About Me

Name: Matthew
Location: Woodstock, GA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

if the shoe were on the other hand...

Please, join me as we step inside the mind of the president-elect as he becomes the target of a drive-by shoeing...

Hmm. That man over to the right - looks like he's waving. You know, most people wave from side to side; he appears to be waving from front to back.

Oh, I see. He wasn't waving; he was winding up to throw something at me. Hmm. It, uh, appears to be a shoe.

Interesting. That shoe looks to be a bit worn at the heel. I need to consult with Rahm about whether we have made any promises to the leather-workers' union.

Throwing a shoe is probably an indication of discontent. Maybe if I take Sean Hannity up on his offer to buy me a beer, people wouldn't be throwing shoes.

I probably ought to consider some course of action to avoid actually being struck by the shoe; it appears to be aimed at my head, and I believe that would hurt.

Do I have any advisors on shoe-avoidance? It seems like I should have someone to advise me on situations like this.

I wonder if Hillary ever had to dodge shoes in Bosnia. Seems like she would have said something about it.

Hmm. The shoe is getting much closer now. Looks like Italian leather. Can't say anything bad about the shoe, now; it might be perceived as being an insult to the Italians.

Oh, look at that stitchi...ow.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Here Piggy, Piggy

The Obama campaign set off a firestorm yesterday with the repetition of the old saying, "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

The McCain campaign was quick to jump on the statement as sexist, the Obama campaign reminded us that McCain used the same saying referring to one of Hillary's proposed policies, and the 24-hour news cycle was protected for another day from political fatigue.

Whatever else one might say about Obama, he isn't an idiot. I don't buy the line that he was showing sexism with this comment, as he was referring not to Palin but to some of the policies of the (R)s. One can find plenty of other examples of Obama's sexism that don't require much of a reach (Right, Sweetie?). So what was this man who is so careful with words saying?

One of the ripples that is spreading from the Palin nomination is the recognition that Palin's strongest appeal is to the group of people least likely to be affected by the snobbish denigrations of the media - the average American. Obama is trying to be "a little bit country," as Marie Osmond used to sing. He is trying very hard to be Main Street instead of Hyde Park. He is trying to connect/reconnect with the American midwest, the place where people can use the pig analogy without anyone thinking the speaker sexist.

If you approach his comments from that perspective, the "pig" comment is about as likely as Paris Hilton working on a farm. The visual doesn't work; and you get the feeling that, once the cameras are off, the "star" runs to the shower as quickly as possible. Got to get that demeaning stench off. That stench of commonness.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Just A Distraction...That Works

Senator Obama is spending a lot of time explaining how superior the amount and type of experience he has compares to that of Gov. Palin.

The Senator has a legendary ability to focus and ignore things he calls "distractions." I'll not attempt to list all of the things that have been dismissed as distractions in this political season, since that list would be a distraction in and of itself, but I'm sure you've heard the term "distraction" thrown about once or twice regarding things you thought might be real issues.

However, he does not seem to be able to find that focus, that inner voice, when it comes to the comparisons between himself and Gov. Palin.

He is fixated.

He has to keep coming up with examples of how he is better than she.

His campaign staff has a budget 36 times that of Palin's mayoral town. He manages 1200 people - she only managed 60-ish, maybe.

Ignoring the issue that he has a campaign manager and chief of staff who are primarily responsible for the things he is taking credit for handling, and that she is a governor now (not just a small-town mayor), it still fascinates me to watch his responses.

One does not respond so vorasciously out of casual dismissal; one does it out of fear.

So what fears could there be that would explain this behavior?
  • Mysogyny has to be a major suspect. The idea that anyone could compare him to this woman, and maybe give her some respectability in the balance, might be more than he can take.
  • His own need to prove himself is a driving force. There was an interesting article in the Chicago Trib last week about how Obama is always requiring more of himself ("Must do better" was the catch-phrase in the piece), is very driven to rise to the top of whatever arena he enters. He has a right to this presidency. He is supposed to walk up and just claim the throne, because he is smarter, better-looking, and more urbane than his opponent. And now people dare to compare him to this backwoods, gun-toting, fisherman's wife-beauty queen? How dare they.
  • His inner voices/doubts, which are usually behind both mysogyny and an (artificially) high level of personal drive, could be a factor. When he selected Joe Biden as his running mate, many saw an indication that he saw his own weakness in experience and foreign policy. His introduction of Biden as "The next President of the United States" was also seen as a Freudian slip, as if to say, "I know I'm not worthy; how about this guy?". Most people who are subconsciously unsure of themselves eventually turn to tearing others down in order to make themselves look better, or at least to feel better. I sense a lot of that in his attacks on Palin.
If I didn't already find Palin's candidacy just the right tonic for the McCain ticket, this would seal the deal for me. Any time you can get a presidential candidate to keep comparing himself to your veep choice, that's a good thing - especially if that Presidential candidate is already struggling with appearing presidential. Obama is off message, and is beginning to show some desparation in his attacks. I don't think Mr. Obama can stop himself.

No He Can't.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supply and Demand - a primer for GenNext

Somehow your Intro to Econ classes must have skipped over this basic principle in economics. Maybe the professor is a free-market-denier. Maybe you were busy texting the chick three seats over that day. Who knows.

But somehow, this concept didn't get through. So I'm here to help. And no, I'm not from the government. I'm from that old school of thought that ordinary citizens can be helpful.

Let's start with why I think this concept needs to be addressed. I read a story this morning in the Washington Post in which presidential contender Barack Obama's spokesperson said,
"John McCain's plan to simply drill our way out of our energy crisis is the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies."
 This is faulty logic on two fronts (at least), as well as an awkward and predictable attempt to wed McCain to Bush in an area where they have held different views. But let's focus on the economic reality of supply and demand.

The iPod was once a unique device. When they first came out, people paid hundreds for ten dollars worth of parts. Apple could charge an arm and a leg because they were nearly alone in the digital jukebox business. Now you can find a knockoff of the iPod at any number of stores for $15.

Why are they so cheap? Multiple reasons, but the primary reason is that now there are more.

The iPhone is experiencing similar downward price pressure because there are other phones coming to market with similar features.

The more of something there is, the less people are willing to pay for it.

Oil comes from a limited set of suppliers. The US sits on a huge stockpile of oil, but environmental groups have pressured the Congress to prevent us from tapping those resources. The environmentalists' view is that the deer and the antelope won't have as many places to play if we put in some drilling rigs. But the majority of Americans are a little less concerned about the deer and the antelope at the moment than they are their own livelihoods.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about whether our lifestyle is a little out of control, but the focus here is on the pressure that a limited supply has placed on the price of oil.

In short, less supply equals higher price.

The current price structure in the US is in part a response to speculation about oil futures. Every article I've read about the futures market cites "supply fears" as what is fueling the higher bidding on oil futures.

So what does one do to alleviate fear about future supplies? You increase future supplies.

Think of it this way: Suppose you had expressed your concern about being able to afford college to your parent(s) or legal gaurdian(s) back when you were in sixth grade. If he/she/they had said, "Don't worry. I'll take care of it," you may have felt some assurance. How much more assured would you have felt if he/she/they had established a savings account with regular deposits to cover your college expenses? In this case, the supply of money would ease your fear of future calamity, reducing your tension and letting you get back to your baseball card empire.

Similarly, if the US were to ease restrictions on drilling within our borders and territorial waters, the futures traders would no longer have fears about our future supply. And in a short time, we would have a greater current supply. Oil has proven itself to be supply-elastic, meaning that the price of oil has been affected, dramatically, by the supply on the market. See the Arab oil embargo of the 70's for details.

One other thing that I want to point out about the comment from Obama's campaign staff: Read it slowly and you'll see that it makes no sense.

Logic fault 1: 'misguided approach ... that has failed our families for too long'. We haven't tried this yet. When did this approach fail?

Logic fault #2: 'that only serves to benefit the big oil companies'. How does big oil benefit from lower prices?

Class dismissed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Labor Pains

Chicago is a city where you can't change your baby's nightlight without a team from the Electrical Contractors' Union on hand. God forbid you should ever try to move a box in your office - there must be at least three members of the Office Box Moving Union there - two to take turns lifting and moving the box, and one to drink the coffee.

Obama has maintained a cozy relationship with labor. He has been quite clear in his support of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would remove the secret ballot from votes on unionization. Besides the fact that we all kinda like the idea of secret ballots, this act would prevent employees from saying they would support a vote for unionization just to get the union people off their back, then vote against in privacy. The 'big deal' here is that unions (might want to sit down for this) have a reputation for using intimidation. As in, 'vote for unionization or you never know what might happen out there on the line.'

Obama's view on this act?
“We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of 'if'; it’s a matter of 'when.' We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.”
So why is he suddenly getting a thumbs-down from labor? Because one of his top economic advisors, Jason Furman, is a known associate of Robert Rubin, one-time Clinton Treasury Secretary.

Wow. People to the right side of Obama are criticized for pointing out Obama's direct relationships with people of questionable character ... but now the union folk are complaining that one of his advisors might have learned too much about economics from the Treasury Sec of Bill Clinton. I'm sorry, but wasn't the Clinton team supposed to be responsible for a sustained economic expansion? Seems like I have heard that multiple times when I've knocked heads with Progressives on economic issues. Frequently.

So the unions don't want someone involved in Obama's potential administration who is an associate of someone who was closely tied to big business. I once ran a business - into the ground. I wonder if the unions would consider me more qualified or less qualified as an economic advisor as a result.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chicago! Chicago!

For those who may be entering the arena of politics for the first time this season ... oh, wait, most of them probably aren't reading over here.

Ah, well. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to elect really bad presidents, so let's take a look at the history of Chicago politics.

Wikipedia does a sanitized summary, missing all the details that make it interesting. But I found this article from US News and World Report to be particularly instructive. In short, the rough and tumble of Chicago politics has honed the presumptive Democratic nominee. He isn't naive, and he is certainly not anything new as politicians go. He is as cold and calculating as they come, and he has a knack for recognizing just where to turn to ride the tides of the electorate.

Scary stuff for those of us who don't care for the prospect of him as the leader of the free world.

But there is a chink in his armor that has been emerging more of late. The video of him trying to defend Johnson, now a former member of his triumverate of veep-vetters, shows a man who is not very sharp when an unscripted moment comes along. And even some among the MSM are beginning to recognize that the avoidance of unexpected questions is not borne out of some mysterious self-assurance. The fact is, he can't put together a coherent sentence if it hasn't been rehearsed.

Thank goodness there appears to be no shortage of opportunities for Barack to speak unscripted. Which brings us back to Chicago.

The reason I have some confidence in the Democandidate's ability to lose the election is that he learned his politics in a city where one could reasonably assume that everyone else in politics was dirty; so he doesn't really look that closely at the people around him. I feel relatively certain that there will be an endless parade of embarassing associations between now and November.

His most devout followers want to think this is all a Republican smokescreen ... but the smoke is not from Republican fires. The fires are the natural consequence of selecting someone from the dirtiest city in US politics.

Burn, baby, burn.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »