drugs on a regular basis.

Carter’s response was to make a speech saying (I remember this distinctly) “we need to stop cursing and start praying” and (I don’t remember the exact words) “we will limit energy use” and/or “we will ration gas” and/or “we will turn down our thermostats, wear sweaters, join carpools, use public transportation” etc, etc, etc.

It struck me at the time as an attempt to do a Churchill-like “blood, toil, sweat, and tears”, “we will fight on the beaches”, or “this was their finest hour” type of speech. You know, shared sacrifice for the greater good and better days ahead type of speech – without ANY of the the optimism of Churchill.

It became known as the “malaise speech” or the “limits speech”. It was a speech about how America sucked, why we sucked, and how we – possibly, with a lot of sacrifice – could suck less.

Carter made it embarrassing to be an American in 1980. The Charlie Daniels Band had a hit song (In America) about America pulling together and kicking ass and Carter still managed to pull everyone down.

About this time Ronald Reagan started talking about what we could be, not what we couldn’t be. I took the time to look this up, because I wanted to capture it as he said it. Keep in mind the defeatist mood of the country at the time, as exemplified by Carter’s numerous (did he do ANYTHING right?) failures and inability to inspire and lead. Now read these lines from Reagan’s speech anouncing why he was running…. Direct quote follows….

“There are those in our land today, however, who would have us believe that the United States, like other great civilizations of the past, has reached the zenith of its power; that we are weak and fearful, reduced to bickering with each other and no longer possessed of the will to cope with our problems.”

“Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle. We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done. They tell us we must learn to live with less, and teach our children that their lives will be less full and prosperous than ours have been; that the America of the coming years will be a place where — because of our past excesses — it will be impossible to dream and make those dreams come true.”

“I don’t believe that. And I don’t believe you do either. That is why I am seeking the presidency. I cannot and will not stand by and see this great country destroy itself. Our leaders attempt to blame their failures on circumstances beyond their control, on false estimates by unknown, unidentifiable experts who rewrite modern history in an attempt to convince us our high standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce as we join in sharing scarcity. I don’t agree that our nation must resign itself to inevitable decline, yielding its proud position to other hands. I am totally unwilling to see this country fail in its obligation to itself and to the other free peoples of the world.”

Another part of his speech – and the main reason I think Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents. “The 10th article of the Bill of Rights is explicit in pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain with the states or the people. We haven’t been observing that 10th article of late. The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well.”

I can’t think of a single federal law enacted under Reagan where individual citizens lost either rights or income. There is no other president since Herbert Hoover who could even remotely make that claim that I can think of right now – possibly excepting JFK. (JFK made some starts on civil rights that I don’t believe belonged at the fed level, but overall he also did a good job of leadership.)

I’m not saying they were all bad, but all others expanded the role of the feds – Reagan didn’t in any way that I recall right now. I could – quite probably even – be wrong, but no one could have done more to change the tone of the country than Reagan in the early 80’s.

We went from Carters’ “don’t do that, can’t do that, no way we can afford that, turn down the temp, stay home, we don’t wanna get involved cause we’ll lose like in Vietnam, don’t, can’t, won’t” to “you/we can, you/we will, make it happen, America can do it, we will stop aggression” etc. etc. etc…

Reagan carried (I looked this part up) 44 states in1980. Reagan inspired people. The totalitarian regimes around the world KNEW that Reagan meant what he said. It’s no coincidence that the Iranians released the hostages the same day Reagan was sworn in. Th Iranians KNEW that Reagan would have hit them with everything we had – admittedly not much in Jan of 1981, but a hell of a lot more than 6 or 8 fucking helicopters in the middle of the night. They KNEW that they would die if they didn’t release the hostages unharmed. So they did. (I had joined the Army in August 1980. I bet my dad that the hostages would be released if Reagan won – before Reagan took office. I lost that bet by a few hours)

Within a few years, Reagan could run an ad that said:
“It’s morning again in America. Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history. With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past four years. This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. It’s morning again in America, and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?”

Is it any wonder that he won with a 49 state landslide? Mondale only carried his home state of Minnesota.

Reagan turned the country around. Without him (in my opinion and many others) the Soviet Union would still be here, there’d still be a Berlin Wall, and America would be MUCH worse off than we are – and we are in bad shape right now IMHO.

Yes, Reagan screwed up. He spent way too much and he should’ve vetoed more spending. But without him, it might have been the US gone instead of the USSR. And I don’t think that’s much of an exaggeration. Spending too much money is a venial sin when viewed through that lens.

gk

Share on Facebook

In particular, the 14th Amendment states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The text of the Arizona law is here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I have read it. Twice. I don’t see anything in it that prevents Sheriff Teasle from harassing anyone he wants to mess with, for any reason, at any time. So if you appear to be Hispanic in Arizona, you better carry your papers with you. Even if your family has lived here for 150 years.

The AZ law states:
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Reconcile that statement (go ahead, read the law for yourself) with the 4th Amendment, which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I am all for States Rights – the 10th Amendment has also not been repealed. I am in favor of enforcing all legally established laws. I am also of the opinion that I don’t care what the law in Podunk, AZ says – if it conflicts with the US Constitution.

Read that 14th Amendment again. Now please explain to me how the Arizona law can possibly be Constitutional. EQUAL protection means EQUAL protection. It does not mean that any idiot “LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” can, at his sole discretion “WITHOUT A WARRANT”…. “ARREST A PERSON” just because they don’t look like they belong in the US. That constitutes “probable cause” under this law.

I agree that illegal immigrants are illegal, and that when we discover that they are in this country illegally, we should detain them and deport them to their country of origin. Immediately or as soon as feasibly possible. But that’s not the same as passing a law saying that any law enforcement officer can stop/detain/question/arrest anyone who – in the sole opinion of the local yokel bigoted inbred law enforcement official – may possibly be in the country illegally.

Hmm…. I wonder how many of the citizens – and legislators – of Arizona carry documentation with them – at all times – showing that they are in the US legally? I don’t carry a copy of my birth certificate with me. Or my Social Security card. I don’t have a green card either.

TN has a list of acceptable documents: http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/driverlicense/dlcitizen.htm
MI has a list: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Applying_for_lic_or_ID_SOS_428_222146_7.pdf
OR has a list: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/driverid/idproof.shtml#legal_presence
AR has a list: http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410

Go ahead, read through the lists of acceptable documents. Do you carry – at all times – ID’s acceptable to the local idiot law enforcement official? Remember that you need to provide two forms of ID…. I don’t. But I’m an old bald white guy who talks funny – no one would ever question my citizenship. I think. But what if I was Hispanic? ANY racist idiot official in AZ could stop me if he believes that I might be in the US illegally and arrest me. At any time. At his sole discretion. As long as he thought he had probable cause – which could mean that I acted funny, or looked Hispanic. Doesn’t matter – the local yokel can arrest, search, question, and detain me whenever he wants to. That’s not Constitutional under any reasonable definition.

Share on Facebook

For days heading into the election, we heard over and over how Brown was campaigning as the 41st vote against health care and Coakley was campaigning as the 60th vote for health care.  I even heard Brown has a nickname “41″ because he claimed to be the 41st vote against everything Obama wanted.

I’m not sure what fantasy world Mr. Rich is living in, but it’s hard to trust the analysis and opinions of anyone who is able to make up their own view of reality so easily.

gk

Share on Facebook

In general, Americans don’t like politicians who go to extremes, and when any one party is in control, they ALWAYS go to extremes.  Clinton tried pushing through health care and it was a disaster for the Dems.  Bush got it in 2002 and pushed through the Iraq fiasco – which led to the current Dem majority.   Now it appears that Obama is heading down the same path.

You know things are bad for Democrats when the NY Times opinion page has 3 stories – and they are all complaining about Democrats.  Check them out.

The Lady and the Arlen – Gail Collins

They Still Don’t Get It – Bob Herbert

Mobs Rule – Charles Blow

gk

Share on Facebook

Wheelchair-bound Christina Mills, 32, of Sacramento, California said disabled workers could not afford to have subsidies for assistants cut as the governor proposed.

“If they didn’t have home-care workers to help them get dressed in the morning, they wouldn’t be able to go to work.”

Hey Christina – that sucks doesn’t it?  It’s sad, but true – if you need someone else to pay for you to get to work, you’re not earning enough to make your job worth the investment in you!  It would be cheaper for everyone if you stayed home and we payed to take care of you there.  Plus, you wouldn’t be in denial about how much your work is actually worth.

Yes, it’s harsh.  But it’s also true.

gk

Share on Facebook

Could health care (and the resulting loss of individual and states rights) prove to be Obama’s defining moment as it was with Hillary care?  Stay tuned….

gk

Share on Facebook

Aaron Rodgers evidently ain’t too bright, cause he can’t count to “one thousand four”.  Watching the Dallas/Green Bay game and it’s pitiful watching him get hit time after time after 4 or 5 seconds.  In the NFL, you normally only get 3 seconds – throw the freaking ball Rodgers!  He deserves to get hurt playing that stupid.

With the defense GB has this year, they could be one of the best in the league if Rodgers would make a freaking decision and throw the ball in under 4 seconds.  Instead, the probably won’t even make the playoffs.

Darrelle Revis is pretty damn good….

I watched Maurice Jones-Drew fall down at the 1 instead of going in for the TD.  That sucked in two ways:

1) Jacksonville was trailing by one.  That would’ve been a brilliant play if they’d have been winning by one, but there are no sure things in the NFL.  Garrard might’ve fumbled the next snap, could have a bad snap on the kick, the kicker could miss, etc, etc, etc.  1o different things could’ve happened that would’ve caused Jacksonville to lose that game because of  that decision.  Even tho it worked out in the end, it was dumb.

2) I have MJD on my fantasy team.  Sonofabitch cost me 6 points. 

The Cardinals need to forget about the run.  They are UNSTOPPABLE when they are throwing on every down.  When they run they get out of rhythm and don’t look good at all.  Use your strengths!

Chris Johnson is officially the best RB in the league.  He not only got 132 rushing yards, he had 100 yards on 9 receptions.  He’s so much faster than everyone else on the field it’s crazy….  I tried to trade for him this week (offered Greg Jennings, Steve Breaston, Reggie Bush and Mike Bell for him to an owner with 3 #1 RB’s but only one good WR) but I didn’t get him.  Now the trade deadline in my league has passed.  Shit.

Reggie Bush could still be a superstar – if the Saints would use him like they did today.  He’s a slightly slower version of Chris Johnson.  Or maybe a larger version of Ray Rice. 

The Saints defense is much worse without Sharper and Porter – they better get them back soon or they’ll get beat very soon.

San Diego looks so good one minute and so bad the next.  If they could stay “good” they’d be a contender for the Super Bowl.  As it stands, they’re simply another team that’ll be happy to get into the playoffs.

One of the best things that could happen to the Seahawks is if Jones is out for awhile.  That way they could use Forsett and actually have a running game.

Hey Seattle – rushing 3 and dropping 8 into coverage will get your ass picked apart by Warner.   He makes mistakes if you pressure him.

We’re into the 4th quarter and Vincent Jackson still doesn’t have a catch.

Watched the various pre-game shows this morning, and most everyone (especially Fox) was ready to annoint the Cowboys as the NFC East Champs.  At one time that might have meant something.  But with the Giant’s, Eagles, and Redskins all looking so bad lately, not so much anymore.

gk

Share on Facebook

I remember staying up all night, watching CNN live as people tore down sections, as people took sledge-hammers, screwdrivers, even rocks to the hated wall, tearing it down piece by piece.  Amazing.

At least 136 people died trying to cross the wall and get out of East Berlin.  I can’t put into words how impossible it seemed to me back in the early 80’s that the wall would come down without a war.

Reagan called the Soviet bluff – and the Soviet Bloc was exposed as a bluff when Reagan gave the famous speech.  Here’s an excerpt.

Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany–busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city’s culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there’s abundance–food, clothing, automobiles–the wonderful goods of the Ku’damm.

From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn’t count on–Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.]

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Gorbachev didn’t tear down the wall, but the East Germans did.

gk

Share on Facebook

But I read a post from The Daily Reckoning today that made quite a bit of sense in looking at the future in an optimistic light by comparing it to what we faced in the 1970’s.  I’ve copied it here because it’s worth reading to put things into perspective.  Enjoy!

gk

And finally today, back to Bill…

Our old friend John Mauldin answered last week’s note. Our point was that our children face a different world than we did. From what we can make out, it will be a tougher world. Everything was looking up with the baby boomers. Especially in the lives of the luckiest of them – your editor and John included. Is everything still going up? The US economy? The power and wealth of the US empire? And how about our children? John and I started out with nothing to lose. Our children can slip down as well as slide up. John has today’s Daily Endnote for us. Please enjoy…

It’s More Than Half Full.

Ok, Bill, let’s review those wonderful days from whence we sprang, so fraught with the advantages of having nothing. So potent with opportunity. It was the middle of the ’70s when we started our careers. Inflation was high and rising. The Soviets were seen as a major threat. Japan was beating our brains out and buying everything, even if nailed down (like Pebble Beach and New York skyscrapers). I had to borrow money at 15% (or more) to buy paper in order to meet customer demands for printing. And guess what? The banks got into trouble and called loans willy-nilly. (My bank even called my mother and threatened her to pay my loan – against written agreements – and she did. Evil sons of bitches. The more things change… And they delightedly did fail! Not that I hold a grudge.)

There were multiple successive and deeper recessions. Gold was rising as the dollar was seen as a joke. Howard Ruff (a good friend to both of us when we were starting out!) and almost every newsletter writer were telling people to buy gold and freeze-dried food to protect themselves against a near certain economic, if not apocalyptic, catastrophe. Unemployment was high and rising for a decade.

The correct answer to the question, “Where will the jobs come from?” back then was “I don’t know, but they will.” And it is the correct answer today.

In 20 years, no one will want to come back to the halcyon days of 2005. Our kids (all 13 of them) are getting ready to live through what will be the most exciting period in human history. There will be a century’s worth of change, measured by the standard of the 20th century, just in the next ten years, and then we will double that pace in the next ten after that. Medical miracles that will mean our kids and grandkids will live a lot longer than their dads, although I intend to be writing well into my 80s, like our mutual hero Richard Russell.

There will be whole new industries developed in the US. How do I know that? Follow the money. The rest of the world spends a fraction on research and development that we do. Where do you go if you are looking for venture capital?

Do I care if the Chinese and the “developing” worlds are far better off, relatively speaking, than the US in 20 years? Not a whit. Good on them. I hope they make discoveries and inventions and new businesses that benefit us all. But we are not going into some long dark night. We, and our kids, get to choose how we respond to what is the reality of the day.

Our nation had to almost hit the wall in 1980 before a Volker could come along and force us to take the pain of recessions to beat back inflation. And we will have to come perilously close to the wall this time before we take action as a nation. Way to close for comfort. Maybe you are right, and we have a soft depression. I hope not, but even so, the world will be better, far better, in 20 years, with far more opportunities than today.

It was not fun starting new businesses in the ’70s and early ’80s. But we did. I remember coming to Baltimore and being (literally) afraid to get out of the car to visit your offices in the slums. But that was what you could afford. A far cry from the chateau in Ouzilly.

I lived in a small mobile home. Tiffani was born there, and we converted part of the kitchen to be her bedroom. (Yes, I was white “trailer trash.”) But I got up every morning just like you did and killed as many alligators as I could. The rest had to wait till the next day.

And that is the legacy our kids have. They know what it is to wade into the swamp every morning. Never quitting. In thinking about this, you may be the father I respect the most. You have raised your kids to be multi-lingual children of the world. What a work ethic. How did you get them to scrape window shutters at your chateaus? (I actually saw this, and my kids marveled.

Thereafter I threatened to make them go live with you when they did not act right!)

You have given your kids the opportunity to follow their dreams, even demanded that they do so. And such dreams they (and mine) have. Will they succeed? Who knows? But they will go at it with gusto, in a world with more opportunities than you and I ever imagined 40 years ago. And, oh boy, were we optimists back then. How else could we have done what we did? If we believed the rhetoric that the world was coming to an end, would we have dared to venture out?

You cannot have raised your kids to be such bold adventurers without instilling in them a certain high level of optimism. I am going to out you, Mr. Bonner. You present yourself to your readers as a bona fide end of the world pessimist. But you are a really and truly a closet optimist. Your whole business empire (and what an empire it has become!) is based on finding people who are optimists, in the sense that they think they can actually get people to send them money for what they write. Which they do! Even if it is to read why the world will come to an end, which it thankfully never does.

You are right in this: it is personal gumption that makes or breaks us. There are those who started out with less than we did (hard to imagine but true) and made a lot more. And there are those who started out with far more and made less. But there are very few who are happier than either of us. Or luckier.

Our kids? It is not the times which dictate the man (or daughter!), but the response of the man which dictates his own time. Today has a brighter future for someone young than any other time in history, whether they are in the US or Brazil or China. They just have to seize it.

And as our kids do just that, and as the millions of kids of those who read us do so, and the billions of kids who are just now getting ready to bust loose all work to achieve their dreams, the world is going to be a far more fantastic place. Smooth ride? Not a chance. We didn’t get one, and in thinking through history, there have not been many smooth rides. Why should we think we will get any better? Our kids will just have to live with our generational (and individual) iniquities, government debt and all, and figure out how to master their own fates. But if I had a choice to take the ’70s or today? In less than a heart’s beat I choose today. And I bet you would too!

Regards,

John Mauldin
for The Daily Reckoning

Share on Facebook

From the numbers I’ve seen, 2010 and 2011 are the years when most of these Option ARM’s are due to reset to “real” interest rates.  House prices aren’t done bottoming yet.

gk

Share on Facebook

What’s the deal with supposedly “power” conferences padding stats by playing whatever area high school team needs some cash?

Props to Alabama, Georgia, and LSU for actually playing college football teams in their openers.   The rest of the SEC proved absolutely nothing.

What does it tell you about your team when they beat Miami of Ohio, Western Carolina, Missouri State, or that other contender – Charleston Southern University?

Nothing.  And that’s the amount of respect I give teams who schedule pushovers.  If you want to be a big time team, you need to play big time opponents.   The SEC stayed on the porch opening weekend.

gk

Share on Facebook

Sorry, I don’t see anyway to link directly to the post, so you may have to search for it.  But you gotta love the dry humor of the writer who evidently isn’t a fan of  Favre.

gk

Share on Facebook

gk

Share on Facebook

A: They all scored more fantasy points in PPR leagues last year than Adrian Peterson.

I have the #1 pick in my PPR league his year.  I’ve never had the #1 pick before.  I don’t like it.  Not because of getting the first pick – I love that – it’s because of all the primo players that will get drafted before I get to pick again at #24.  Wish I could trade down, but this league doesn’t allow that.

Back to Peterson.  AP led the NFL in rushing last year with 1757 yards.  He led the league in all purpose yards with 1882.  He had 10 TD’s.  He caught 21 passes.  And he finished 9th among running backs in PPR scoring in 2008.   Freaking Ninth!

Assuming he doesn’t get injured and he has another great year, he could possibly match those stats in 2009.  But why would I draft a guy at #1 who’s barely in the top 10 in a PPR scoring system?

Who will I pick at #1? I honestly don’t know right now.  I’ve eliminated a few, including AP, but I haven’t settled on anyone.   Jones-Drew, Forte, and Jackson are being considered right now.  With some very very very slight consideration being given to a WR, such as Fitzgerald or one of  the Johnson’s, Calvin or Andre – but I can’t see that happening.  I’ve played out several draft scenario’s, and I simply can’t make that one work.

BTW:  I don’t know who I’ll pick at numbers 24 and 25 either.  But I know it won’t be AP. 

gk

Share on Facebook

I also just added some new buttons for Digg, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Yahoo Buzz.  The old one were so small and bland that they practically faded into the background.  The new buttons which appear at the end of each post and page are more like what you’re used to seeing on other sites. I’m still playing with this, so it may change, but if you like the site, spread the word by using the buttons!

gk

Share on Facebook

Lots of things are taken into account here, but there are quite a few unknowns at this point.  For example, take Brandon Marshall.  (Please!)  Today the Bronco’s announced that he’s suspended for the 2 remaining pre-season games, so I have no clue how to rank him.  He’s definitely has less fantasy value today than he did yesterday, but how much less?  He missed training camp, he hasn’t played yet this year, he had off-season surgery, he has a new head coach, he has a new QB (Orton, who I think sucks, but in any case Orton is not as good a QB as Cutler was) and he’s admitted that he doesn’t know the playbook.

In short, Marshall is a huge gamble right now, no matter where you take him.  IF – and that’s a big if – he gets his shit together, he COULD be one of the top receivers in a PPR league.  But on draft day, you have to know that the guy is gonna be on the field if you draft him in the top 100.  With Marshall you simply don’t know as of today.  Watch the news and read the latest updates before drafting him.

Another example is the RBBC that Tampa Bay announced this week.  WTF?  They are planning on a 2-2-1 split of carries between the top 3 running backs.  At this moment that would mean that Graham would get 2 carries, Ward would get 2 carries, and Williams would get 1, because that’s the order of their depth chart.  I still think that Ward has the most fantasy value in a PPR league, but all of them are devalued because of the decision.   But where do they rank today?  Below is my best estimate.  (I really like Cadillac Williams, and I hope he can stay healthy, but there’s no way he’s in the top 100 as of today.)

You’ll note that this order doesn’t line up perfectly with my individual position rankings from last week.  It’s close in most cases, but while I took those into account, I tried to make this list as up to date as possible, so some players have moved up and some have moved down.   I’ll probably update this sometime before next weekend, because I’m guessing most fantasy drafts will be Labor Day weekend.  Mine are.

Enjoy!

Well, what do you think?
gk

Share on Facebook

KFFL also has updated PPR rankings as of today.  Not the same as mine, but then again, they’re not me. 

It’s one of my favorite PPR sites.  Be sure to check out all their fantasy football articles at KFFL.com/fantasy-football

Note – The Average Draft Position (ADP) they show in their rankings are not correct for PPR leagues!

Update 8/26:  Here’s a different take on PPR draft strategy from FantasySharks.  Some interesting tidbits in this one, like taking Brees or Brady high – and if you don’t get either one of them, waiting until 11 QB’s are taken before getting either Matt Ryan or Matt Schaub.  It’s an excellent read, and I agree with a lot of his analysis – like letting someone else take Turner early.

Here’s a good one from another story at FantasySharks.  Not that it has anything to do with PPR, simply that I thought it was funny. They’re talking about rule changes for 2009.  Here’s a new rule:  A defensive player on the ground may no longer lunge or dive at the quarterback’s lower legs

And the commentary….   This rule was created based on the knee injury that Tom Brady sustained in the Patriots opening game last year.  This will be known as the “Brady Rule,” but actually should be called “Brady Rule 1.2” since the “Tuck Rule” is already unofficially Brady’s.

Pretty soon there will be a whole rule book developed by Brady, including how many points a team must be up by before they should stop throwing Hail Mary TD passes and when it is OK to leave your pregnant girlfriend to marry a super model.

Bonus: Brady might even make it to the second half of Game 1 this year.

gk

Share on Facebook