First off, I'm sorry I misread the 2012 post. Jambo so rarely comments on politics anymore, I simply assumed the observations were Ryan's.
I'm a fan of Public Broadcasting, but I agree that the "public" needs to pick up the slack right now... completely in fact. If viewer support isn't enough, then they need to sell more to corporate sponsors and gain some revenue that way. No more Federal funding, even if it is only a portion of the cost to broadcast.
Now that this has been said by me, I'll take it further and say that all Federal dollars being pumped into such "dead horses" as Amtrack need to be cut out, too. In fact...
Amtrak is a classic oportunity for the Fed to find a way to "privatize" a Federal corporation. In 2008, nearly 30 million people used the company's trains to travel, setting another record in rail travel in the US... and the system came in another $59 million OVER budget in the same fiscal period. It employs 19,000 people and serves 30 million... but can't turn a profit. The reasons for this are obvious... it is competing with commercial operations that are getting subsidized by the same bankroll that is paying for Amtrak!
With train travel becoming more and more "commercially" viable in the eyes of the American consumer, finding a way to allow private companies or existing railways to take over the lines that are most utilized seems the best way to save the taxpayers money AND bring much needed improvements to the services (the Fed never fixes itself fast enough for American consumers, we all know that). The cost of this corporation to the taxpayer is $2.6 billion per year until 2013, when the Congress will get the obligatory request for more money... which has historically been an increase of no less than 12% per anum. The major corridors of this company move millions of people per year... especially the Pacific Coast corridors and the North East corridors... and these individual lines DO make money, but the less-frequented ones cannot compete with subsidized competition.
These are both (NPR and Amtrak) great examples of areas where the Federal Government just doesn't need to be running things. If this isn't something private industry can do better and cheaper (which I'm sure it is), then the States that benefit from these corporations can pick up the bill. Its not a question of whether or not it is a necessary expense or effort... but instead it is a question of why the Fed is doing it at all?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
What, no more tote bags?
Report out tonight that the new House majority, looking to curb spending in every direction, is targeting the federal NPR & PBS subsidy for elimination.
Look, I'm a fan of A Prairie Home Companion (well, some of its more headline bits to be exact). But did you know that Garrison Keilor's salary is 7 figures? And more power to him, but if the 900+ NPR stations around the country & PBS were allowed to sink or swim on their own then perhaps we would get MORE Frontlines & News From Lake Wobagon, & other commercially viable / quality programing & less BBC filler & multi hour segments on multiculturalism by grad students whom think their trip through Greenwich Village to find a fruit stand selling out-of-season plantains is a clever commentary on the homophobic nature of America ... I'm just saying, we're 14 trillion in debt, maybe for now we can skip funding such forays to find windows on the soul of man.
Look, I'm a fan of A Prairie Home Companion (well, some of its more headline bits to be exact). But did you know that Garrison Keilor's salary is 7 figures? And more power to him, but if the 900+ NPR stations around the country & PBS were allowed to sink or swim on their own then perhaps we would get MORE Frontlines & News From Lake Wobagon, & other commercially viable / quality programing & less BBC filler & multi hour segments on multiculturalism by grad students whom think their trip through Greenwich Village to find a fruit stand selling out-of-season plantains is a clever commentary on the homophobic nature of America ... I'm just saying, we're 14 trillion in debt, maybe for now we can skip funding such forays to find windows on the soul of man.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Hey cheetoh, check the author section ...
I didn't make the 2012 presidential post, Jambo did.
I like a Bachman-Barbour ticket. The JFK/LBJ comparison was good. By the way Titus, she's a second term congresswomen, and the first Republican woman elected to the House in the history of MN. And while you see her "identifying with the far Right" as a liability, I see it as an asset. The country is trending towards some hard core fiscal responsibility. And lets bare in mind something when discussing her viability among moderates/Independents - she got elected in Minnesota, twice (the first being in 06' amidst the Democrat land slide).
Now, if you guys can tear yourself away from video games, I have as question: President Obama said yesterday (at the news there are renewed Iranian protests in the streets of Tehran): "Leaders across the Mid East must realize their peoples thirst for freedom, and provide a peaceful path forward. . . We all know that terrorism, killing innocents, will not change things." That last bit aimed at communicating to the Muslim youth that peaceful protests are a quicker way to reform then Jihad. And that's fine. But I thought this phrase he's oft repeated, "killing innocents" to be a bit off putting.
So my simple question is, who are the non innocents?
I like a Bachman-Barbour ticket. The JFK/LBJ comparison was good. By the way Titus, she's a second term congresswomen, and the first Republican woman elected to the House in the history of MN. And while you see her "identifying with the far Right" as a liability, I see it as an asset. The country is trending towards some hard core fiscal responsibility. And lets bare in mind something when discussing her viability among moderates/Independents - she got elected in Minnesota, twice (the first being in 06' amidst the Democrat land slide).
Now, if you guys can tear yourself away from video games, I have as question: President Obama said yesterday (at the news there are renewed Iranian protests in the streets of Tehran): "Leaders across the Mid East must realize their peoples thirst for freedom, and provide a peaceful path forward. . . We all know that terrorism, killing innocents, will not change things." That last bit aimed at communicating to the Muslim youth that peaceful protests are a quicker way to reform then Jihad. And that's fine. But I thought this phrase he's oft repeated, "killing innocents" to be a bit off putting.
So my simple question is, who are the non innocents?
Could the "inter regnum" be coming to an end?
I have seen an awful lot of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi lately. He is the heir to the Peacock Throne of the Iranian monarchy, and has championed democracy and self-determination in Iran since his exile began in 1979.
Interestingly, he makes no claim to the throne, or even the title of Shahanshah (King of Kings). He works instead to guaranty a peaceful, internal (meaning no foreign intervention) overthrow of the Islamic Revolutionary government currently in power in Tehran. He is a huge advocate of passive, peaceful protests and broad, general strikes against government and infrastructure in Iran as the best means to reduce and remove the current regime from power, and is a loud and regular proponent of a clear and measurable seperation between sharia-based law and the government of Iran. With the popular unrest of the people now returning to Tehran, and protests and demonstrations becoming more and more frequent, I think his words and opinions are going to be heard more and more.
I don't know much about him, personally, but everything I've heard and read so far seems to tell me that he could very well be the "rallying point" around which a movement such as we saw in Egypt and Tunisia might well develop in Iran. It appears that about 20% of the Iranian population still considers him to be the "Shah" of Iran, and the rightful, ordained ruler of the Iranian people (as the heir to the Persian Imperial house). I will look harder, but it would seem at this point that he is the IDEAL moderate, Western-friendly leader that the US could support in such an effort... and his commitment to open, general elections and a new democratic constitution clearly seperating the spiritual from the secular is well documented. Even if he never assumes his titled position on the throne... his voice and face could very well be just what the doctor ordered for an internal revolution against the repressive regime of Ahmedidntshave.
The last round of protests stemmed around a questionable opposition politician/cleric who didn't have the support to keep the effort going... but a one-in-five opinion that Allah has determined Reza to be Shah would appear to be better than nothing, wouldn't it?
Interestingly, he makes no claim to the throne, or even the title of Shahanshah (King of Kings). He works instead to guaranty a peaceful, internal (meaning no foreign intervention) overthrow of the Islamic Revolutionary government currently in power in Tehran. He is a huge advocate of passive, peaceful protests and broad, general strikes against government and infrastructure in Iran as the best means to reduce and remove the current regime from power, and is a loud and regular proponent of a clear and measurable seperation between sharia-based law and the government of Iran. With the popular unrest of the people now returning to Tehran, and protests and demonstrations becoming more and more frequent, I think his words and opinions are going to be heard more and more.
I don't know much about him, personally, but everything I've heard and read so far seems to tell me that he could very well be the "rallying point" around which a movement such as we saw in Egypt and Tunisia might well develop in Iran. It appears that about 20% of the Iranian population still considers him to be the "Shah" of Iran, and the rightful, ordained ruler of the Iranian people (as the heir to the Persian Imperial house). I will look harder, but it would seem at this point that he is the IDEAL moderate, Western-friendly leader that the US could support in such an effort... and his commitment to open, general elections and a new democratic constitution clearly seperating the spiritual from the secular is well documented. Even if he never assumes his titled position on the throne... his voice and face could very well be just what the doctor ordered for an internal revolution against the repressive regime of Ahmedidntshave.
The last round of protests stemmed around a questionable opposition politician/cleric who didn't have the support to keep the effort going... but a one-in-five opinion that Allah has determined Reza to be Shah would appear to be better than nothing, wouldn't it?
Wow... lots of posts this morning!
To reply to Jambo...
In fact, that WAS the same box! I asked him "Hey, what are you working?" as I tapped him off a HUGE game (the entire bankroll of black and purple OUT, and only one stack of orange left), and he looks at me and says... "Twelve to eight, same as you." How do people like this get jobs?
Oh, and yes, the stacked dice question. It's a no roll here, as is dice on the money, in the rail, off the game, shot by the wrong shooter, or if the fall is interfered with by another player (like caught and dropped). We all double checked, and a short roll is ALWAYS a roll.
To Ryan...
I've thought about this quite a bit, and if I had to name my dream ticket, I think it would be Jindal-Ryan. Bobby Jindal is a proven executive, a minority, comes from humble stock, is Southern (even has a nice accent), solidly conservative and he's Roman Catholic. Paul Ryan is from the Midwest, a lawyer, a Catholic, is just 40 years old, and if he isn't on top of the ticket I think his lack of Executive experience isn't a handicap. In fact, the only thing my dream ticket is missing is ANY military experience... and that is a big minus.
Now, I know Jindal said he wouldn't run... and that's fine. I'm just giving you my "dream" scenario. I'm not a fan of a Palin ticket... I don't like her chances after losing last time. Bachmann is a first-time Representative (GOP) from MN, and she is pretty controversial across the country. I think she's a bigger liability than a benefit... at least now. She'd have to win a bigger election than she has to get my vote for the general Presidential bid.
My fear is that Palin and Bachmann have so aligned themselves with the far right in this country that they are as unelectable as Ron Paul. Speaking of which, there is a new conservative host (from FOX I believe) on the Sirius Patriot channel, and she was on Beck's show last week. They asked her a bunch of questions geared to gauge whether or not she was more or less "libertarian" in her views, and one of the questions was who was a potential candidate in the 2012 election that was most like the Founding Fathers. The Beck crew all said Ron Paul, but all agreed that he had no chance of winning. I agreed with the latter, but had issues with the former.
Ron Paul is a libertarian... might even opitimse the term. However, it is a stretch to say that the first four Presidents were "libertarian" as well. They all seemed to shun active, aggressive foreign policy, and most were hesitant to over-step the perceived limits of their office, but all DID expand the scope and role of government and all took steps outside of what the Constitution specified as their "enumerated powers". All four faced huge deficits, all four raised existing taxes, and three of the four instituted new (and hugely unpopular) taxes as well. One fought a foreign war with no Congressional declaration (Jefferson's Quasi-War), one invaded a foreign country on executive order alone (Jefferson's Barbary War), one marched a standing army against US citizens (Washington's Whiskey Rebellion), and one completely reversed his "founding father" positions while in office during a declared war (Madison's War) by expanding executive authority far beyond the Constitutional boundries that had been recognized previously.
My point is that candidates that promise to return the role of President to a "constitutional" framework are promising the moon. There are engines in place that cannot be removed if the country wants to run... and all that can conceivably be done to fix what is broken is to put into place the means to eliminate the extreaneous over the course of a short decade or so. The bullets that will have to be bitten by BOTH sides of the aisle to fix what is wrong are so many and so big... the tasks seems impossible, but it isn't. The means simply cannot be "instant".
Let me give you an example of what I'm saying...
Implementing a flat tax is possible in the next four years, but its impact on the US economy and the government in supports will be huge and very far reaching. A flat tax would necessitate a budget that could accomodate slumps in the economy like we just experienced, because if the average tax rate is based on income, and the average income per taxpayer falls by even as much as 7% (and it has fallen by 8.1% since 2007, after inflation adjustments), then the government won't even be able to survive the cost of its own growth at the average rate since 1968 (6.9%).
A fair tax (one based on a sales tax-style of revenue) is better, because the years we'd need it the strongest are the ones that the tax base would still be spending money as always. In other words, we'd still not be used to buying things "used" as opposed to "new" in order to save on our tax bill. In fact, there is a strong argument that the implementation of such a tax system NOW would pay off all our debts and deficits in far shorter a length of time than any other means we know... because the US is the largest spending economy on the planet. The first years of the systems implementation would see tons of money rolling into the Federal coffers, and it would taper off as we all learned how best to spend our money and save on our tax bills. The down side is a fair tax would decimate industries like housing, new auto sales, commercial real estate, big-ticket items sales, and petroleum production. A fair tax would drive the cost of a gallon of gas UP at least another 4%... right off the bat. This would be a HUGE adjustment for the American economy to grow into... I'm not saying we couldn't, but it wouldn't be as easy as many make it out to be.
This has to be compared to the "cost" of simply reforming what we already have... and in my example it would mean lowering tax rates, reducing the cost to collect and manage the revenue (meaning the IRS), and slowing the rate at which government grows in scope and cost. Surely, THIS is easier than starting from scratch, right?
Do not think I am saying it all has to STAY in place... the DoE, the ED, the Interior, Agriculture... all these need to be MAJORLY reformed or eliminated entirely, and this is a doable deal if the STATES can pick up the slack where the Fed leaves off, but some "net" must remain in place until ALL the States can accomodate what the Fed is already doing. This is especially true in regards to Education and Agriculture/Interior... nothing more than guidelines and safety regulations should stem from a Federal level, in my opinion, in either of these realms... yet 9% of our Federal budget is taken up with these three departments alone (and most of THAT is probably payroll and operational expenses for Federal employees).
I'll say this for a ticket with Bachmann on it: It will probably be the ticket that gives the clearest, most in-your-face description of what the GOP will try and deliver if they win the White House. She is pretty good about spelling out what she wants to do, and she isn't too bad at getting that massage to the people (when given the opportunity).
Finally, to Baddboy:
I've played Modern Warfare, but don't own it. The maps on COD:BO are small, but they came out with much larger maps in the first expansion module (First Strike) and this has opened up a bit more of the game, in my opinion. Not being an expert gamer, I can't say how the play stacks up against other game names, but it is fast and smooth so far (which is far more than I can say for any PC game I've EVER played online).
I'm hoping that before summer hits, we'll have an opporunity to buy Modern Warfare since it is so much cheaper now that it is out so long... and that will give me a real chance to compare the two. It's a bit sad that the ONLY game we have for XBox is COD:BO, isn't it?
In fact, that WAS the same box! I asked him "Hey, what are you working?" as I tapped him off a HUGE game (the entire bankroll of black and purple OUT, and only one stack of orange left), and he looks at me and says... "Twelve to eight, same as you." How do people like this get jobs?
Oh, and yes, the stacked dice question. It's a no roll here, as is dice on the money, in the rail, off the game, shot by the wrong shooter, or if the fall is interfered with by another player (like caught and dropped). We all double checked, and a short roll is ALWAYS a roll.
To Ryan...
I've thought about this quite a bit, and if I had to name my dream ticket, I think it would be Jindal-Ryan. Bobby Jindal is a proven executive, a minority, comes from humble stock, is Southern (even has a nice accent), solidly conservative and he's Roman Catholic. Paul Ryan is from the Midwest, a lawyer, a Catholic, is just 40 years old, and if he isn't on top of the ticket I think his lack of Executive experience isn't a handicap. In fact, the only thing my dream ticket is missing is ANY military experience... and that is a big minus.
Now, I know Jindal said he wouldn't run... and that's fine. I'm just giving you my "dream" scenario. I'm not a fan of a Palin ticket... I don't like her chances after losing last time. Bachmann is a first-time Representative (GOP) from MN, and she is pretty controversial across the country. I think she's a bigger liability than a benefit... at least now. She'd have to win a bigger election than she has to get my vote for the general Presidential bid.
My fear is that Palin and Bachmann have so aligned themselves with the far right in this country that they are as unelectable as Ron Paul. Speaking of which, there is a new conservative host (from FOX I believe) on the Sirius Patriot channel, and she was on Beck's show last week. They asked her a bunch of questions geared to gauge whether or not she was more or less "libertarian" in her views, and one of the questions was who was a potential candidate in the 2012 election that was most like the Founding Fathers. The Beck crew all said Ron Paul, but all agreed that he had no chance of winning. I agreed with the latter, but had issues with the former.
Ron Paul is a libertarian... might even opitimse the term. However, it is a stretch to say that the first four Presidents were "libertarian" as well. They all seemed to shun active, aggressive foreign policy, and most were hesitant to over-step the perceived limits of their office, but all DID expand the scope and role of government and all took steps outside of what the Constitution specified as their "enumerated powers". All four faced huge deficits, all four raised existing taxes, and three of the four instituted new (and hugely unpopular) taxes as well. One fought a foreign war with no Congressional declaration (Jefferson's Quasi-War), one invaded a foreign country on executive order alone (Jefferson's Barbary War), one marched a standing army against US citizens (Washington's Whiskey Rebellion), and one completely reversed his "founding father" positions while in office during a declared war (Madison's War) by expanding executive authority far beyond the Constitutional boundries that had been recognized previously.
My point is that candidates that promise to return the role of President to a "constitutional" framework are promising the moon. There are engines in place that cannot be removed if the country wants to run... and all that can conceivably be done to fix what is broken is to put into place the means to eliminate the extreaneous over the course of a short decade or so. The bullets that will have to be bitten by BOTH sides of the aisle to fix what is wrong are so many and so big... the tasks seems impossible, but it isn't. The means simply cannot be "instant".
Let me give you an example of what I'm saying...
Implementing a flat tax is possible in the next four years, but its impact on the US economy and the government in supports will be huge and very far reaching. A flat tax would necessitate a budget that could accomodate slumps in the economy like we just experienced, because if the average tax rate is based on income, and the average income per taxpayer falls by even as much as 7% (and it has fallen by 8.1% since 2007, after inflation adjustments), then the government won't even be able to survive the cost of its own growth at the average rate since 1968 (6.9%).
A fair tax (one based on a sales tax-style of revenue) is better, because the years we'd need it the strongest are the ones that the tax base would still be spending money as always. In other words, we'd still not be used to buying things "used" as opposed to "new" in order to save on our tax bill. In fact, there is a strong argument that the implementation of such a tax system NOW would pay off all our debts and deficits in far shorter a length of time than any other means we know... because the US is the largest spending economy on the planet. The first years of the systems implementation would see tons of money rolling into the Federal coffers, and it would taper off as we all learned how best to spend our money and save on our tax bills. The down side is a fair tax would decimate industries like housing, new auto sales, commercial real estate, big-ticket items sales, and petroleum production. A fair tax would drive the cost of a gallon of gas UP at least another 4%... right off the bat. This would be a HUGE adjustment for the American economy to grow into... I'm not saying we couldn't, but it wouldn't be as easy as many make it out to be.
This has to be compared to the "cost" of simply reforming what we already have... and in my example it would mean lowering tax rates, reducing the cost to collect and manage the revenue (meaning the IRS), and slowing the rate at which government grows in scope and cost. Surely, THIS is easier than starting from scratch, right?
Do not think I am saying it all has to STAY in place... the DoE, the ED, the Interior, Agriculture... all these need to be MAJORLY reformed or eliminated entirely, and this is a doable deal if the STATES can pick up the slack where the Fed leaves off, but some "net" must remain in place until ALL the States can accomodate what the Fed is already doing. This is especially true in regards to Education and Agriculture/Interior... nothing more than guidelines and safety regulations should stem from a Federal level, in my opinion, in either of these realms... yet 9% of our Federal budget is taken up with these three departments alone (and most of THAT is probably payroll and operational expenses for Federal employees).
I'll say this for a ticket with Bachmann on it: It will probably be the ticket that gives the clearest, most in-your-face description of what the GOP will try and deliver if they win the White House. She is pretty good about spelling out what she wants to do, and she isn't too bad at getting that massage to the people (when given the opportunity).
Finally, to Baddboy:
I've played Modern Warfare, but don't own it. The maps on COD:BO are small, but they came out with much larger maps in the first expansion module (First Strike) and this has opened up a bit more of the game, in my opinion. Not being an expert gamer, I can't say how the play stacks up against other game names, but it is fast and smooth so far (which is far more than I can say for any PC game I've EVER played online).
I'm hoping that before summer hits, we'll have an opporunity to buy Modern Warfare since it is so much cheaper now that it is out so long... and that will give me a real chance to compare the two. It's a bit sad that the ONLY game we have for XBox is COD:BO, isn't it?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Call of Duty
Well I finally broke down and picked up Call of Duty: Black Ops for PS3. I have to say it is the worst edition of all of the franchise. My absolute favorite is the original Modern Warfare. The Black Ops story line is slow and the game play is very boring so far. The multi player game is ok but the maps are very small and bland in comparison to the earlier versions.
In my opinion I would rather play Battlefield in any of its renditions than Call of Duty, anything goes in that game. If there is a tank use it, a plane fly it, an anti-aircraft gun shoot it and if infantry is your thing have at.
Anyways I will give the rest of my opinion after I finish the final mission but unless something picks up I'll be back to Modern Warfare.
Just my 2 cents
In my opinion I would rather play Battlefield in any of its renditions than Call of Duty, anything goes in that game. If there is a tank use it, a plane fly it, an anti-aircraft gun shoot it and if infantry is your thing have at.
Anyways I will give the rest of my opinion after I finish the final mission but unless something picks up I'll be back to Modern Warfare.
Just my 2 cents
Running for President
Had an interesting talk yesterday that covered a couple of breaks.
This buddy of mine, Chad, pretty smart kid, a bit rough on the edge, he's reading the paper in the breakroom and they've got an article breaking down Republican contenders for 2012. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are at the top of the list, Palin in there somewhere, Haley Barbour a bit further down. Chad kind of laments this. Tells me he read another article about how Barbour has a personal trainer now because it's not presidential to be overweight.
I told Chad it's ok to be a Vice-President and be chunky though, and it is the best case scenario for Haley because the man will NEVER be president. Then the inevitable question was, who should head up the ticket?
Chad thought Sarah Palin, but I said Michelle Bachman.
My logic? Reverse Kennedy. Young, energetic, moderately attractive Presidential candidate with the older, experienced, Southern vote garnishing VP candidate. Whether that'll actually HAPPEN or not, well, I'm not holding my breath. I don't think Ron Paul or Mitt Romney have the charisma to make it in a general election.
And that list? Michelle Bachman was last, with 4%... Bobby Jindhal? Didn't even make it.
This buddy of mine, Chad, pretty smart kid, a bit rough on the edge, he's reading the paper in the breakroom and they've got an article breaking down Republican contenders for 2012. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are at the top of the list, Palin in there somewhere, Haley Barbour a bit further down. Chad kind of laments this. Tells me he read another article about how Barbour has a personal trainer now because it's not presidential to be overweight.
I told Chad it's ok to be a Vice-President and be chunky though, and it is the best case scenario for Haley because the man will NEVER be president. Then the inevitable question was, who should head up the ticket?
Chad thought Sarah Palin, but I said Michelle Bachman.
My logic? Reverse Kennedy. Young, energetic, moderately attractive Presidential candidate with the older, experienced, Southern vote garnishing VP candidate. Whether that'll actually HAPPEN or not, well, I'm not holding my breath. I don't think Ron Paul or Mitt Romney have the charisma to make it in a general election.
And that list? Michelle Bachman was last, with 4%... Bobby Jindhal? Didn't even make it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
