Presidential nomination. Obviously.

Also Receiving Votes: Scott Brown, Jeb Bush (too soon, Jeb, too soon), Eric Cantor, Mitch Daniels, Luis Fortuno (it’d be fun to watch *his* star rise), George Pataki, Ron Paul (too old, Ron, too old), Mike Pence, Tom Ridge, Rick Santorum (because what everyone wants is another senator as president), John Thune (ibid.).

Who’s “The Field”? It’s a bunch of people who aren’t really getting much speculation at present, but who are going to decide they might be interested over the next six-to-12 months. Maybe someone like: Jan Brewer, Jim DeMint, Carly Fiorina, Mitch McConnell, Bob McDonnell, Rick Perry, David Petraeus, Condoleezza Rice, Meg Whitman, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson… Possibilities are somewhat endless.

“Obama to Offer Aid for Families in State of the Union Address“, state media the New York Times crows. What, like, in the middle of the address he’s going to write them a check? And how much more useless can the NYT *get*?! This is a news story, not an editorial, and yet we get unattributed statements like “a package of modest initiatives” to describe the speech’s content. By whose measures “modest”? What evidence do we have that the initiatives proposed will be “modest”? That’s not fact, so cite your source.

J-school. I dunno.

Obama: “Because in the end, that’s how Joe and I measure progress — not how the markets are doing, but how the American people are doing.”

I love this Wall Street bashing. It’s so populist and yet so, um, counter-productive. I dunno. Maybe we *should* nationalize every industry known to man. Seems to be working out really-really well for Venezuela. Just ask Magglio Ordonez. And certainly there’s no correlation between the stock market, the economy, and the wellbeing of the American proletariat people.

And this is choice:

Addressing advisers who developed the plans, Mr. Obama tried to frame them as part of his efforts to build what he calls “a new foundation” for the American economy and took credit for creating or saving two million jobs since taking office through his stimulus spending and tax cut program. But he acknowledged that seven million jobs had been lost, which he called “an epidemic that demands our relentless and sustained response.”

So anyone who’s newly employed, that’s down to Obama. Anyone who lost their jobs, well, that’s because of all the bad people. Wall Street, I’d assume. And seriously, the last thing the economy needs is a “relentless and sustained response” from the government.

Here’s how this recovery will eventually work:

1. The government says and does nothing.
2. The private sector realizes that they don’t have to worry about the Dear Leader firing their CEOs, doubling their healthcare costs, declaring their lines of business illegal, nationalizing their industries, giving their competitors blank checks, etc., etc.
3. Confident they understand the rules of the game once again, the private sector makes plans to grow in the next year.
4. Businesses make money, the economy grows.
5. American Families get new jobs, promotions, raises, etc., etc.

That’s the only way recession recoveries ever seem to work. Anything else a politician tells you is grandstanding. Even if the government *could* manage to get some sort of Keynesian multiplier going by throwing its money around, any gain that it gets is just borrowing from the future and that borrowing will be paid back in either taxes or inflation later on. It’s kind of an immutable law. Like physics. And if it stops working, we’re all screwed.

And just to be clear, I’m pretty dang amazed at how blatant especially the NYT is about supporting the current regime:

Mr. Biden rejected criticism that the proposals Mr. Obama was unveiling were relatively small-bore compared with the vast and sweeping measures he pushed during his first year in office. “They’re big-deal things if you’re just able to give some respite for a husband and wife, both working, to give a little bit of help,” Mr. Biden said.

Which is basically the NYT telling you that if you think the government is spending too much, they’re not — this is relatively “small-bore”. But if you’re a lefty and think they’re not spending enough, why, Joe Biden says you’re wrong and you know what a good lefty *he* is.

Hugo Chavez + Benito Mussolini = Barack Obama? It’s a working theory. We’ll see how it plays out all the while keeping in mind that politics are cyclical.

~ ~ ~

So Joe Biden’s son Beau isn’t going to run for senator from Delaware after all, saying “I have a duty to fulfill as attorney general, and the immediate need to focus on a case of great consequence. And that is what I must do.” The case of great consequence is a child molestation case. I mean, I kind of respect his humility; it’s disarming. He thinks the value of himself as US Senator for six years (vs. an average replacement senator) is less than the value of prosecuting one child molestor. Disarming and I don’t necessarily think he’s wrong (unless the guy’s not guilty, then…).

OTOH, I think it’s an interesting indication of how pundits are always more alarmist than they ought to be. As is anyone with a mouth at some point. There were accusations a few weeks ago — prior to the Brown Revolution in Mass — that the Dems had several “legacy seats” that were being kept warm by placeholders until rightful heirs like Beau could assume them. I mean, stuff happens, things change, it’s a rich tapestry, and so on. It’s like when you’re watching a college football game, one team goes up by two touchdowns in the third quarter, and the commentators start talking about the game like it’s over already — which makes it *so much more interesting* when the opponent then comes back to tie the game in the fourth. It’s like that.

It’s also like the bastard Economist, which condescended to tell us backwoodsy Americans back in ‘07-08 that our democracy was fundamentally broken because once Hilary Clinton became president, we’d have effectively restored hereditary rule to our fair shores. I mean, sure, our democracy is fundamentally broken, but not for *that* reason.

~ ~ ~

Marketing. Marketing is the reason. Or, better said, humanity’s susceptibility to marketing.

Prove me wrong.

~ ~ ~

Stories like this one (thanks, LA Times!) about serial letter-writer “Ellie Light” are what make the Internet (thanks, Al Gore!) all worthwhile. It’s the whole story that’s interesting, not the post on the LAT. The LAT post is a good compilation though. Just clarifying.

~ ~ ~

Colorado’s Nazis are showing a kinder, gentler side by purifying cleaning state highways (thanks, DenPo).

~ ~ ~

I almost entered “stove-top hat” for the headline, but fortunately thought to look that up first. OTOH, maybe there *should* be such a thing. Maybe I can get rich off it.

(Fine, I’ll paraphrase: Douglas Adams, So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, a democratic planet where humanoids are ruled by lizards whom they hate, but they keep voting for a lizard to rule them because if they don’t, then the wrong lizard may win.)

So let’s provide a way for people to stop voting for a lizard: anti-voting. Give people the option of voting against a candidate. You can either vote for someone or against someone in each race, you don’t do both. But yeah: each vote against a candidate is deducted from the votes in favor of that candidate. The candidate with the most net votes wins.

Consider the ramifications. A candidate would have to actually be well-liked, without that much of a groundswell against him. An incumbent candidate couldn’t rely on the fact that no one’s ever heard of her opponent, she’d actually have to consider all the disenfranchised people out there in the wilderness who are going to suddenly want to weigh in and boot her the hell out.

It’d also make it possible for third-party candidates to have a chance. Seems like, depending on the election, there’s more net negativity around the Big Two candidates than there is net positiveness. In that case: viva la revolucion! Of course, the Big Two might try and counter this by instructing certain constituents to vote against particular third-party candidates. The press would love this. So many angles to play.

And sure, it could lead to a groundswell of negativity among the electorate — but only in those rare, rare cases where politicians don’t do enough to make people feel positive about them. But it would certainly also empower people to do something in those cases. And that’s a sort of positive thing, right?

But then it occurred to me: I was wrong (sort of). We might look like a two-party system, but in reality our homegrown politicians represent a veritable cornucopia of political belief-buckets. And if we were to classify these buckets as full-fledged parties, well…

It’s a first pass and a work-in-progress, but such as it is, here are the bucket-parties I’ve discerned thusfar.

The We’re Going to Own Every Part of Your Lives and Force You to Be an Evangelical Christian Party (WGOEPYLFYBECP)
Current Member: George W. Bush, Bill Frist, Mike Huckabee, et al
Party Icon: Karl Rove
Outlook: Kind of dim unless you’re running for governor in a southern state or aspire to becoming a docent at the GWB library.

The We’re Going to Own Every Part of Your Lives and Force You to Be a Secular Humanist Party (WGOEPYLFYBSHP)
Current Members: Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore
Party Icon: LBJ
Outlook: Fate seems hopelessly intertwined with that of the SPTDUW”S”P — is a merger imminent?

The We’re Going to Own Every Part of Your Lives, but You Can Be Jewish If You Want Party (WGOEPYLYCBJIYWP)
Current Member: Joseph Lieberman
Party Icon: Uh, Joseph Lieberman…
Outlook: Either very, very lonely or very, very popular, depending on the wind direction and what we’re voting on today.

The Nominal Conservatives Who Use Dartboards for Policy Making Party (NCWUDPMP)
Current Members: John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Tim Pawlenty
Party Icon: Richard Nixon (pre-Watergate — or maybe post-Watergate? Hold on, let me have a toss…)
Outlook: According to legend, will reawaken and reclaim the throne when ravens cease to fly around the mountain.

The Somewhat Electable Libertarians Party (SELP)
Current Members: Ron Paul, Mark Sanford
Party Icon: Ayn Rand
Outlook: Given the number of Ron Paul supporters who ship-jumped over to the historic Obama campaign — let’s just say: uncertain.

The Whoever You Want Me to Be, That’s Who I Am Party (WYWMBTWIAP)
Current Members: Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwartzenegger
Party Icon: Tom from Ray Bradbury’s short story “The Martian” (click on the link, scroll down, you’ll find it and probably not be as impressed as you would’ve been if you would’ve known what I was talking about prior to going to Wikipedia).
Outlook: When you stand for nothing and smile a lot, the world should always be your oyster.

The Ronald Reagan Deification Party (RRDP)
Current Members: Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson
Party Icon: Bonzo — just kidding. The Ronald Reagan Deification Party party icon is Ronald Reagan.
Outlook: According to legend, will reawaken and reclaim the throne when ravens cease to fly around the mountain.

The Mormons for Big Government Party (MBGP)
Current Members: Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch, that Utah governor dude
Party Icon: Brigham Young, but it might be a misappropriation
Outlook: Marginalized, but on the plus side it’s no longer legal to kill them in Missouri.

The Socialist Party That Doesn’t Use the Word “Socialist” Party (SPTDUW”S”P)
Current Members: Historic President Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Barney Frank
Party Icon: FDR
Outlook: According to RCP’s Poll Aggregator, about 60% approving but with a growing sense of disapproval.

And oh! how the political landscape now looks richer…

But the spirit of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the desire to create jobs and provide opportunity to people who sometimes have been left out — that’s exactly what this administration is about. That’s the essence of the American Dream.

Huh — and me thinking that the American Dream had something to do with people making their own opportunities. If only I were as wise as the Dear Leader. And knowledgeable!

But it also means taking steps that … lay the foundation for lasting, shared prosperity.

NOT socialism, just “shared prosperity”. No losers, because everyone’s the same. How could that be construed as “socialism”. Bah. Fools.

President Roosevelt didn’t have the luxury of choosing between ending a depression and fighting a war; he had to do both.

Actually, bro, the one took care of the other so, in a sense, Roosevelt didn’t actually do anything here. (Fine, I’m being unfair. Roosevelt was the most hawkish president in the history of the republic and used his radio broadcasts to try and bully the American public and reluctant Republicans into going to war. Of course, the recover was well underway prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thanks in no small part to Britain and its satellites buying military equipment produced in the United States — which they probably might have done even if Wendell Willkie had won. Yes, I alliterated — it was hard to help.)

President Kennedy didn’t have the luxury of choosing between civil rights and sending us to the moon.

So we had no choice but to go to the moon? Interesting take. And, uh, Senator JFK voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. His later speeches about how, you know, important civil rights were seem like sort of a convenient flip-flop, sort of like when Mitt Romney became pro-life (well, except that for some reason people chose to believe Kennedy).

America’s place as a global economic leader will be put at risk unless we … transform the way we use energy

The Dear Leader’s cap-and-trade carbon reduction plans would, at his own admission, result in an enormous increase in the cost of energy. Energy is the blood of the economy, like it or not. If it costs more, it’s basically like putting a whole new tax on the overall economy. And if you feel like it’s worth handicapping businesses for the sake of environmental initiatives, that’s fine. But probably don’t try and tell people that doing so is going to help retain America’s place as a global economic leader. At times, it’s almost as if the Great One speaks out of both sides of his mouth. As for Obama’s energy policy, it seems more likely that it would be putting America’s place as THE global economic leader at risk.

And it’s interesting how Bomma thinks that the US is THE world leader in stuff like inventing cars and hard work (both clearly untrue), but is merely A world leader when it comes to the economy (when, in fact, the US actually IS the world leader (per World Bank, IMF, and CIA and acknowledging that Europe is not one country)). I guess that way when his energy policy drops us to, I dunno, number five in the rankings, maybe people won’t notice since we were always merely A world leader. Because that’s what Dear Leader said we were.

It made possible somebody like a Sergei Brin to attend graduate school and found an upstart company called Google that would forever change our world.

…by making obsolete trivial concepts such as personal privacy and corporate transparency.

The source of America’s prosperity has never been merely how ably we accumulate wealth, but how well we educate our people.

This is a bold statement by our Dear Leader. He should support it with facts and examples. And “we”? “Our people”? I’m assuming I’m included among “our people”, so who is “we” to whom I apparently now belong?

That’s why workers without a four-year degree have borne the brunt of recent layoffs, Latinos most of all.

Can you say “pandering”? (And might Dear Leader want to consider citing something in making such a claim?)

Singapore’s middle-schoolers outperform ours three to one.

What does that even mean? How can anyone of significant intelligence utter a sentence like that without having his brain seize up? A Singaporean middle-schooler performs like three American middle-schoolers? In what sense could that possibly be true? Ugh.

And year after year, a stubborn gap persists between how well white students are doing compared to their African American and Latino classmates.

So the real problem is how well the white students are doing as compared to black and Latino students. Interesting how there’s no concern about East Asian, Indian, or Middle-Eastern students. It’s whitey that’s doing the screwing, so it’s whitey we’re gonna call out. Do people really wonder how it’s possible to consider Obama racist or anti-white?

It’s time to demand results from government at every level.

Remember that time when Dear Leader said he didn’t want “bigger government”? Yeah, that was pretty funny. I wish he’d tell more jokes like that so I can laugh more.

It’s time to give all Americans a complete and competitive education from the cradle up through a career.

Why wait until they get to the cradle? I say mandatory federally-funded pre-natal instruction and standardized testing in math, sciences, and the language arts for every fetus conceived in America! [Beifall]

That’s exactly what the budget I’m submitting to Congress has begun to achieve.

In what sense has your budget begun to achieve making every level of American education the envy of the world? Perhaps you could justify this maybe a little bit, oh Great One.

Now, at a time when we’ve inherited a trillion- dollar deficit, we will…

…increase it thirty-fold!!! [starker Beifall]

Wir haben eine Erziehungsorganisation aufgestellt wie die Welt noch nie gesehen hat!!!

For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get nearly $10 back in reduced welfare rolls…

You know, even NPR had a hard time finding justification for this claim.

That’s why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that I signed into law…

Yes, we know, we’d be nothing without you, Great One, c’mon now, just give it a rest, okay?

And some are wasting away their most formative years in bad programs. That includes the one-fourth of all children who are Hispanic…

Sweeping over-generalization? Maybe?

…and who will drive America’s workforce of tomorrow…

So we’ve already determined that Hispanics will drive America’s workforce of tomorrow? In that case I’ll just tell the Asian and white kids to sit back and relax and let the Hispanics get to work.

That’s why I’m issuing a challenge to our states: Develop a cutting-edge plan to raise the quality of your early learning programs

It just has to be “cutting-edge”, right? Not necessarily good or effective? Cuz cutting-edge we can do.

If you do, we will support you with an Early Learning Challenge Grant that I call on Congress to enact.

It would be so cool if the Great One said again how he doesn’t wan bigger government. The Great One loves irony, I just know it.

…we will end what has become a race to the bottom in our schools and instead spur a race to the top by encouraging better standards and assessments.

Wow, now that is a bold move. Well played Mr. President!

Today’s system of 50 different sets of benchmarks for academic success means 4th grade readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming — and they’re getting the same grade.

So let’s install a federalized system that ensures that those no-good, non-working white kids in Wyoming can’t possibly score any higher than the hard-working Hispanics in Mississippi!

Eight of our states are setting their standards so low that their students may end up on par with roughly the bottom 40 percent of the world.

(A) What does this even mean? and (b) Any justification for the claim?

The solution to low test scores is not lowering standards — it’s tougher, clearer standards.

So, by doing nothing other than changing testing standards, kids will become smarter. Um — sure, I get it.

…but whether they possess 21st century skills like problem-solving and critical thinking and entrepreneurship and creativity.

Interestingly, prior to 2001, “problem solving” wasn’t even acknowledged as a coherent concept in the 37 states that aimed to be in the bottom 60 of the world in science standards-setting.

From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents, it’s the person standing at the front of the classroom.

Is — is Obama standing at the front of the classroom…?

Let me be clear — the overwhelming number of teachers are doing an outstanding job under difficult circumstances.

Irony: this sentence doesn’t make sense and, well, is unclear. Probably because we didn’t have No Child Left Behind when the Great One was in school. In Indonesia.

My sister is a teacher, so I know how tough teaching can be.

Dear Mr. Obama: Your sister is not a signficant sample size. Love, Me. (Interesting how he keeps talking about studying science, but never about statistics or probability…)

(As a side note: Man, but this guy is long-winded!)

…our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea — every year. That’s no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.

Also makes indoctrination more difficult and gives them too much free time to think for themselves.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, dropping out is quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country, and it’s not an option — not anymore.

And like I asked a couple of weeks ago, what’s that supposed to mean? Are you going to start executing kids for dropping out? Force them into Ludovico treatment centers?

Not when our high school dropout rate has tripled in the past 30 years.

Well then maybe it is still an option, eh? And btw, source:NPR refutes this number. Tripled? It went from like 26% to 30% from 1978-2008. By “tripled”, the Dear Leader clearly meant “increased by 15%”. They did math differently in Indonesia. Hawaii too. And Kenya! Don’t get me started on Kenyan math. It’s wacky, but damn solid. Especially when you need a good sound bite.

Not when Latino students are dropping out faster than just about anyone else.

So dropping out is “not an option — not anymore” because Latino students are dropping out faster than “just about” anyone else? There’s a causality there? And does anyone read these speeches before he starts giving them or is this just off-the-cuff? “Great Orator”, eh?

Let us all make turning around our schools our collective responsibility as Americans.

Ah, sweet collectivism!

the fifth part of America’s education strategy is providing every American with a quality higher education

People are entitled to this now? Jeez, had I known, I wouldn’t have bothered paying tuition back when I did.

Okay, I was on scholarship so I didn’t have to pay tuition, but still — I had to buy books.

For the first time ever, Pell Grants will not be subject to the politics of the moment or the whim of the market — they will be a commitment that Congress is required to uphold each and every year.

In what sense “required”?

To help pay for all of this, we’re putting students ahead of lenders by eliminating wasteful student loan subsidies that cost taxpayers billions each year.

So we’re paying for this by giving money directly to students and cutting out that wretched middle-man, the private enterprise. Ever hear that story about Stalin and the plucked chicken…?

…because government, no matter how wise or efficient, cannot turn off the TV or put away the video games.

Whatever happened to si se puede?! Man. So defeatist. Doesn’t sound like he’s even willing to try.

These are things only a parent can do. These are things that our parents must do.

…or they will be incarcerated. [starker Beifall]

See, I want every child in this country to have the same chance that my mother gave me

He’s aware that not every kid is going to be able to grow up to be president, right? (Is his audience aware of this? Does he care?)

And we have all this potential — but the way things are going, we’re not going to be able to [fulfill it].

How does anyone consider this guy anything other than a rank pessimist? He brings despair into every speech he gives. Freakin’ troll. I mean — no, Great One, I wasn’t talking about you, I was just talking to — ah, ****. One day I will win the victory over myself. I will love Dear Leader.

And we will not rest until your parents can keep … their jobs

What if their parents are incompetent? And what are you going to do, make it illegal for companies to fire people in order to cut costs? Not a socialist you said, right? You’re not a socialist? Great One?

It’s the founding promise of our nation: That we can make of our lives what we will…

Unless what you “will” is to drop out of high school, not go to college, pay less than 40% of your income in taxes, carry a gun, drive a car without wearing a seatbelt, etc., etc.

And sure times are tough, but I’m sure the Great One’s gonna get around to saving us from ourselves eventually. Boy I wish I had a kid so he could grow up to be like the Great One. Next life maybe.

Newt Gingrich, Georgia
Supporters: Old-School Republicans, Cranky People, Readers of Military Fantasy Fiction, FoxNews
Detractors: Consensus-Builders, Big Government Republicans
Comment: Has said (in effect) that he has no intention of running for president, but that he’ll consider doing so in 2012. He’s essentially Ronald Reagan without all that debilitating charisma and has always looked better (to Republicans) on paper than in person.

Mike Huckabee, Arkansas
Supporters: Flat-Earthers, Dinosaur Denialists, People Who Hate Mormons, Preachy Big-Government Types
Detractors: Scientists, Anthropologists, Mormons, Libertarians, Those Who Have Never Spoken in Tongues
Comment: Wouldn’t have thought he’d have been a viable candidate in 08 either, but did a passable job of depriving Mitt Romney’s campaign of oxygen. Hard to imagine a former Southern Baptist minister being the leader of the free world — but come 2012 the world may not really want to be all that free anyway.

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Supporters: Multi-culturalists, Catholics, American Dream Romanticists, Moralists, Anti-Tax People
Detractors: Civil Libertarians, Darwinists, Anti-Youthists
Comment: You get the sense that the GOP wants Jindal to be some sort of conservative Obama. You also get the sense that he’s only 36 and not above pandering to evangelicals. Just a sense. And frankly, aside from being not-white, he doesn’t seem like he’s done anything very special. Actually, not being white isn’t “doing” anything either. But he’s definitely not white.

Sarah Palin, Alaska
Supporters: Russia Denialists, Big Oil, Pageant Winners Everywhere, Religious Types
Detractors: Both Republican Environmentalists, Foreign Policy Wonks
Comment: She’d be the first president to have college-transferred four different times before getting her bachelor’s degree, so she’d have that going for her.

David Petraeus, New Hampshire
Supporters: Military Strategists, People Who Think Being PotUS is All About Counter-Insurgency, Eisenhowerists
Detractors: People Who Think a Candidate Should Have Some Stated Positions or at Least Say They Have Some Interest in Politics Before Being Considered a Candidate
Comment: OTOH: war hero!

Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
Supporters: Alliterationists (Headline: “President Pawlenty Pulls Pollsters Perfectly!”), Both Republican Environmentalists, Big-Government Republicans
Detractors: Small-Government Types, Pro-Corporatists
Comment: More electable than Republican, Pawlenty comes across as a smiling so-called moderate who’s all about making compromises and getting things done that people think they want to have done. Probably plays better to the locals than he does to the idealists, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing if the objective is to get “elected”.

Condoleezza Rice, California
Supporters: Both Hawkish Academics
Detractors: Jilted Pac-10 Members, Isolationists
Comment: It’s hard to imagine anyone carrying the Taint of the W will be a serious contender in ‘12, but then again, four years is a long time. Maybe not long enough to make people forget her flip-flop from being an anti-US-as-police-force powerhouse to being a leading proponent of Iraq intervention, but still: long time. Her few published statements on matters of domestic policy make her look less like just another Neo-Con.

Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania
Supporters: Neo-Cons, Terror Paranoiacs, Blue-Bloods
Detractors: Libertarians (when, as a pubbican, you give up 13 points to the Constitution Party in your gubernatorial election, well…)
Comment: Sort of a war hero, but, more importantly, from a state with a lot of electoral votes. Also important: seems like he might actually be *retired* from politics.

Mitt Romney, Massachutah
Supporters: Venture Capitalists, Mormons, Paul of Tarsus Devotees, Both Massachusetts Republicans
Detractors: Effective Campaign Planners, People Who Hate Mormons
Comment: Given that his primary skill is as an astute businessman, having his 08 campaign derailed by a desire to run away from his weaknesses rather than run toward his strengths might make one wonder if he’s not so much an astute businessman as he is a fairly fortunate one.

Mark Sanford, South Carolina
Supporters: Old-School Republicans, Anti-Beltwayists
Detractors: Neocons, Big-Government Moralists, Welfare Staters
Comment: An electable Ron Paul? Possibly neither, but his insistence on foregoing federal stimulus moneys would have to make him bona fide in the eyes of any remaining small-government pubbicans.

John Thune, South Dakota
Supporters: Both SoDak Residents, Big Rail, Corn Farmers, American Conservative Unionists
Detractors: People Who Recognize that Corn-Based Ethanol Is an Awful Idea, Darwinists
Comment: On the one hand, he did defeat tax-dodging Tom Daschle to become senator. On the other hand, I don’t know that anyone has heard anything out of him since.

Eh — that’s good enough. Next time around, we’ll do some power rankings around these fine, upstanding titans of clowndom and make believe that it’s somehow sensible to talk about their stock rising and falling when we’re two years away from any of them even acknowledging that there’s even going to be an election in 2012.

-bkd

This seems like a classic case of Clayton Christensen’s “disruptive innovation” overwhelming a traditional business model. An old-school enterprise has to maintain its old-school practices in order to keep its reliable cash cow alive. As soon as they try to switch up what they’re doing, they risk starving the cow and having nothing to show for it. Shareholders won’t stand for *that*. The problem comes when people start overwhelmingly preferring soy milk and you’re entirely invested in dairy cattle. At that point the game’s just over and your job is to maintain your dignity and go out as a good loser.

I don’t see the benefit of expending energy to “save newspapers”. People want news, others want to provide it, but why does the NYT (or any other old-model business) need to profit from the exchange? Organizations are what they are and when they try to change their DNA, they usually fail (like when United Airlines decided they were more than just an airline and bought Hertz and Westin and started calling themselves “Allegis”). If an organization doesn’t start out with adaptation and evolution at its core, it risks getting innovated out of existence by better, later substitutes.

From a business perspective, I think the best course of action for the daily newspapers is to downscope in order to stay profitable as long as possible (like a couple of the other commenters said) and when the run finally ends (next year?), be dignified enough to just curl up by the fire and quietly pass on. I’m guessing, instead, of course, they’ll start lobbying congress to keep them on life support and prop up their antiquated models and then we’ll all get to endure story after story on NPR about how society is toilet-bound due to the struggles of major newspapers. Or I suppose I could just turn the radio off.

And yes, of course, this is coming from someone stupid enough to think people were ready to pay for online content six years ago, so — you know.

But what the whole argument centers on is this: does the state think I’m married?

And why the hell would anyone care what the State of California thinks about the way you or anyone want(s) to describe your relationship with someone else? If I get married, the state’s opinion on the matter would be completely irrelevant to me and, I hope, my wife. I find it insulting that the state feels they have any business recognizing or not recognizing marriages — who gave them *that* power? Which, honestly, is why I think both sides are idiots: the pro-gay marriage lobby for caring about what the state recognizes and the anti-gay marriage lobby for, well, caring what the state recognizes.

I mean, let’s think about this in practical day-to-day terms. I’m at a party (daily occurrence) and I’m talking to this dude and then a girl walks up and stands next to him and the guy says, “Hey, this is my wife!” and so I say, “I’d like to see some government-issued paperwork to support your claim.”

Or, in a less-progressive state…

Guy: “Meet my husband.”
Me: “I’m sorry, you can’t legally call him that here.”
Guy: “What are you doing?”
Me (dialing): “Just keep standing right there. The cops will be here for you shortly.”

That’s probably not how that would play out.

I understand that the anti-gay marriage side feels like this is an affront to family values — but only inasmuch as they care what the state thinks. Otherwise said, it can only be an affront inasmuch as a person believes that the state actually legislates morality and can then force you to agree. And when you see a gay married couple together, does that really seem “the same” to you as marriage in the more traditional sense? Do you think that the state recognizing two lesbians as wife-and-wife is going to make it impossible for you to differentiate between a straight marriage and a gay one?

And from the other side — how does the state’s opinion affect whether you’re committed enough to another person to be married to each other? If it’s not state-sanctioned, does that *really* make you more likely to walk on your partner? If you make promises, sign contracts, exchange rings, eat cake, get tanked, the whole nine yards — do you *really* care what faceless bureaucrats think about it? Does their opinion undo what you’ve done?

The argument about “that’s not the way God wants it” likewise doesn’t hold much water for me. If God doesn’t think gay marriage is right, then He’s probably not going to recognize it no matter what the state says. Unless heaven falls within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

Anyway. As far as I can tell, the functional difference between “marriage” and a standardized contract between two private parties is… eh. Well, there are some legal things. But those legal crap-points are completely separate from this one. I should be able to designate that someone be allowed to visit me in the hospital whether that person is recognized by the state as my spouse or not. If I own a private adoption agency, I should be allowed to choose the people with whom I work regardless of what the state thinks. And I don’t think state-run, state-sponsored schools should, like, exist, so whether state recognition affects curriculum should be a non-issue. I mean, *should*. But those, being the most pertinent arguments for and against gay marriage that I’ve heard, have nothing to do with gay marriage itself and everything to do with, just, making good laws (and not making stupid ones).

And they seem like such minor points within the grand scheme of life — I don’t quite get why anyone should care much.

I dunno. I guess we brilliant humans just need inane, asinine stuff to argue about all the time. If we didn’t have that, we might have to consider things that actually matter. Or, more frightening yet, maybe we’d have to give up making noise for its own sake and instead let people get on with their lives.

bkd

What a time to be alive! I feel enriched by the historical nature of the Obama presidency already.

The Scene: February 22, 2009.

The Event: The Messiahsident’s Address to a Joint Session of Congress

The Commentary: (Uh — see below.)

You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis…

Sounds like someone doesn’t want to have to deal with a fact check!

It’s the job you thought you’d retire from but now have lost; the business you built your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope.

Man — so at this point, I realize he’s not actually talking to me and I’m wondering whether that means I should just stop listening. I mean, he’s obviously talking to other people, unhappy people, depressed people. People who watch way too much television. I mean, I’m all for feeling sorry for oneself, but that doesn’t mean it’s someone else’s job to cheer you up. Plus, the true-audience’s child didn’t *have* to put the acceptance letter back in the envelope. Could’ve thrown it away or whatever. Or maybe — this is crazy, but hear me out — he could work his way through school. Nah, that’s stupid.

We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

Rebuild?! What on earth are we re-building? We live in an era of such high standard-of-living that seven-year-olds can reasonably own their own web-enabled smartphones. What part of that are we going to rebuild? Are we concerned that now only nine-years-old and above are getting smart phones now? Yes, we must rebuild.

The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in … the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.

“Hardest-working people on Earth” — is he talking about Qatar (#1 per capita GDP according to the IMF), Luxemburg (#1 per capita GDP according to the World Bank), or Liechtenstein (#1 per capita GDP per the CIA)? Or maybe South Korea, where workers have the longest work-week in the first world? I’m hoping he means Luxemburg or Liechtenstein — if pride’s what saves us from this, the seventh circle of Hell, personal experience tells me we should be betting on Europeans.

We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy.

Because the current “sun” just isn’t cutting it. Let’s build a new sun, a brighter one. (See, because the sun is the planet’s primary source of energy and…)

Yet we import more oil today than ever before.

Could this be because foreign oil is generally less expensive than domestically-produced? Maybe? No? Yes? What are we thinkin’?

A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.

Basis for this claim?

And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Bomma saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the [uh, wherever we're all supposed to want to head], but by me.

Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

Eat more junk food and lose weight! Next up for Bomma: perpetual motion!

Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t.

Uh — really? I wish he’d expound on this, because I haven’t seen too much coming from the executive that doesn’t seem likely to massively expand the size of government. How big, Dear Leader, *do* you think government should be? Are you saying you don’t believe in “bigger government”, or do you just mean “bigger government”?

I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years.

Basis? Look, they tried this all through the Great Depression and jobs programs didn’t end it. What’s gonna be different this time through? Seriously, I’d like to hear more details about how the new WTA is going to revivify the economy whereas the old one ended up being nothing much more than an “at least we’re trying!” CYA maneuver.

…the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Oh, well then it’s a law now — America is now hereby recovered and reinvested. This was a good speech!

More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Which is to say, 10% off the jobs will be working *directly* for the government and the other 90% will be private companies catching the trickle down from the government teat. And all the money is earmarked for projects that the free market has not yet deemed worthy of pursuit. I’m not all that libertarian about infrastructure, but I wonder why we’re hellbent on investing in inefficient means of generating electricity, not to mention modes of transportation that are likewise inefficient. I mean, everyone understands that Europe, a continent where railroad travel makes a ton of sense given the nearness of everything, can’t keep its trains running profitably — right? Everyone?

There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight…

…and thanks to me, those police officers can further contribute to the coffers of civic Minneapolis by pulling over motorists and handing out tickets for traveling at speeds the drivers felt were appropriate given their individual valuations of efficiency, economy, and safety. Thanks to me.

Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st.

More spending, less tax revenue. Genius! Betcha ol’ W wishes he woulda thought of that one!

Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.

Kudos for inserting a space in his speech where a serious evaluation of the counter-arguments *could have* taken place. But isn’t that second sentence a line from Spider Man?

And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.

Kidding aside, even lip-service to transparency is refreshing. The inability to realize that larger organizations (read: the federal government) are less able to efficiently make decisions than smaller organizations (read: uh, the individual?) is somewhat less refreshing. But still, at least there’s the veneer of a possibility of transparency, which is, right, refreshing.

You should also know that the money you’ve deposited in banks across the country is safe; your insurance is secure; and you can rely on the continued operation of our financial system. That is not the source of concern.

Well, safe so long as you don’t mind having it wiped out by hyperinflation. But still, technically, “safe”.

You see, the flow of credit…

“You see…”?! The other nice thing about Jesus is that he didn’t usually talk down to people. “You see, little simpleton, the flow of credit…” Ugh. Save us from ourselves, o thou Great Bomma!

First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans…

Woah, woah, woah — now this isn’t going to cost us anything, right? Or expand government? Because we’re aware of the current deficit and don’t want to grow it — right? And we’re opposed to bigger government? Right? Great One?

…we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages…

…and in so doing will keep housing prices artificially high and thereby punish those awful, irresponsible families who realized that housing prices were out-of-whack and therefore stayed out of the market. Stupid, irresponsible families. It’s unrefreshing that Bomma doesn’t pay lip service to the idea that home values are declining because they’ve been ridiculously over-valued.

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer.

And we’re going to do this without a bigger government? So, who then will be performing this oversight? And the oversight isn’t going to introduce inefficiencies or cause ridiculous bureaucratic nightmares like Sorbanes-Oxley, right? Cuz we don’t like bigger governments, right? So, um — how’s this gonna work?

But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater…

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me … I and my father are one.

So when Bomma makes an assurance, you know it’s good!

So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you – I get it.

But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment.

Uh — we also can’t afford to govern out of an irrational bias toward action. The only passengers that died in the Hindenburg accident were the ones that jumped out of the blimp. They were the ones who took strong, decisive action in a time of grave emergency. Unfortunately, if the government’s actions work out as well as the jumpers’ — well, it’ll be like crewmembers throwing prudent bystanders out of the blimp to their deaths. Neat.

Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility.

So if you steal all my money and spend it on stuff I don’t like, but you do it transparently and take full responsibility for your actions, then you’ve done your job. Again, neat.

It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people.

Actually it’s about *attempting* to help people by helping banks, but let’s not get caught up in semantics, oh great orator.

And then those workers will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business.

Or, or, they’ll do what the Japanese did in that exact same situation: put their money in the bank and keep it there because thinks aren’t looking too swell. Or they’ll decide not to open their own businesses because the burden of government is too heavy to bear.

The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care; the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit.

Again with the oil. Look: find a more efficient source of energy and the problem’s solved. Claiming oil issues is such easy pandering, I expect better from Chosen Ones. And are we going to address the high cost of health care by making government smaller, oh thou who despiseth large government? (Or just not “bigger”?) Reform malpractice laws maybe? No? Maybe?

My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue.

…, only the problems and issues that are politically expedient to solve and address and that will make for nice talking points the next time I have to give a speech.

For history tells a different story.

The story about how the WTA didn’t end the Great Depression…? It’s interesting. We have historical precedents for similar economic issues in the past, but somehow none of these are referenced by the Great One. Instead he talks about the trans-continental railroad and the moon landing. Everyone likes those, right? Well sure, fixing the economy is just like that. Very pleasant-happy!

Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either.

Uh — wow. So from now on everything has to be invented in America or the great one is gonna be pissed. And so am I, apparently. (Oh wait, he’s not talking to me, he’s only talking to people who are suffering the awfulness of the current everything. My bad.)

Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.

Without increasing the size or reach of government, right? Cuz I know how you don’t want bigger government.

And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

And odds are the Germans won’t, but I don’t see what that has to do with…

None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy.

I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.

But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy.

Doesn’t explain all the tv-watching and fat people, but sure — sounds nice.

When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for eleven million American children whose parents work full-time.

And this was without increasing the size or scope of government, right?

…a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American.

But what if not every American wants or needs what you’re giving them (or directly or indirectly forcing them to fund)? Or what if they value something other than their own healthcare? That sort of matters, right? Great One?

And half of the students who begin college never finish.

So now it’s the role of government to harp on people who decided they didn’t want to finish college? Right, right, Bomma doesn’t like bigger government, but, um…

We’ll invest in innovative programs that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps.

And if the program’s innovative, you *know* it must be good! Does the federal government really think that bloated, inefficient state and local governments would be better off with another layer of bloated, inefficient government telling them what to do? Maybe — but it seems like more details of how *this* government intervention is going to work whereas its precedents have led our educational system to its current state of horribleness (which the Great Leader was kind enough to shed light on) should be forthcoming.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work.

Who gave you that responsibility? It’s not in the constitution. *I* sure didn’t vote to give this responsibility to you. Tell me where you got this responsibility. Please. Dear Leader.

(My other possible comment was gonna be: “The politics of failure have failed. We must make them work again!” But I was afraid of getting sued.)

And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training.

“Gosh, hunny, I never done did want to go to college, but Great Leader says I should, so I’s gonna go downa communey college an’ sign me up some classes, yeh-huh!” I think the main reason people haven’t gone to college is because it never occurred to them. Now they have no excuse. Bomma: inspirer.

And dropping out of high school is no longer an option.

Uh — huh? In what sense, “no longer an option”? We passing a law? What’s the penalty? We’re going to *force* people to finish high school? Without increasing the size of government or the budget deficit…?

I speak to you not just as a President, but as a father…

…but as a father, the father of the country you might say, teaching you, his children, how to live better lives and become more like me, your father, your Great One, your beloved Bomma.

…and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.

Wow — that’s really gonna set this next budget apart!

In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them.

The politics of failure have failed. We must make them…! Meh. Good on ‘im if it works out. Just forgive me if I wait till I see it before believing.

And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?

Well, just historical precedent, that’s all.

…finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

Seriously, who do the politicians think these evil corporations are? Are they aware who owns them? Stockholders? Most of them American? Many of whom are middle-class? And are investing in them for their retirements? Through mutual funds and such? And that the values of these increase when corporate profits increase? Just curious. I mean, I really despise public ownership of corporations and all the hell that brings about, but still — whom are we trying to hurt here? If it’s everyone: well played!

…if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.

But that $250K is cost-adjusted based on the cost-of-living for your area, right? Cuz otherwise, that would come off sounding like you’re punishing people for living in places like New York, Southern California, the Bay Area — and that seems a little, maybe, unfair. Or is the Dear Leader trying to get people to move to new locations in order to avoid tax penalties…?

Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.

How is Obama personally going to prevent plotting? And it’s not the plotting that’s problematic anyway, it’s the carrying out of plots that causes problems. Just sayin’. I could plot my world takeover all night tonight, but it ain’t gonna amount to anything (this time). Someone wanna come bomb my house now? (No! That would mean more bad debt for the banking industry!)

…my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.

Without expanding the deficit or the size of government…?

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend…

Values such as dissing civilians who claim to have some right to know what the heck the military is doing? Oh, not necessarily that value? Got it.

For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.

Maybe it can. We should let it try for a while, see how it goes. Maybe. If you want. Dear Leader. Please. Sorry. Thank you.

(The *century* is threatening us now?)

To seek progress toward a secure and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort.

Finally! An envoy! There will be peace at last!

For in our (the executive and legislative branches’) hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill.

See, and that’s where the problem comes in. And the self-aggrandizement. And the self-appointed responsibility. And the God complex.

She has been told that her school is hopeless, but the other day after class she went to the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this room. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp. The letter asks us for help, and says, “We are just students trying to become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South Carolina but also the world. We are not quitters.”

Well, except for the ones who end up quitting. No matter, though, it strikes a nice emotional chord. Besides,  no one’s ever going to bother to follow up and see how many of those kids graduate high school, let alone become lawyers (heaven forbid), doctors (who’ll either be hamstrung by malpractice insurance or socialized medicine), or congressmen (arguably the most corrupt, insipid profession in the country) to understand whether telling the story was fair or just emotionally manipulative.

They’re also unlikely to become presidents.

And on that note…

My brother’s rifle
Went off in my hand
A shot rang out
Across the land
The horse, he kept running
The rider was dead
I hung my head
I hung my head

I set off running
To wake from the dream
My brother’s rifle
Went into the sheen
I kept on running
Into the south lands
That’s where they found me
My head and my hands

The sheriff he asked me
Why had I run
And then it came to me
Just what I had done
And all for no reason
Just one piece of lead
I hung my head
I hung my head

Here in the court house
The whole town was there
I see the judge
High up in the chair
Explain to the court room
What went through you mind
And we’ll ask the jury
What verdict they find

I felt the power
Of death over life
I orphaned his children
I widowed his wife
I begged their forgiveness
I wish I was dead
I hung my head
I hung my head

I hung my head
I hung my head

Early one morning
With time to kill
I see the gallows
Up on a hill
And out in the distance
A trick of the brain
I see a lone rider
Crossing the plain

And he’d come to fetch me
To see what they’d done
And we’d ride together
To kingdom come
I prayed for god’s mercy
For soon I’d be dead
I hung my head
I hung my head

I hung my head
I hung my head