Democratic Congress: A Still Dangerous Wounded Beast

"...however... even crippled, she will still be dangerous, like a wounded beast."

- Captain Jack Aubrey, Master and Commander, the Far Side of the World

The financial reform bill will become law and here is the WashingtonResearch Group's take: "There is no way to view this bill as a positive for the financial sector." (You may view that as good, but it is not. No matter what animosities you may have toward banks and bankers, what hurts the financial sector hurts the economy and hurts job creation, which hurts us all.)

But the actual contents of the financial reform bill are not the big or most immediate problem. What is? The fact that a deeply unpopular President and an even more unpopular Democratic Congress, many of whom are unlikely to win reelection, are still seriously fucking with our economy. They are set to be shown the door, but for now they are still inside breaking shit. Take Chris Dodd. He is so unpopular in his liberal home state of Connecticut (not for policy reasons mind you, but because he is so offensive to most people's sense of decency) that he's not even running again, but this major reordering of a large sector of the economy, that will do major damage, is his baby.

Read one of my more brilliant previous posts here. In it I said "The fact is that even though this government is wildly unpopular, all of the prosperity damaging legislation seems to be getting passed anyway. Cap and trade is dead, huh? Businesses ain't banking on that rosy thought right now, the evidence says to remain fearful." That is the BIG DEAL behind this financial reform news - that a lame duck government continues strangle economic growth as its last and final act before they are booted off the stage. Actually, lame duck is not the right term. I believe that two things are baked in the cake 1) Dems lose one house of Congress minimum in November, and 2) Obama is a one termer. But it doesn't matter, enormous damage can be done and is being done before we get to escape from the one-party rule of anti-capitalists. Businesses and investors know this and are thus still in hiding, and so the economy will remain sluggish and the least skilled among us will continue to bear the brunt of the hardship. All we can hope for is that it doesn't get worse before it gets better but that is wishful thinking at this point.

UPDATE: Here is Dick Bove on the actual bill - not on the wounded beast phenomenon.

Top General Contradicts Obama

Pretty much all news outlets this morning are reporting one version or another of this headline,
"Top military official opens door to ground troops in ISIS fight, despite Obama pledge".

While this is not a full-blown rebellion, in the world of Washington DC and big-time military politics, this is a significant instance of insubordination.

Now, I predicted something along these lines, although a tad more conspiratorial.  My general theme was that there was significant dislike, to put it mildly, of Obama among top military brass.  (I'm not talking just a handful of generals, but a pervasive resentment and distaste for Obama's worldview among the highest echelons of the military.)  With that background, I said that if Obama chose to ignore a SIGNIFICANT threat to the US or looked to be making a CATASTROPHIC blunder in decision-making, that there would be insubordination to some degree or another by the generals.  Here were my exact words:

I have heard, through my sources who don't talk loosely or lightly, some pretty outlandish speculation that there are those inclined within high US military command that could (not intent but inclined, not would but could, as in depending, maybe, and I'm hedging 'til the cows come home here) deploy US military assets in assistance to Israel in the absence of such a command from President Obama. Yes, it is crazy but the danger is so great, the implications so vast, and the viewpoints so at odds that, well, who knows. One source has even told me that in such a scenario, the US military would act and give Obama the opportunity to say he went along after the fact so as to keep civil order here at home and preserve the appearance of legality.

That was a significant speculation (but informed speculation), and I was talking about war between Israel and Iran; but, the point holds - in the event of a significant threat and the likely event of a catastrophic non-decision by Obama, the military could go a tad rogue.  Were Obama to be highly unpopular, as he is now, such a course of action by the military would be much easier to pull off.

Is this what is going on?  We have the Islamic State, which appears to be as significant a threat as we've seen in a while; we have an unpopular POTUS who has clearly chosen to do the bare minimum to address the threat...hmmmm....

Pink Foreign Newspaper: Latins Are Sheep

I am in shock over the sheer stupidity and condescension of an assessment, carried in a pink foreign newspaper (sub req'd), of how President Bush's trip to Latin America is likely to be received. Here's the lead in...

"Back in 2001, many Latin Americans harboured hopes that George W. Bush would give greater priority to a “backyard” that the US had often taken for granted. After all, the newly elected president was a former governor of Texas, a state bordering Mexico, he spoke a bit of Spanish and the “cowboy summit” at the ranch of Vicente Fox, then his Mexican counterpart, was the occasion for Mr Bush’s first official foreign visit. “Some look south and see problems. Not me; I look south and see opportunities and potential,” he had said on the eve of that meeting.
Then came the attacks of September 11 and more pressing concerns. The administration’s apparent indifference to Argentina’s financial collapse later that year, its bungled response a few months to a Venezuelan coup and, above all, its invasion of Iraq made Mr Bush a deeply unpopular figure in the region. "

Got that? Because the US was forced by events to address its own pressing issues and because its policy in Iraq (which, after checking my map, I see is NOT anywhere near South America) is unpopular, South Americans have no alternative but to ignore Bush's economic policy message and be swayed by political messages from the hyper-populist to the downright Socialist. Nope, no responsibility for their own fate. No onus on them to sort out what economic policies hold promise for them and what policies are a danger to their freedom and well-being. No. Rather, George W. Bush has abandoned them to the tender mercies of Chavismo.

Like I said, unless it can be proven that Chavez stole both the referendum and the recent election, I have no sympathy. Venezuelans are getting exactly the government they asked for. Ditto the Argentines, Bolivians and Ecuadoreans. When will Latin Americans take responsibility for themselves? Perhaps when condescending gringos and Europeans stop treating them like children and denying their will and ability to forge their own way in this world.

Get Ready to Rebel Against Government Healthcare

After the uprising that the Democrats faced this summer given all the profoundly unpopular provisions of its healthcare reform strategy, clearly they devised the following brilliant strategy: "wait three months and jam it all down the peons' throats anyway". "End of life counseling", "trillion dollar costs", "public option", "individual mandate", "huge taxes". Everything that is unpopular and caused Americans to rise up in disgust this summer is all still around in the latest and greatest from the Pelosi & Reid Sausage Factory (confirmed) and hurtling towards becoming the law of the land.

We are at the Rubicon. Your liberty is set to be diminished. So what is to be done?

First, Federalism is to be done. One or two brave governors (Rick Perry comes to mind) has to propose and spend every last bit of political capital to get passed something along the lines of the following bill: "With this bill the sovereign state of _____ asserts its sole authority to regulate the conduct of insurance markets and health regulations within its borders, and any federal regulations in contravention of state regulations contained within this bill are not recognized as binding on the citizens of the state of _____." Get behind and encourage direct state legislative action asserting state rights to ignore federal usurpation of healthcare policy.

Second, we need individual citizens to step up and challenge the individual mandate in the court system. Never in our 230 year history has our government required its citizens to purchase a good or service as a requirement of citizenship and only by virtue of the most radically permissive standard can our Constitution be considered to enable such a mandate. So this must be challenged in the courts, not by interest groups, but by regular citizens.

This fight has to be waged on all fronts and waged relentlessly. The result cannot be taken lying down. This is as necessary a cause for peaceful citizen rebellion as any. Let's get about it America.

UPDATE: It's not like we haven't done it before...

2014 Off to Totally Unpredictable and Shocking Start

Perusing the stories of the day:

- Even marginal celebrities feel enormously entitled to rain down arrogance and complaints.

- Leftist academic mediocrities in marginal disciplines at hopelessly bankrupt institutions hate white people who believe in the constitution of the United States of America.

- Cold weather hinders message of global warming.

- Unpopular administration talks out of its ass about unpopular law's specific unconstitutional provisions.

- Strange and unintended ingredients show up in products of Chinese origin.

Yup, 2014 is turning out to be a real head-scratcher.

Did Frank Bruni Write the NYT's Daftest (Most Daft?) Gun Column Yet?

I think so.  See for yourself.  There is so much stupidity combined with elitist New York presumption to unpack here it's makes my brain hurt.

First off, the column a classic of the genre where elitist libs go shooting for the fist time so that they can then feel qualified to propound to the rest of us their wisdom of all things firearms.  The device is typically infuriating to the knowledgable until such time as it inevitably results in comedy.  Bruni's piece is chock-a-block with such inadvertent comedy.  There's this:

...and it would be maybe 20 feet away when one of us took our shot, which wasn’t a single bullet but rather — Advantage No. 53 — a scattering of pellets.

Does Bruni have even a basic understanding of real world physics?  No hunter or shooter in the history of hunting and shooting - not even Chris Kyle - could hit a bird in flight with a "single bullet" except through sheer blind luck.  It's impossible, it's a waste of time to even think about it let alone endeavor to do it.  Of course, this is why human beings invented something called a "shotgun," which was specially designed to give humans a chance to hit and harvest birds in flight.  Further comedy emanates from the hoary old lament that hunting isn't fair.   "Advantage No. 53" is part of Bruni's column-long device making this lament.  (I am struggling to resist admonishing Bruni the way I admonish my 7 year old, "Who said life is fair?")  Yes, in the shotgun we have an advantage over our winged prey (unless you suck at shooting that is).  The anaconda has advantages over the field mouse.  The toad's forked, lightning fast, sticky tongue is an advantage over the fly.  There are innumerable unfair fights to which, in aggregate, we have given the name "the food chain" and humans are at the top for a reason.  More basic science that Bruni seems to be either unaware of or uncomfortable with.

More comedy.   Bruni is bewildered over why the safety button on his gun is so small and doesn't travel a greater distance between its on and off states.  Well Frank, for the same reason that the brake pedal in your car is smaller than your foot and you need only touch it to slow down significantly - safety devices on the modern machines in our world have been honed to be exactly where and what they need to be, no more no less, and proper experience and training lead to a second nature understanding of where safety buttons are and how to actuate them.

Next up, after Bruni gets through telling us how unpopular, or less popular, hunting actually is, he informs us of the proliferation of hunting preserves (over 300 in Pennsylvania alone!) that charge alot of money for what seems to the author a rather lame hunting experience.  So, hunting is unpopular but these preserves seem to be so numerous...?  Bruni clearly went to the Fox Butterfield School of Economics.  Of course the reason that these preserves have proliferated is because hunting is increasingly popular (and the reason they seem to be expensive, is because they can rip off ignorant city folk who don't know any better).

Bruni's column is a classic of the genre in another sense in that it attempts to advance a gun control agenda through the focus on hunting.  Lefties consistently try to use hunting as the basis for their argument even though the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and the Founding Fathers never said anything like "No hunter shall be debarred the use of arms to bag a chukar."  Politically, as well, civilian disarmers consistently attempt to peel off hunters from the rest of the gun rights community.  So, even as an admitted novice, Bruni declares Colorado's recently passed gun control laws "totally reasonable."  To whom?  By what standard?  Well, to him naturally, and his fancy-pants chef friend.  If that isn't absolute moral authority, I don't know what is.  The good news is that Bruni intends to go hunting again someday.  Who knows, perhaps he'll go wild boar hunting and give us his first-timer impressions of felling a 300 lbs. sow with an AR-15 and declare the Second Amendment a manifestation of a racist, patriarchal fear of the Other.  Can't wait.

Anyway, such are the results when you let your restaurant critic take on social/political issues.  Did the Frank Rich experiment go so well that the poo-bahs at the NYT had to bring yet another lifestyle columnist to the Op-Ed pages?

My Travels in the Heartland

Sorry blogging was light, but I just got back from a long weekend in blessed, deepest red state America where Mrs. Baseball has taken the Baseball tykes to the grandma/pa homestead. A couple of observations...

First, this part of the country right now is a roofer's paradise. This hail storm f**ked up everybody's roof (and I mean everybody...cars too, you can tell who doesn't have insurance and/or just doesn't give a damn by all the windowless cars driving around). I sat next to a roofer from Florida on the way down and met another roofer from Texas in the airport. Roofers have come from all over to meet the demand. Another small testament to the flexibility and responsiveness of the American private free market system. People are not having to wait to get their roofs repaired and there have been no reports of widespread price gouging because prices have remained low. It all reminded me of Katrina and who actually was able to get much-needed supplies into New Orleans days before any government - state or federal - could.

I watched a little of the boob tube and thus saw almost all the major candidates' TV ads. Now, maybe a Democrat from down there is to the right of even a Republican from up here, but I could not tell who were the Democrats at first. Not one of the candidates identified themselves as a Democrat and every one of them was pushing "local values" and the amorphous ability to "fight" (for you, for the elderly, yadayada, although, very curiously, not for the poor). One Democrat was even standing under one of those awesome six-story American flags that you see quite a bit down there talking about how much he just loves the military (granted, that's smart politicking down there, but this guy was overdoing it). Conversely, it was easy to tell who was running on the Republican side and it was amusing to see candidates out-promise each other on opening up a can of whoop-ass on Nancy Pelosi when they get to Washington DC or out-duel each other to "keep Obamanomics out of the statehouse." For a state that some pundits consider "purple", you wouldn't think there was a single person in the entire state for whom the standard Democratic Party plank was appealling, judging by the commercials. Obama and the Pelosicrats are deeply unpopular in them there parts.

Five Years of Solid Correlation: Obama Down, Market Up

I have argued consistently, almost from the very beginning, that Barack Obama would be guaranteed to disappoint the cultists of Hopeandchange, become uniformly and increasingly unpopular and ineffective. I have further argued that, as a result, given Obama's ideological bent, his weakening would be good for the stock market.  I've highlighted this relationship many times throughout the last five years, including graphically.

The Lightworker's re-election notwithstanding, polling has shown a consistent slide in approval from the earliest days of this administration. The guys at Powerline highlight the relevant polling graphs - it's an unambiguous story, and, as they note, an enduring mystery. Recent data shows an accelerating of even this very clear trend, a massive dropoff in approval since re-election. So has the stock market functioned as my theory would have predicted? Definitively, yes. Here is the recent six month chart.

I thoroughly expect that this relationship will hold and extend itself. Expect further Obama weakness and, concomitantly, further market strength.

Do Lefties Really Have the Public in Their Corner?

Whilst shaking the money tree among those solid 99%ers Steven Spielberg and Babs Streisand, the Worker of the Light claimed this...

“The good news is we’ve got public opinion on our side if people actually turn out — on every issue.

Is this true?  Maybe, but probably not.  I guess it depends on what polls you look at and how you ask the question.

On climate change, over 60% are somewhat or very skeptical of the need for action.  On taxes, over half the country thinks federal taxes are too high.  LightworkerCare remains highly unpopular.  Americans are split on how to handle immigration.  I think the polling is favorable on gay marriage directionally, but only among millennials is there majority support.  The minimum wage is the only area where there seems to be no ambiguity on where Americans stand, but that is about it. 

It is also worth noting that nearly every "right/wrong direction" or confidence or optimism measure is severely underwater.  The federal government and expanded government power is uniformly viewed very poorly.

The Lightworker's rallying cry is at best admirable optimism in the face of contrary reality.

Climate Change Versus National Greatness

The world has just received a lesson in what happens when people stop consuming oil. From American drivers driving less to Chinese factories producing less goods, "demand destruction" has been the buzz phrase of the second half of 2008, and for many countries around the globe who rely heavily on the production of oil for their economic health or their very survival, the picture isn't pretty. There, of course, is Saudi Arabia that keeps its unpopular monarchical regime in place by using vast oil wealth to keep the state running, but Saudi is not near any type of inflection point, or brink. There are several other countries that are on various types of brinks. Large oil producing counties like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran (possibly even Iraq) have been brought to the brink of societal collapse, or at least of current regime collapse, by demand destruction. These countries have very little else in the way of economic strength to sustain them in the absence of oil and keep themselves propped up through oil-driven social spending. (There are small fries in this category too, like Ecuador) Other countries, like England, Norway and Mexico are on the brink of severe fiscal distress by virtue of softening oil prices. Massive social spending in these countries is funded by oil revenues. Things won't collapse but governments in these countries will be stressed to afford their generous social spending should trends continue. Lastly, there is another type of brink, but a good brink to be on - the brink of national greatness. Several countries are either new to the oil scene, like Angola, and are making enormous strides, but others are in the process of pursuing game-changing opportunities that will catapult them from also-rans into the upper tier of the oil world. In this category, you have most notably Brazil and Canada. Brazil had found boatloads of oil and is working feverishly to tap into it. The scale of the finds offer Brazil the opportunity to go from being a persistently poor country to achieving living standards among the highest in the world. Massive investments in both physical and social infrastructure like education and healthcare will be possible if Brazil capitalizes on its behemoth offshore discoveries. Canada as well, if it can scale up and drive down costs in its oil sands and arctic plays, will become a true economic power with a vast petroleum wealth spread out over a relatively small population.

Regardless of what brink you're on - collapse or national greatness - all of these countries can count on tipping over onto the wrong side of the brink if there is severe and persistent long term demand destruction of petroleum-based energy. What could achieve that? Recession obviously, but recession is usually temporary. What could do it on a more permanent basis? Pervasive climate change legislation. Each of the countries I have named, and many others that are in the same position on a smaller scale, stand to fall into disarray or be denied dreamed-of living standards at the hands of the next great global climate change initiative. Thus, it will not stand. Individual countries may do what they please to limit hydrocarbon fuels, but only a global initiative stands a chance of doing something meaningful, so the greenies tell us. Just as developing economies won't sacrifice their shot at economic opportunity in order to indulge the developed world, countries reliant on oil production won't vote to kill off global demand for the one industry on which their future rests. The lesson in demand destruction that we've just experienced has shown a large part of the world our potentially green future and I am certain they will have none of it. Angola will not throw off the shackles of Third World poverty with solar panels, Brazil won't achieve First World living standards via biofuels, and Russia won't be able to keep up with the West by virtue of wind. Barack Obama and all the Dems in Congress can dream all they want about resurgent US leadership on global warming. Global climate change consensus is all but unachievable.

UPDATE: The Poznan conference didn't go so well. Fine by me.

Bubba Sticks the (Final?) Knife In

Have I told you that the Clintonite machine is stewarding the Obama presidency toward a one term denouement? Why yes I have. 95% of it is behind the scenes, only stuff that geeks picked up on. The other 5% is out in the open, like this. Bubba is the fixer and he's fixing things.

I know there must be a scene in some movie somewhere in which the protagonist is running through some gauntlet, like a jungle or something, and getting pelted with darts that, as they accumulate, sap his strength. Ultimately our hero emerges into a clearing only to collapse from the multiple wounds at which point a large dark figure, the mastermind, emerges from just off-stage to finish off our protagonist with a final knife plunge, ensuring and taking credit for the finality of the protagonist's demise. The doomed, dart-ridden hero here is the Lightworker himself and the dark figure is Bubba sticking the knife in once and for all. Cut to black.

UPDATE: Why is Bubba doing this? Strategy and ego. First, strategy. Check this out from a professional pollster.

"The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney"

Sounds alot like this, no?

"First, if Obama wins another term it'll probably be accompanied by Republican gains in Congress and incumbency for many is a worse problem to have in the future than incumbency for one. Frankly, I think the Dems would rather run congressional candidates against a President Romney or President Perry rather than in tandem with an Obama second term"

Next is ego. This was me Aug. 11, 2011.

"Obama has been told it's over. He will not be given the keys to the Democratic Party's future and be allowed to own the vast apparatus of the party's traditional assets for decades to come as an all-conquering two term President. His presidency is in caretaker mode."

Basically, my view is no way Bubba cedes the title of reigning two-term icon to this bozo. James Taranto seems to agree:

"...if the president is re-elected, Clinton not only loses that singular status but is Obama's lesser in almost every way. Clinton was re-elected in a time of prosperity, not anemic growth and 9% unemployment. Whereas Clinton failed to persuade a Democratic Congress to pass health-care "reform," Obama succeeded. Clinton moved to the center and worked constructively with House Republicans, while Obama has hewed to the left.

And if Obama is re-elected, he will likely be the first Democrat since FDR to attract a popular-vote majority twice--a feat Clinton managed not even once.

If Obama is still president on Jan. 21, 2013, Clinton will have gone from Houdini to has-been. "

Remember, I posited this theory months ago and it is all starting to look like it is coming into clear focus. The Clintonite machine has declared Hopenchange over and is preparing a transition to the next phase of the Democratic Party. So while Mitt Romney may be Presidential in a central casting kinda way and Rick Perry may just be a bad-ass, Obama's real troubles are with the Big Man...Bubba himself...and may well be his biggest downfall.

Shock Doctrine Indeed

Wannabe economist and anti-globalization zealot Naomi Klein has written a successful book claiming that free market capitalism is incredibly unpopular and only gets advanced by being rammed down people's throats in a crisis. The theory is pretty laughable, but every cockamamie theory needs to rebutted seriously as a matter of intellectual integrity. Here is the best one I've found (watch the video), although there is this too. Of course, any serious student of history knows that it is economic shocks that bring about increased central control of the economy. Nobody disputes that the Great Depression accelerated the world's gravitation toward socialism in general, and that Germany's inter-war economic dislocations gave rise to National Socialism. These are but history's most prominent examples. True to form, openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders plays the same role that collectivists and utopians throughout history have played, seeing in a crisis the opportunity to seize economic power from individuals and garner it for the state.

Tell Me Why Americans Are "Pre-Revolutionary" Again?

It is no secret that the federal government is not popular.  All manner of recent polls confirm this and suggest an even bleaker view - Americans go beyond merely not liking, they actively fear their government.  I discussed this sentiment in the context of the 2012 presidential race, citing Pat Caddell's view that Americans are "pre-revolutionary" in mood. There are literary thousands of examples of government run amok to explain why Americans feel this way, but you only have to look at the rhetoric of a President who claims the desire and intention to "go around" Congress to advance his agenda, or a (thankfully former) Governor who suggested we suspend elections, to see the genesis of Americans' fears.

The worsening of this mood has baleful consequences (very baleful if you are a leftist).  People who distrust government wish, at the very least, that it not get bigger and more intrusive. Thus, since 2010 Americans have voted for de facto gridlock.  People who distrust government greatly make contingency plans from reining in economic risk taking to bracing for a break down in law and order (gun sales, ammo shortage, anyone?).

If you were an elected official and this fear and distrust was counter-productive to your goals, you'd seek to allay these fears, no?  At the least, you wouldn't make half-baked decisions that would continue to fuel these fears, right?  Not really.

President Obama’s pick to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency once said that a “majority of white voters” would never vote for a black candidate and that they should be excluded from “the democratic process.”

The Voting Rights Act should be expanded to “adjust districts to take [racially motivated voting] into account,” Watts said.

Such voters “need to be factored out of the equation,” Watt said, because “I’ve got no use for them in the democratic process.”

According to a contemporaneous report of the hearing published by the Cybercast News Service, Watt said that black voters — unlike whites — don’t have “an absolute commitment” to voting for a candidate based on race.

“Black people have not had the luxury of being able to say, ‘Under no circumstances will I vote for a white candidate,’” Watt said in his remarks.

Watt is, indisputably in my view, an abomination by virtue of holding these views.  He also happens to be a buffoon, whites have amply demonstrated an ability to vote across racial lines, while, it must be said, blacks have not.  So, we've got a doubly whammy of repulsiveness here, idiocy combined with a racialist, fascistic worldview.  Triple whammy actually, as we now add into the equation a position of substantial authority. A mentally deficient, racialist fascist in a position of substantial authority in the federal government with sway over a large sector of the economy...?  Was there no other person around who do the job at the FHFA?  Of course there was.  So the decision to appoint Watt was either an out-to-lunch decision or a deliberately antagonistic one.

And people wonder why the government is unpopular and its citizens are angry and wary.

UPDATE:  And today comes this poll. While armed revolt is a consideration, thankfully, only among 29%, what is more interesting, and indicative, is that only 47% don't see it as necessary.  So less than half have taken it off the table.  "Pre-revolutionary" indeed.

Why Are We Still Saying Obama Is So Smart?

Readers may know that I read and highly value analysis by Walter Russell Mead.  Here is my conundrum though.  Interspersed among his very often scathing (justified, IMO) criticism of Obama's leadership and policies, he feels the need to include qualifiers like this.

President Obama is not a stupid man. After more than four years in the White House, he cannot be called a naive man or an inexperienced leader. He is not, despite the suspicions of some of his angrier critics, actively seeking to undermine the prestige and the power of the United States.

I have no doubt that WRM actually believes this but I'm wondering if perhaps this fundamental assumption ought to be revisited in light of what is now a substantial body of work.  (Readers know that I don't necessarily subscribe to the smart as a whip theory.)  WMR readily admits that Obama has terrible instincts.  So, why then does more often than not act on those instincts rather than deferring to advisers in the full knowledge that he has bad instincts?  Why also does he consistently violate certain basic premises of common sense, like the admonition that the more you speak the less value your words are afforded.   Surely Obama must know of the rank intellectual dishonesty that he has been guilty of through his political ascendency, no?  So, we have a leader who is arguably not self-aware, not possessed of common sense and indifferent to intellectual dishonesty.  While that is not synonymous with "stupid, it is isn't synonymous with smart either.

I do not deny that Obama is gifted in many aspects and I am not saying that he is a dolt.  What I am saying is that the blindly accepted notion that Obama possesses intelligence that is other than ordinary needs to be revisited analytically.  Here is a man who has walked into as politically advantageous an environment as can be imagined and ridden a wave of unthinking adulation, and what has he done?  Arguably his only accomplishment has been to pass a wildly unpopular law that appears to be mechanically impossible and thus structurally unstable.  He appears to have bungled foreign policy beyond the point of mere ineffectiveness but to the tangible detriment of US interests and prestige abroad.  He has led his party to a historic defeat in 2010 (don't forget the state houses!) with little discernible electoral optimism on the horizon.  He has allowed his administration to get bogged down in numerous thoroughly avoidable scandals, threatening his entire second term agenda.  He has consistently spent his political capital on non-priority issues for the American people, and consistently failed to achieve his aims.  I could go on, but this is the analysis from 30,000 feet.  So I ask again, is this the work product of an extraordinarily intelligent man?

I would say it is not.  Not of a stupid man, but of one who is merely average.  I think, objectively Obama is average.  Why am I pressing the point?  Because I want the fawners, acolytes, and partisans to admit that they were suckered. I want them to admit that they were wrong.  I want them to admit to what they are - fanboys.  Emotionally-driven, unthinking, hero-seeking.  And that they acted this way with something as serious as our countries leadership.  I want nothing less.

Marketing Wisdom

Lesson for Google, et al.  Despite conventional wisdom to the contrary (sometimes with some merit), if Americans don't like where you are taking them, they simply won't go. 

This is happening with ObamaCare, but it is more obvious in other realms, such as transportation.  Notice all those Segways that people are tooling around town on?  I didn't think so.  CitiBike in NYC is flailing.  Light rail sytems are wildly unpopular.  Americans like travelling around in cars, and they have steadfastly rejected the best laid plans of their betters to get them out of their cars.

If Americans don't want to be surveilled and have their any twitch algorithmed into a sales pitch, they won't.  Give them enormously productive and/or fun tools that they never dreamed of, yes, they'll flock to you.  Abuse your customer relationahip with them and act like you own them, you're toast.

Loathesome Lefty Loose Cannon Dislikes Politics

A Washington state Democrat said that Republicans dubbed the Affordable Care Act “Obamacare” so that they could symbolically destroy President Obama when they destroy the bill.

Wow, what meanies.  But I recall another derisive moniker for a broad policy program:  Reaganomics.

Tit for tat, Jimbo.  It's called "politics."  Even still, you could have called this POS law anything and it would still be wildly unpopular.  Also, I recall Mr. Lightworker actually embracing the designation of the law in his name - his narcissism knowing no bounds.

To Hire or Not to Hire?

Sir Lawrence justifiably takes a bow for his early and correct bullishness, or mustard seedishness if you will, on the occasion of John Paulson publicizing his bullishness. While I generally agree, Sir Lawrence ends with this: "Rising corporate profits equals rising jobs in the future. If businesses are profitable, they will hire. Bank on it. After all, we witnessed such a steep falloff in employment because businesses were so unprofitable." On this point, I do not agree, and this puts me at odds also with perhaps the most prescient market caller of them all (note the date).

I concede there will be some hiring, there always is, but not enough to move the needle or make this feel like a real recovery to the average worker. Here is my case as to why:
1) Businesses really like their new level of leanness, they are going to enjoy producing more with less for a while, because that means nice profits;
2) Businesses are focused on deleveraging rather than hiring. No business that had a near death experience in 2008/09 is going to put themselves in that position again;
3) Alot of hiring will go overseas. The USA has become much less business friendly and stifling. Other countries want the jobs badly and are doing what it takes to get them. For a US multi-national hiring abroad versus in the US, all else being equal, is a no-brainer - abroad;
4) Business leaders loathe the Obama administration and the Pelosicrats. While ultimately they will do what makes business sense, they are not looking to do anything that will reflect well on the Democrats' management of the economy. Some have told me that hiring plans are on hold until after November;
5) Frankly, businesses are still scared. They have no idea how much more bad stuff is coming down the pike. ObamaCare looked dead and the next thing you know companies are taking hundreds of millions of dollars of write-downs. Obama is sinking in the polls, but potentially disastrous financial reform looks set to pass. The fact is that even though this government is wildly unpopular, all of the prosperity damaging legislation seems to be getting passed anyway. Cap and trade is dead, huh? Businesses ain't banking on that rosy thought right now, the evidence says to remain fearful.

So, yes there will be some hiring, but it'll be a drop in the bucket. We'll barely feel it.

Awe-Inspiringly Intelligent President Shocked to Learn that VERY Unpopular Legislation Carried Large Political Cost

Same awe-inspiringly intelligent President who was shocked to find that government can be inefficient and slow.

CNBC In Bullsh*t Anti Anti-ObamaCare Survey

Sometimes (OK, very often) there are things published in the media, based on "surveys" that are preposterous and simply defy common sense.  This is one of them.

The brand perceptions of Papa John's, Applebee's and Denny's took beatings after high-ranking representatives of the companies said Obamacare would force them to stop building restaurants, cut worker hours and raise prices.

First, despite what you might think, given the re-election of the guy who never had a real job, ObamaCare remains solidly unpopular.  So why would we assume that businesses who talk honestly about the consequences of the legislation diminish their reputation.  Secondly, didn't we recently see a shockingly large and unprecedented outpouring of support for a restaurant business that challenged government dictats, and isn't ObamaCare, while not directly analogous, in many ways a government dictat?  Thirdly, healthcare costs are demonstrably higher across many sectors of the economy, why would people assume that this phenomenon would somehow bypass the fast food restaurant sector?  Fourthly,  the survey comes from "an online YouGov" brand index, ergo it's bullshit.

Talk to me when sales are down at these companies.

Dorgan and Dodd

So Dorgan and Dodd are going to call it quits. Good riddance (much more in the case of Dodd than Dorgan), but this should not hearten libertarians, conservatives and average freedom-loving Americans. These two will vote for ObamaCare. They will still be complicit in the travesty of stomping on the rules and traditions of deliberative democracy and they will hand us this destructive, tyrannical, unpopular piece of crap and walk off into the sunset avoiding the verdict of voters. In other words, they are saying "F**k you, and you can't touch me." Voting for ObamaCare and retiring is worse than voting for it and facing the voters forthrightly. These retirements should not give us relief. This adds to the magnitude of the royal screwing that we the people are receiving.

And just to pee in your cornflakes that much more...the guy who could replace Dodd is perhaps an even bigger jerk and could be an even more destructive force for our economy and our liberties than Dodd.

N.B. I use "retiring" charitably. These two will surely get plum jobs within the Obama administration, continuing to do damage to our economy and liberties from safely within the executive branch.