Buffett Secretary Meme, The Shallows

Warren Buffett: Shut up, he explained | Power Line:

I've written enough about this, my point here is just to point out one reason why we have so much division in the US today, we have just seen the creation of a new Meme -- "Buffet's Secretary".

The left / MSM listeners / Democrats etc will see it as some version of the following depending on their memory, friends, degree of paying attention, etc:

"Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does".

"Buffett's secretary pays more taxes than he does"

If someone that has dug into a bit more tries to have a reasoned discussion on the topic, they will respond with something like:

"Well, I don't see why he would lie about it".

"You must listen to Fox News too much!"

"It was all over, I didn't hear anything about the stuff you are saying ..."

or basically, as the title of the linked article says,  "Shut Up".

This has now entered the mind of the American voting public as a bunch of interlinked "factoids" have, most of which have only emotional and often very close to 100% incorrect content of any sort.

Some examples:

• "Bush lied" -- forget "about what"? In the known definition of "lying" he didn't lie about WMD, yellowcake, Valerie Plame, or anything else commonly attributed ... but the meme has stuck. He may have been wrong about WMD (even that is questionable).
• "Death Panels" -- the true origin is long lost. This started on the right, probably in the Tea Party, now it is just "a complete fabrication" from the left, and "a hyperbolic euphemism for healthcare rationing" from the right.
• "Tea Party" --  there really isn't much of an organization. It could be people opposed to runaway government of most sorts -- spending and BOcare in particular, but in general it is "bad, stupid, racist" from the left, "mostly good, maybe a little carried away conservative" from the right.
• "The 1%" -- From the left, a symbol of Wall Street, Corporations, The Koch Bros (or wealthy devil of the day) ... all manner of financial evil, greed, malfeasance and corruption. THE ENEMY in the 2012 campaign of Class Warfare. From the right, the level of income that they would like to achieve someday.

One could go on forever, but the bottom line is that in this time of massive info overload, our information delivery systems have actually been reduced to delivering "only the tag cloud" with next to no content behind them -- but more importantly, essentially 180 degree different content depending on your "political tribe". Is it any wonder that nothing even approaching discussion or debate happens anymore??

Like most things, there is a whole book "The Shallows" http://www.theshallowsbook.com/nicholascarr/Nicholas_Carrs_The_Shallows.html that covers this general phenomenon as it relates to the Internet.

No time for true content, depth, nuance, honest emotion, thought, context ... just a raw emotional "meme/tag", then silence.

'via Blog this'

Burn The Wealth

Obama Was Once A Visionary But Now He's Focused On Little Things - Investors.com:

It is quite easy to see the path from a successful economy to riots, car burnings and worse. Obama displays the symptoms of infection -- the willingness to instigate things he sees as "fair" even if it known that the net effect on everyone is negative. He still wants to "get the rich". It is possible that this all merely a political ploy -- he has to run on something, and it certainly isn't going to be his record. It appears that "fairness / class warfare" is the choice.

Pretty good Krauthammer column over all.

"Back in 2008, Obama was asked if he would still support raising the capital-gains tax rate (the intended effect of the Buffett Rule) if this would decrease government revenues. Obama said yes. In the name of fairness."

'via Blog this'

Warren Buffett’s Secretary Joe

Meet Warren Buffett’s Poor Secretary » American Glob

Remember Joe the Plumber? When he showed up in the '08 campaign the MSM had a load of deep background investigation on him that included all his financials, questions about his plumbing license, questions about the veracity of his potential interest in "buying the plumbing company", and a tax lein.

Forbes has done some speculation on how much Buffet's secretary "may make" if her rate somehow gets over 15% ... apparently she likely has to be over $200K, and maybe as much as $500K. In other words, very well off --- adding to this view is the fact that she just purchased a fairly nice 2nd home in Arizona.

Unlike Joe the Plumber -- who just had the audacity to ask "The One" (now "The Zero") a question on the campaign trail which resulted in the famous "spread the wealth around" comment.

So why so little interest in the particulars of Buffett's secretary? If he is paying her over $200K, she is approaching the evil 1%. Are we REALLY going to get into shedding tears for someone that makes over $200K because they **MAY** pay a higher rate than the richest guy in US??

Some points:

• Let's face it, Warren and BO have both mislead Americans to think of Warren's secretary as "middle class at best". But wait, if Warren was say "one of the Koch brothers" that alone would cause an outcry as in "Why does he pay her so little?". 
• If she is paid as Forbes surmises, then Warren isn't so hard hearted, but we are talking about tax rates for two 1%ers. There are something like 3 Million of those folks in a country of 300M, the vast majority of which make more like $200 - $400K, rather than whatever Warren makes.
• The control of the MSM is still amazing -- BO and ABC can use this lady as a mascot and the general media doesn't ask a single hard question. Get a symbolic conservative of that nature and the story INSTANTLY becomes about any skeletons in their closet, their families closet, how they bungle some offbeat question thrown at them by the media, etc, etc. In other words, THEY become the story, NOT whatever point the conservative was trying to make with them. 

We are borrowing 40% of every $ we are spending and we are talking about differential tax rates between the richest guy in the country and his secretary. Meanwhile, the richest guy in the country is viewed as a "hero" even though he is the top of the top of the 1% who are supposedly villans. Why?? He "wants his taxes raised" -- in the meantime he is transferring his wealth to a foundation rather than the US government upon his death, and his businesses have $1B in back taxes that are being litigated.

Can we get any more insane??

Obama's Critics Are Dumb

Newsweek's Andrew Sullivan Says President Obama's Critics Are Dumb - Investors.com

Seriously, must we EVER talk about bias in the MSM again??? How many $$$ must Republicans raise to counteract this kind of "reporting"???  Essentially infinite!

The title is very scary if you look at it right. They mean "dumb" as in the colloquial meaning "stupid", but of course it really means "unable to speak". Obama's critics -- the people for restraint in spending, pro-business / jobs government, family values, etc;   don't have the kind of media wallop to do a cover / article like this on a magazine that will glare from newsstands across the nation, so they are "unable to speak", they truly are "dumb"!!!!

They are "less dumb" today ... Fox news, talk radio, "corporations as people" money, but we are still far short from having a NewSpeak cover like that. How hard does the left want to work to get Citizens United (the SCOTUS case that allows corporations to contribute to politics) overturned??? VERY ... BO railed against it from a SOTU address with the justices in the room!!

The left is constantly at work to win the only way they really can -- by shutting up the opposition, and therefore the truth. From the Gulag, to Hitlers Germany, to Mao, to Pol Pot, to China today, the strategy of the left is ALWAYS "keep them dumb" ... and dead if possible.

They work to hide it, but the truth tends to cry out when least expected.

Chuck Norris Endorses Newt!

My Endorsement for President - Page 1 - Chuck Norris - Townhall Conservative

I thought I was ready to finally accept and start getting exited for "Mitt", "Mittens" Romney, then the people of SC rose up, and now I read that Chuck Norris has endorsed Newt! My god, Chuck Norris doesn't do "push ups", he pushes the planet down!!

That is why Gena and I have committed the rest of our lives to help Old Glory rise again to its heights of splendor. And that is why we are endorsing and standing with Newt Gingrich, because we believe he can lead all of us who have committed to the same.

After 2 in a row, I was hoping that the party could unite behind Mitt, but the fact is that didn't happen. I love the Newt combativeness and at least seemingly straight talk. What I hate is the hubris, the meanness, the history of breaking things and the sense that he can't be trusted. One of the reasons that womanizing is accepted for Democrats is because nobody EXPECTS then to follow though on their promises ... marriage or otherwise. (See BO ... campaign finance, raising debt limit, Gitmo, unemployment staying under 8.1, more open government, recess appointments, etc, etc).

Newt displays core Democrat values at times ... womanizing, petulance, flip flopping (doing a commercial with Pelosi on GW), massive inside the beltway deal making, etc ..

But CHUCK NORRIS!!! If anyone can keep him in line, it is Chuck!!! 

Realizing the Dismal in Economics

RealClearPolitics - Why the Fed Slept

Economics is often called "The Dismal Science" for much the same reason that we say "What goes up must come down" ... or young pilots are admonished that taking off is a decision entirely in their hands, landing, not always so much.

The salient point of this article is:

There's a paradox to economic policy. The more it succeeds at prolonging short-term prosperity, the more it inspires long-run destabilizing behavior by businesses, banks, consumers, investors and government. If they think basic stability is assured, they will assume greater risks -- loosen credit standards, borrow more, engage in more speculation, relax wage and price behavior -- that ultimately make the economy less stable. Long booms threaten deep busts.

There is a paradox to everything human -- we aren't endowed with the god-like powers of "final solutions", and when we attempt them, what we create are even bigger problems.

Humility, humility, humility --- but hubris is our nature.

MIGHT We Agree After All???

Online activists triumphant as Congress buries anti-piracy bills - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Lots of folks in congress supported this bill on both the right and the left -- both MN Senators, and Marco Rubio were sponsors.

People on BOTH the left and the right on FB were adamant in opposition.

Here is my view on WHY:

1). The internet is very precious to both the left and the right, AND the idea of "government control of speech" is a huge fear of both sides.

2). What one had to do to support the bill was to trust government AND to some degree corporations to do the right thing. The left doesn't trust the corporations and the right doesn't trust the government -- so we agree on stopping it, just for somewhat different reasons.

3). On both the right and the left, the high regard for free speech on the internet changed the "calculus". The normal corporate supporters realized that the natural caution of corporations would likely make them overly restrictive if there was a CHANCE they would come under legal jeopardy if copyright material was found on their sites. The normal government supporters thought of government bureaucracy, paranoia and incompetence and their scale fell down hard on the side of "keep your hands off my internet".

So where might we go from here?

1). Realize what happened!!! People that we normally argue vehemently with were in complete agreement --- maybe not for precisely the same reasons, but it is MUCH easier to "see the other side" from a position of agreement rather than opposition.

2). Think about this in different areas. It we think that corporations (especially big ones) are likely to be overly cautious when faced with laws in THIS CASE, why do many think so differently in other cases??? Are the characteristics that we worried about from the government ALSO valid in healthcare? Spending money prudently? Making decisions on wealth allocation?

3). Perhaps we actually AGREE on "smaller" for BOTH government and corporations??? It is actually true that both go together -- big corporations work to influence government, and the bigger the government, the bigger the corporations that are best suited to influence and "partner" ("collude"?) with it.

EVERY human institution -- Government, corporations, sports teams, glee clubs, etc. is "flawed, fallible, self perpetuating ...." It IS NOT "one or the other" ... that best approach in nature and in human affairs is checks and balances.

A Consistent Liberal!!!

Cohen-Head: Defending Big Money in Politics | Power Line:

Nearly always, liberals follow a maxim that I refer to as "consistency is NOT an issue"!! Which means it isn't even a consideration -- I get bored of pointing it out because it is so obvious. Money in campaigns for Republicans, BAD ... BO spends record amounts, NO PROBLEM!!! Gitmo with Bush, BAD ... under BO??? Gitmo what?? ... "civility" ??? really really important if Tea Party said anything REMOTELY "uncivil" ... Occupy Wall Street ??? Whatever ...

BUT, here we have a case of a liberal columnist, Richard Cohen, pointing out that Eugene McCarthy's NH candidacy was financed by a few fat cats that were fed up with Vietnam ... SO, since he supported that, and generally supports free speech, he can't see how he can go against conservatives that do the same thing!!! Wow, my hat is off to a liberal for taking a CONSISTENT POSITION !!! If this caught on, one could actually have reasoned discussion with liberals!!

The quote from George Will in the piece is priceless and right on ...

"Campaign reformers constantly argue that, a) there’s too much political speech in this country, b) they know the right amount and, c) they want to criminalize speech in excess of that."

The classic "liberal" position ... I know what is "right, fair, correct, proper, environmentally sound, diverse, etc" ... AND, I'm willing to lock you up if you disagree!!

'via Blog this'

Titanic Concordia

After sinking, some wonder: Is cruising safe? - CNN.com

The modern media wags the public like the dog wags it's tail. We are forever trying to compare current events with events of the past as if there were some correlation.

The Titanic was a completely new technology ship trying to break the speed record from Europe to the US through the ice infested N Atlantic. It went down hundreds of miles from land with over 1,500 dead. Yes, some remembrance might be in order since it was 1912 ... 100 years ago this April.

The Concordia is a big fat cruise ship that was transporting nobody anywhere except for hoped for R&R. It ran over a reef trying to do a show-off "flyby" at a little Italian town and ended up on it's side less than 200yds from shore. We may see 20ish dead out of over 4K.

My how far we have come in 100 years. The people on the Titanic were generally going somewhere -- ships were mostly for transportation, not recreation. Much like planes occasionally crash, ships occasionally sank. People had some overblown hopes for technology ("unsinkable"), but at least they were doing something and had some hopes.

The Concordia capsized on the shores of Italy -- one of the many formerly sovereign European states that traded their sovereignty for supposed wealth and are well on the way to reaping bankruptcy. It was just "wasting time" as is the case with so many in the modern world. The captain of the Titanic and many of his officers went down with his ship. The captain of the Concordia left early and had to be arrested in town even though he had been admonished to stay with his ship -- 100 years of mostly soft liberal outlook tend to breed some very weak character.

The left leaning educational and media establishments have drilled into our heads the folly and hubris of the Titanic for 100 years now. What they have failed to see is the hubris is as human as the AM bathroom trip and just as hard to eradicate. What they failed to see is their own hubris in moving from an overly proud and optimistic world moving faster and farther to an overly proud and generally pessimistic world on a bankrupt slow cruise to nowhere.

Massive recreational technology lying on it's side 200yds from shore may be one of the very best symbols of our times. Perhaps that is the real unintended link to the majestic Titanic. 

Flanders and Wallonia

The European Crack-Up by Theodore Dalrymple - City Journal

A little on the longish side but worth it. Many times people can only understand reality by being given multiple examples of what it is and how it works. Turns out that Belgium is a pretty good example -- and the differences between Flanders and Wallonia could well be Red vs Blue in the US.

This is then painted on the larger canvas of Europe with the differences between Ireland and Greece highlighted. Both of them went on a bender, it appears that Ireland has opted for black coffee and a couple of aspirin as the AM solution, Greece is hell bent on bloody mary's with a beer chaser.

Most of all, as is commonly the case with Dalrymple, it is an eyes wide open appraisal of human nature, unintended consequences and the boundless hubris of government and the "progressives".

Economic Divide

Niall Ferguson: A Conservative Take on America's Economic Divide - The Daily Beast

Like most things from Ferguson, a worthy read. I have no idea what Murray means by a "guaranteed income", but I'll read the book and figure it out -- no, it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

The diagnosis of how we got in this ditch sounds right on to me though.

The Scent of BO From Europe

Why are Barack Obama’s critics so smart? – Telegraph Blogs:

When W was president, any little foreign criticism that could be dredged up was worthy of front page treatment here. "See, Europe hates us!!!".

My how times have changed!!! Now NewsSpeak is essentially an extension of the WH press office and some people in Europe disagree with both it and the BO administration.

Newsworthy?? Barely.

'via Blog this'

John 3:16

Explain it to me: John 3:16 – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Despite Stewart's story, many sports fans continue the tradition of evangelizing at sports games by holding up John 3:16 on placards.

Uh, despite John Hinkley's sad tale, many people continue to attend movies?? Despite the Nazi's (National Socialists) not being very nice people, there are still a quite a few people who espouse socialist principles??

One could go on and on forever. So one guy that displays John 3:16 goes crackers and thus everyone should ??? uh, never pay attention to John 3:16 anymore??

Should anyone ever read CNN again after they put out this kind ot thought?

A Government Luther??

Where Are the Liberals? - NYTimes.com:

It is amazing how liberal a guy the NYTs puts up as their "conservative" -- Brooks voted for Obama.

Here his thesis is basically "liberals are right, but they have fouled the pool" ... so they need a "State Martin Luther" to clean it up ... Luther cleaned up the church, now we need a state version of Luther. Neat.

Some thoughts:

-- Luther moved the western church to BIBLICAL principles, not some "Catholic cleanup". It is true that he WANTED to reform the Catholic Church, but what he did was essentially give the Bible to the people (German translation) ... a cause that was also helped by Gutenberg. Luther applied "technology" (printing press) to Christian faith, thereby basically decentralizing the control of faith and creating an explosion of churches. The Catholic Church survived, but it never again had the power it had pre-Luther. 

-- If one was going to apply Luther to government, it would make people MORE self governing, which would make the Democrats even more wrong than they are now.

-- Rent seeking,  profit,  market share, competitive advantage, we won the election, currying favor, political influence, inside information, etc, etc. Those are all HUMAN ideas ... and they are pretty much the same thing. Luther didn't make himself Pope, King, Chief, wealthy, or anything -- neither did Christ. Our founding fathers were very successful people that took huge risks (including their lives) to give us liberty. A "government reformation" would operate on WHAT set of "transcended principles"??

-- The idea that "capitalism failed us" relative to the sub-prime crisis is like saying "technology failed us" when there is a car or plane crash, nuclear plant problem, power outage, or discovery of large defect in some product. **ALL** our systems --- government, private, military, corporate, non-profit, religious, educational, etc, etc are HUMAN designed, built, and operated. They are **ALL** subject to failures great and small. Government is pretty much the bottom of the barrel on quality of systems because:

1.  It's primary motivation is short term votes. In the long run, the politicians at hand are out of office.
2. It plays to constituencies, not science, principles, results (other than votes), efficiency, etc. 
3. It can't be destroyed by "lack of profits" or "measured failure", or consumer dissatisfaction like any other business. 

Making government work "better" is much like building a bigger H bomb or tiger, or fuel tanker. There may or may not be an UPside, but there is ALWAYS a DOWNSIDE!!!

'via Blog this'

The Land of Envy

GHEI: The class warfare toxin - Washington Times:

Good column on how Obama and the left has already made a lot of progress at moving us from being the land of opportunity to being the land of envy.

One of the huge "successes" of the BO administration has actually been in one of the areas that they constantly talk about "doing in the future" -- a vast reduction in wealth disparity by the destruction of wealth.

That is precisely what "transfer of wealth" accomplishes. If you demand that some of Bill Gates wealth be transferred, the act of the transfer means that the wealth is no longer optimally allocated, so therefore the total wealth of the nation is lowered. For example, the wealth might have been invested in a new project at Microsoft that now has to be cancelled. Rather than potentially providing the next big computing breakthrough, it is transferred to a series of people that buy large screen TVs ... and becomes a depreciating rather than appreciating asset.

The economic pie is NOT fixed -- in the zest of the left to divided it to their political advantage, they completely lose sight of just how easy it is to SHRINK it.

'via Blog this'