It actually happens during April and May before our November contest, and it is in France. Carla Bruni's husband is not looking so good. At this point, it appears likely that Sarkozy loses to the socialist Francois Hollande. The reason that is a big deal for Americans is that Hollande has vowed to renegotiate the arrangements with Germany and the EU. Hollande believes that too much austerity is being imposed and wants more borrowing and spending -- just like our very own intellectually inbred leftist maroons.
Despite my many hours of college French, I am no expert in these matters. However, the dominant view seems to be that if French bond rates bounce up, you move from the PIIGS to the F'n'PIIGS. With Sarkozy's very minimal restraint gone, the euro will be all but dead and the EU all but destroyed. The talk in Germany will turn from bailing out the PIIGS to simply bailing out.
Update:
In her "Red Alert: Credit Default Swaps Explained", Ms. Barnhardt explains why the coming Greek haircut could be a big deal. And that is very interesting, but so is the entire AP article she links via Breitbart. At the risk of disagreeing with a woman who is much smarter than I am (nothing new, I've been married for forty years), I think she could be right about the coming collapse for the wrong reason. It may not be the CDSs that kill us, but the demand for more haircuts.
France, Germany, and the EU have not fixed anything, even if they manage to keep Greece afloat in some way. If Greece can write off 70% of its debt, what about Portugal? What about Italy? Ireland? And Spain? What happens when one of the other PIIGS says, We want the same deal as Greece?
Greece is the little piggy. The ECB and the IMF with a little help from the Fed and China can rock the Grecian Formula cover-up. But it won't stop there. The yield on Portugal's bonds was in the teens yesterday. They can't pay that indefinitely. They will fall further in the hole just trying to cover the interest. How long before they start screaming for a haircut? And where does it end?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
We cannot -- we will not -- comply
I am not up on my Catholic hierarchy except that I am pretty sure Cardinals beat Padres. If San Antonio ever gets a baseball team, I hope they aren't named the Popes -- maybe the Bishops. Bishops are good pieces in chess, which is less entertaining than baseball.
The reason I bring this up is because I do not know if Bishop Olmsted is the Bishop of Phoenix or if there's an Archbishop of Phoenix. I do know that Bishop Olmsted flipped l'oiseau to the little tyrant Obama and his vulturous sidekick Sebelius at HHS. You can view the Bishop's letter in PDF via this page. There he explains about this little thing called the First Amendment in a dusty old document written by DWGs. As old and "fundamentally flawed" as Obama thinks the Constitution is, Bishop Olmsted appears somewhat offended that the Half-Kenyan Bastard wants to wipe his scrawny ass with it.
And so am I. You see, when it comes right down to it, if somebody wants to disobey the law, they can. For most of us, lawbreaking results in negative consequences. If, however, the lawbreaker happens to be the President of the United States or the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Health and Human Services ("human services" has always sounded pretty sinister to me anyway), Secretary of Homeland Security (I thought it sounded like something out of the Third Reich when Bush came up with it, let alone now) or the head of the EPA, he or she appears to be exempt from said consequences.
Faced with this apparent inequity, most of us growl under our breath, call a talk radio show, write a blog post, or kick the dog, and, in the end, comply because it is usually less trouble than fighting the "authorities". However, most of us do not have the might, power, and prestige of the Roman Catholic Church behind us. When the Vicar of Christ tells you, "Go for it, man, I got your back", you can tell Uncle Sam to bite it.
By standing up to the government, the good Bishop has done a service for all of us. He has pointed out that an unlawful demand is, by definition, not to be obeyed. "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law." The Bishop does not encourage violence, rather he calls upon all of us to pray, adding, "Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible."
I agree. It is a crucial time, and prayer can yet change the course of this nation. We should have been praying all along, but it is not too late. I will pray, and I will disobey.
As I hope I have made clear, I am not encouraging anyone to act in a manner that causes a person to get into trouble or to do anything illegal. Speaking for myself alone, I know many things that are legal are not right, and some things that are right are illegal. In my world, I have drawn a line. I will not state publicly where that line is, nor will I warn anyone when it is crossed, but it is a line of finality, a line that could be justified to any reasonable person who is not a government-sponsored thug.
I refer again to one of the great moral teachers of the last century Alexander Solzhenitsyn and his warning against being too meek.
The reason I bring this up is because I do not know if Bishop Olmsted is the Bishop of Phoenix or if there's an Archbishop of Phoenix. I do know that Bishop Olmsted flipped l'oiseau to the little tyrant Obama and his vulturous sidekick Sebelius at HHS. You can view the Bishop's letter in PDF via this page. There he explains about this little thing called the First Amendment in a dusty old document written by DWGs. As old and "fundamentally flawed" as Obama thinks the Constitution is, Bishop Olmsted appears somewhat offended that the Half-Kenyan Bastard wants to wipe his scrawny ass with it.
And so am I. You see, when it comes right down to it, if somebody wants to disobey the law, they can. For most of us, lawbreaking results in negative consequences. If, however, the lawbreaker happens to be the President of the United States or the Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Health and Human Services ("human services" has always sounded pretty sinister to me anyway), Secretary of Homeland Security (I thought it sounded like something out of the Third Reich when Bush came up with it, let alone now) or the head of the EPA, he or she appears to be exempt from said consequences.
Faced with this apparent inequity, most of us growl under our breath, call a talk radio show, write a blog post, or kick the dog, and, in the end, comply because it is usually less trouble than fighting the "authorities". However, most of us do not have the might, power, and prestige of the Roman Catholic Church behind us. When the Vicar of Christ tells you, "Go for it, man, I got your back", you can tell Uncle Sam to bite it.
By standing up to the government, the good Bishop has done a service for all of us. He has pointed out that an unlawful demand is, by definition, not to be obeyed. "We cannot -- we will not -- comply with this unjust law." The Bishop does not encourage violence, rather he calls upon all of us to pray, adding, "Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible."
I agree. It is a crucial time, and prayer can yet change the course of this nation. We should have been praying all along, but it is not too late. I will pray, and I will disobey.
As I hope I have made clear, I am not encouraging anyone to act in a manner that causes a person to get into trouble or to do anything illegal. Speaking for myself alone, I know many things that are legal are not right, and some things that are right are illegal. In my world, I have drawn a line. I will not state publicly where that line is, nor will I warn anyone when it is crossed, but it is a line of finality, a line that could be justified to any reasonable person who is not a government-sponsored thug.
I refer again to one of the great moral teachers of the last century Alexander Solzhenitsyn and his warning against being too meek.
Find Yourself a Musket
The Brown Bess via Oleg Volk.
Note that the gentleman explains the inherent inaccuracy of the mighty Brown Bess in terms of speed and reliability. It reminds me of Mattie's remark in True Grit, "If I cared a thing about guns, I would have one that works."
Almost all modern firearms, unless the barrel has been damaged or something, are reasonably accurate. Not all are reasonably reliable. If you are around shooters much, at some point you are likely to hear an exchange like this:
"How does it shoot?"
"Better than I do."
It is true, especially in self-defense situations, that accuracy is relative, whereas reliability is absolute. Having a gun that fails to function could be worse than having no gun at all.
Note that the gentleman explains the inherent inaccuracy of the mighty Brown Bess in terms of speed and reliability. It reminds me of Mattie's remark in True Grit, "If I cared a thing about guns, I would have one that works."
Almost all modern firearms, unless the barrel has been damaged or something, are reasonably accurate. Not all are reasonably reliable. If you are around shooters much, at some point you are likely to hear an exchange like this:
"How does it shoot?"
"Better than I do."
It is true, especially in self-defense situations, that accuracy is relative, whereas reliability is absolute. Having a gun that fails to function could be worse than having no gun at all.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Food Inflation
Here is the BLS (possible just BS) Consumer Price Index Summary. Now everyone is supposed to look at the "seasonal adjustments", but I suggest looking at the unadjusted 12 months because, obviously, December falls in roughly the same season every year -- you know, so far.
Thus, it makes sense to me that if your at-home food costs are 4.7 percent higher this past December than they were in December 2010, you have experienced nearly a five percent rise in the cost of eating a hamburger off your grill.
Also noteworthy is the fact that gasoline was just about 10 percent (9.9) higher in December 2011 than in December 2010.
This is not a sign of hyperinflation. This is a sign of decreasing margins and increasing wholesale and material costs to producers. Wages are not going up, but used car prices rose more than new car prices. I wonder why that is? And fuel oil, if you happen to need to heat your house with that, better invest in cheap Chinese Carteresque sweaters -- 18%. Ouch.
But when the FOMC met this week their statement was that prices are "stable". And I'll admit, you can find a lot of horse $h!t in a stable. So there's that. Yes, if you don't count anything you actually need to buy, and you are willing to let the maroons at Labor Statistics run your numbers through their magic calculating engine then everything is beautiful.
The euro is back up against the dollar because both Bernanke and the ECB are committed to funding government debt right up until the very bitter end. Something could happen. We could get hit by a comet. We could be invaded by space aliens (Newt's moon base wouldn't sound so crazy then, would it?). Somebody could get cold fusion to work. We could figure out a way to put one-atom thick graphene vacuum tanks in airplanes so they would have more lift and use less fuel. An huge solar flare could wipe out all the electronic records and reset all the government debts to zero.
Barring one of those events or the election of Ron Paul as president and a Libertarian sweep of the House, the probability of which is slightly lower than the alien invasion, we are in for a long, strange and possibly harrowing trip.
Thus, it makes sense to me that if your at-home food costs are 4.7 percent higher this past December than they were in December 2010, you have experienced nearly a five percent rise in the cost of eating a hamburger off your grill.
Also noteworthy is the fact that gasoline was just about 10 percent (9.9) higher in December 2011 than in December 2010.
This is not a sign of hyperinflation. This is a sign of decreasing margins and increasing wholesale and material costs to producers. Wages are not going up, but used car prices rose more than new car prices. I wonder why that is? And fuel oil, if you happen to need to heat your house with that, better invest in cheap Chinese Carteresque sweaters -- 18%. Ouch.
But when the FOMC met this week their statement was that prices are "stable". And I'll admit, you can find a lot of horse $h!t in a stable. So there's that. Yes, if you don't count anything you actually need to buy, and you are willing to let the maroons at Labor Statistics run your numbers through their magic calculating engine then everything is beautiful.
The euro is back up against the dollar because both Bernanke and the ECB are committed to funding government debt right up until the very bitter end. Something could happen. We could get hit by a comet. We could be invaded by space aliens (Newt's moon base wouldn't sound so crazy then, would it?). Somebody could get cold fusion to work. We could figure out a way to put one-atom thick graphene vacuum tanks in airplanes so they would have more lift and use less fuel. An huge solar flare could wipe out all the electronic records and reset all the government debts to zero.
Barring one of those events or the election of Ron Paul as president and a Libertarian sweep of the House, the probability of which is slightly lower than the alien invasion, we are in for a long, strange and possibly harrowing trip.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Christian Libertarians
Once again I refer to Denninger, not because I necessarily like the guy or come anywhere close to agreeing with him on everything, but because he is fairly articulate and lays things out for everyone to read for themselves.
I describe myself as a Christian libertarian. I have no desire to tell other people what to do. It's just something lacking in my make-up. I have been a supervisor. I have been a director. I don't like it. I just like to have a job, do it, do it well, and do my best to help other people do theirs. There's nothing wrong with people who like to give orders. For some folks, that's about all they are good at. Somebody has to say, We need to get this done rather than that. Fine. My wife is like that. All theKrauts German Catholics in her family are like that. You have to know when to listen and when to go ahead and do what needs to be done -- because they have no idea.
A Christian libertarian believes that the first person you need to fix -- actually the only person you need to fix is yourself, which, happily, coincides with the immutable fact that you are the only person you can fix. I want to be a good example to others. I want to be a conduit of the love of God to others. I want to do that voluntarily out of a heart intent on serving God.
To be forced to do the right thing takes all of the virtue out of it.
When we incarcerate criminals we are not necessarily forcing them to do the right thing, but we are preventing them from do wrong things, from taking away the property, life, or rights of others. These are the only things that should be crimes. If you want to offer rehabilitation for drug users, they might take advantage of it. If drug users commit property crimes, assaults, or other crimes because of their drug use, they should be locked up because of theft, driving under the influence, rape, or whatever -- not because they used drugs. The system should not care why they broke the law, only that they did.
Families, churches, and communities are responsible for teaching young people the difference between right and wrong -- not the government. Some communities and some families are going to be more tolerant of some things; others will be less tolerant. The Constitution does not call for equal community standards but for equal treatment under the law. If the inculcated standards result in a person thinking that illegal activities are acceptable, they still get the same penalty as the person held to higher standards.
But this also points to a problem I have mentioned before. What is legal should align with what is right in a general sense. Murder is wrong; therefore, murder is illegal. Theft is wrong; therefore, theft should be illegal. But not everything that is wrong should be illegal. Everybody has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I would add to enjoy one's property as the person sees fit so long as it does no harm to another. No one has a right to happiness. No one has a right to a job. No one has a right to not be offended. No one has a right to feel good about themselves. No one has a right to not have their feeling hurt, to be called names, to be ridiculed. These things might be wrong, but they should not be illegal.
Also, no one except me has a right to my property or to dictate to me what I can have or how much I can have.
I am a libertarian because it seems obvious to me that the best safeguard against ridiculously restrictive laws is to rein in the federal government, to limit its power over the states, to restrict its reach to actual interstate commerce rather than potential commerce, and to permit the states, counties and municipalities to make their own decisions on what they are going to allow in their communities. Thus drug use and drug trafficking could be controlled by states. Abortion should be a decision left to states and communities. Voting requirements, public school standards, firearms laws, etc. should all be left to the state, county or city so long as such requirements do not infringe on the limits given in the Constitution.
Again, to me, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" severely limits a municipality's ability to restrict firearms ownership, but it might not prevent a city from outlawing concealed carry. Similarly the First Amendment covers primarily political and religious speech, but not obscenity, though that has obviously been turned on its head.
I am a Christian because I desire to live a holy life that is pleasing to God. My job as a Christian is to make disciples. If we Christians did a better job of that, vices and vulgarity would be a lot less prevalent in society. We are offering individuals the opportunity to reject conformity to the world's standards and be transformed into new creatures in Christ. I don't see laws against various bad habits and self-destructive behaviors as being particularly helpful to that transformation.
All I ask is the chance to live my life with the least possible interference from governments at all levels. I want to be dependent on God, my family, and my brothers and sisters in Christ. I want to be a good example to my children and grandchildren, to uphold biblical values, to support my church, my country and my community where I can. I want to work to provide for myself and to have something to help out those in need -- on my own without a government mandate, without having a police state force me to be "charitable" at gunpoint.
Finally, I don't agree with Heinlein's materialistic philosophy, but I wholeheartedly agree that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It may seem contradictory, but if I were to raise my banners, at the top of the pole would be the Christian flag with the emblem of the Cross declaring life, love, and hope for all. Below that, though, would be the "Don't Tread on Me" banner with its rattler, and last would fly "TANSTAAFL", because I am a Christian libertarian.
I describe myself as a Christian libertarian. I have no desire to tell other people what to do. It's just something lacking in my make-up. I have been a supervisor. I have been a director. I don't like it. I just like to have a job, do it, do it well, and do my best to help other people do theirs. There's nothing wrong with people who like to give orders. For some folks, that's about all they are good at. Somebody has to say, We need to get this done rather than that. Fine. My wife is like that. All the
A Christian libertarian believes that the first person you need to fix -- actually the only person you need to fix is yourself, which, happily, coincides with the immutable fact that you are the only person you can fix. I want to be a good example to others. I want to be a conduit of the love of God to others. I want to do that voluntarily out of a heart intent on serving God.
To be forced to do the right thing takes all of the virtue out of it.
When we incarcerate criminals we are not necessarily forcing them to do the right thing, but we are preventing them from do wrong things, from taking away the property, life, or rights of others. These are the only things that should be crimes. If you want to offer rehabilitation for drug users, they might take advantage of it. If drug users commit property crimes, assaults, or other crimes because of their drug use, they should be locked up because of theft, driving under the influence, rape, or whatever -- not because they used drugs. The system should not care why they broke the law, only that they did.
Families, churches, and communities are responsible for teaching young people the difference between right and wrong -- not the government. Some communities and some families are going to be more tolerant of some things; others will be less tolerant. The Constitution does not call for equal community standards but for equal treatment under the law. If the inculcated standards result in a person thinking that illegal activities are acceptable, they still get the same penalty as the person held to higher standards.
But this also points to a problem I have mentioned before. What is legal should align with what is right in a general sense. Murder is wrong; therefore, murder is illegal. Theft is wrong; therefore, theft should be illegal. But not everything that is wrong should be illegal. Everybody has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I would add to enjoy one's property as the person sees fit so long as it does no harm to another. No one has a right to happiness. No one has a right to a job. No one has a right to not be offended. No one has a right to feel good about themselves. No one has a right to not have their feeling hurt, to be called names, to be ridiculed. These things might be wrong, but they should not be illegal.
Also, no one except me has a right to my property or to dictate to me what I can have or how much I can have.
I am a libertarian because it seems obvious to me that the best safeguard against ridiculously restrictive laws is to rein in the federal government, to limit its power over the states, to restrict its reach to actual interstate commerce rather than potential commerce, and to permit the states, counties and municipalities to make their own decisions on what they are going to allow in their communities. Thus drug use and drug trafficking could be controlled by states. Abortion should be a decision left to states and communities. Voting requirements, public school standards, firearms laws, etc. should all be left to the state, county or city so long as such requirements do not infringe on the limits given in the Constitution.
Again, to me, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" severely limits a municipality's ability to restrict firearms ownership, but it might not prevent a city from outlawing concealed carry. Similarly the First Amendment covers primarily political and religious speech, but not obscenity, though that has obviously been turned on its head.
I am a Christian because I desire to live a holy life that is pleasing to God. My job as a Christian is to make disciples. If we Christians did a better job of that, vices and vulgarity would be a lot less prevalent in society. We are offering individuals the opportunity to reject conformity to the world's standards and be transformed into new creatures in Christ. I don't see laws against various bad habits and self-destructive behaviors as being particularly helpful to that transformation.
All I ask is the chance to live my life with the least possible interference from governments at all levels. I want to be dependent on God, my family, and my brothers and sisters in Christ. I want to be a good example to my children and grandchildren, to uphold biblical values, to support my church, my country and my community where I can. I want to work to provide for myself and to have something to help out those in need -- on my own without a government mandate, without having a police state force me to be "charitable" at gunpoint.
Finally, I don't agree with Heinlein's materialistic philosophy, but I wholeheartedly agree that There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It may seem contradictory, but if I were to raise my banners, at the top of the pole would be the Christian flag with the emblem of the Cross declaring life, love, and hope for all. Below that, though, would be the "Don't Tread on Me" banner with its rattler, and last would fly "TANSTAAFL", because I am a Christian libertarian.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
U.S. Money Supply and Inflation
Simit Patel at Seeking Alpha talks about the apparent increase in the U.S. money supply.
His take is that an inflationary money supply coupled with geopolitical pressures against the dollar will keep gold above $1520 and oil above $90, with strong upsides for commodities in general. Another sensible point he makes is that the pain of deflation will not be allowed in an election year. I think that is the way the Fed and the federal government probably look at it that way.
For those of us out here in flyover territory, inflation is painful. But we are not the financiers pumping money into campaigns and smoking cigars with Bernanke so we really don't count. With unemployment remaining high, we can probably avoid the worst of inflation for perhaps another year. That's what the Fed is counting on. If oil goes to $145 or higher as Patel speculates, though, there appears to be no room left in the margins and retail prices are going to catch fire.
It's all speculation, but it's a good reminder to keep the stockpile of necessities at the max.
His take is that an inflationary money supply coupled with geopolitical pressures against the dollar will keep gold above $1520 and oil above $90, with strong upsides for commodities in general. Another sensible point he makes is that the pain of deflation will not be allowed in an election year. I think that is the way the Fed and the federal government probably look at it that way.
For those of us out here in flyover territory, inflation is painful. But we are not the financiers pumping money into campaigns and smoking cigars with Bernanke so we really don't count. With unemployment remaining high, we can probably avoid the worst of inflation for perhaps another year. That's what the Fed is counting on. If oil goes to $145 or higher as Patel speculates, though, there appears to be no room left in the margins and retail prices are going to catch fire.
It's all speculation, but it's a good reminder to keep the stockpile of necessities at the max.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Missouri Politics: Jim Talent Versus Newt Gingrich
Today I had to go to the doctor to have a finger looked at. No. Not that finger. Driving in I had Hannity on in the truck, and he was talking about the anger in the Republican campaign. Seeing as how, at this point, I'm pretty excited about Nobody, it was mainly background noise while I was thinking about driving and other real world problems. Then he played a clip of Jim Talent from an anti-Gingrich commercial. For those of you not from Misery, Talent was a Congressman from somewhere around St. Louis County, as best I recall, back in the 1990s and subsequently lost a run for MO governor in 2000 to the most wildly incompetent, inept, ineffectual little dweeb to poop in the Mansion during my lifetime. PeeWee Holden may not have been as utterly corrupt as Warren Hearnes, but he was even more worthless. And he still beat Jim Talent.
The first time I saw Talent was at an airport campaign rally where I had gone to see the guy I had voted for when he first ran for governor of Texas a few years before. I think his name was Bush. John Ashcroft was there as well. Ashcroft is a fine Christian man, but he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and Jim Talent made Ashcroft and W. look like the intellectual heavy-weights. I assumed Talent was just having a bad day. I blamed his loss to Holden on the death of Mel Carnahan whose son didn't believe his instruments and flew his plane into the ground shortly before election day.
The despicable Carnahan family, Holden, Roger Wilson, and the state's broadcast media turned the deceased governor's funeral into a massive campaign rally that preempted regular programming. They were shouting stuff like "Mel's in hell and the fire still burns." OK, I admit I added the "Mel's in hell" part. But it was totally disgusting.
In violation of anything like decency or even law, the lieutenant-governor at the time, Roger Wilson, vowed to appoint Mel's wife to serve in the Senate if the dead man got more votes than incumbent Senator John Ashcroft. John, meanwhile, had made the somewhat understandable error of suspending his campaign after Mel's crash out of respect for the family. Silly him. Anyway, the huge, free, emotionally-charged campaign rally/funeral pushed the dead man ahead of Ashcroft and also swung sentiment to Holden, who had appeared on the platform with the surviving despicable Carnahans, and both Talent and Ashcroft lost their elections.
In 2002, Mel's wife, now Senator Carnahan — I've called her the Widder so much that I can't remember her given name, and I could care less — had to defend her seat in a special election. By this time, people had gotten over the emotional shock and realized they had elected a corpse to the Senate. Talent ran a reasonable campaign against the Widder and won in a post-9/11 Republican year. However, in 2006, Talent had to defend his seat against Ma Hogg, aka Claire McCaskill, Nursing Home Mogul. McCaskill was a very poor candidate, but it was a Democrat year. I still have to think that almost anybody but Talent would have beaten her. He ran the stupidest campaign imaginable, sounding like he was running for Student Body President at a West County high school in their debates and making an unresearched allegation that came back to kick his rear. He also failed to counter the heavy money from some Democrat "shooting sports" PAC that made McCaskill more acceptable to a lot of us "bitter clingers" down here in the Ozarks where Republicans MUST win overwhelmingly to carry the state. St. Louis County is not going to pull a Republican across the finish line. You need a strong vote from the hillbillies. Talent failed to fire us up.
Yes, I voted for the dufuss, but then I voted for Richard Nixon as an 18-year-old because, when you come right down to it, I basically just find Democrats sort of reptilian.
That's kind of a long way around to cross the creek, but here we are at last.
Talent is doing a SuperPac spot for somebody, probably Romney, nastily criticizing Gingrich for his time as Speaker, when, according to Talent, Gingrich would say outrageous things on a regular basis and make it impossible for the House members to get anything done. Really, Senator? Like Welfare Reform? Like balancing the budget? That's the stuff you couldn't get done under Speaker Gingrich? Talent also says something to the effect that the Republicans "forced" Newt to give up his position as Speaker. That's funny because I always thought it was Newt's adulterous affair with Callista during the Clinton impeachment that bit him in the butt and forced him out. But I'll give Talent the benefit of the doubt on that one. I suppose the Senator thinks that Dennis Hastert was an improvement over Newt? Does anybody think that Speaker Hastert is going to be considered a great Speaker of the House by historians? He won't even merit a footnote except as the loser that spent the surplus and blew things up between Newt and Nancy and started the snowball of debt rolling again. But Talent apparently considers that a plus since he did little or nothing to hold the line against excess spending during his shortened tenure in the Senate.
Jim Talent, I used to say, is a really nice guy who just should never have run for a statewide office. Well, Mr. Talent proved me wrong. He is not a nice guy. He appears, at best, to be a traitor with no principles who is for sale to the highest bidder for any necessary hatchet work. He has no qualms about back-stabbing the man who broke the Democrats' forty year stranglehold on the House.
Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed person. He proved faithless to two wives. I have no respect for that kind of attitude. You take your cards, and you play them. You make a vow, and you keep it. I think he is sleazy, and I probably won't vote for him in the primary. At least, I hadn't planned to, but now I might. What Jim Talent calls Gingrich's "outrageous" comments are what make Gingrich a viable candidate. Newt knows how to reframe the argument, to wrest definitions away from the leftist, statist media and communicate the truth to the country at large. He is warped but very intelligent. Jim Talent is not very bright. Talent lacks any ability whatsoever to think outside the box or to question the left's definitions and force them out of their verbal camouflage. Not only does he lack such ability, he even lacks the ability to recognize when someone else is able to do it. I'm not sure what that makes Jim Talent except for being pretty much the opposite of Newt Gingrich.
I am sure, despite his traitorous ad, Jim Talent is still a less sleazy man than Newt. He is probably a much better husband, possibly a better Christian than Gingrich. Nevertheless, Jim Talent has no business criticizing Gingrich for a utilizing an ability that Talent is incapable, so it seems, of even comprehending.
Senator Talent, if you should happen to read this, for your own good, please shut up. An intellectual cage match with Speaker Gingrich is not going to turn out well for you.
The first time I saw Talent was at an airport campaign rally where I had gone to see the guy I had voted for when he first ran for governor of Texas a few years before. I think his name was Bush. John Ashcroft was there as well. Ashcroft is a fine Christian man, but he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and Jim Talent made Ashcroft and W. look like the intellectual heavy-weights. I assumed Talent was just having a bad day. I blamed his loss to Holden on the death of Mel Carnahan whose son didn't believe his instruments and flew his plane into the ground shortly before election day.
The despicable Carnahan family, Holden, Roger Wilson, and the state's broadcast media turned the deceased governor's funeral into a massive campaign rally that preempted regular programming. They were shouting stuff like "Mel's in hell and the fire still burns." OK, I admit I added the "Mel's in hell" part. But it was totally disgusting.
In violation of anything like decency or even law, the lieutenant-governor at the time, Roger Wilson, vowed to appoint Mel's wife to serve in the Senate if the dead man got more votes than incumbent Senator John Ashcroft. John, meanwhile, had made the somewhat understandable error of suspending his campaign after Mel's crash out of respect for the family. Silly him. Anyway, the huge, free, emotionally-charged campaign rally/funeral pushed the dead man ahead of Ashcroft and also swung sentiment to Holden, who had appeared on the platform with the surviving despicable Carnahans, and both Talent and Ashcroft lost their elections.
In 2002, Mel's wife, now Senator Carnahan — I've called her the Widder so much that I can't remember her given name, and I could care less — had to defend her seat in a special election. By this time, people had gotten over the emotional shock and realized they had elected a corpse to the Senate. Talent ran a reasonable campaign against the Widder and won in a post-9/11 Republican year. However, in 2006, Talent had to defend his seat against Ma Hogg, aka Claire McCaskill, Nursing Home Mogul. McCaskill was a very poor candidate, but it was a Democrat year. I still have to think that almost anybody but Talent would have beaten her. He ran the stupidest campaign imaginable, sounding like he was running for Student Body President at a West County high school in their debates and making an unresearched allegation that came back to kick his rear. He also failed to counter the heavy money from some Democrat "shooting sports" PAC that made McCaskill more acceptable to a lot of us "bitter clingers" down here in the Ozarks where Republicans MUST win overwhelmingly to carry the state. St. Louis County is not going to pull a Republican across the finish line. You need a strong vote from the hillbillies. Talent failed to fire us up.
Yes, I voted for the dufuss, but then I voted for Richard Nixon as an 18-year-old because, when you come right down to it, I basically just find Democrats sort of reptilian.
That's kind of a long way around to cross the creek, but here we are at last.
Talent is doing a SuperPac spot for somebody, probably Romney, nastily criticizing Gingrich for his time as Speaker, when, according to Talent, Gingrich would say outrageous things on a regular basis and make it impossible for the House members to get anything done. Really, Senator? Like Welfare Reform? Like balancing the budget? That's the stuff you couldn't get done under Speaker Gingrich? Talent also says something to the effect that the Republicans "forced" Newt to give up his position as Speaker. That's funny because I always thought it was Newt's adulterous affair with Callista during the Clinton impeachment that bit him in the butt and forced him out. But I'll give Talent the benefit of the doubt on that one. I suppose the Senator thinks that Dennis Hastert was an improvement over Newt? Does anybody think that Speaker Hastert is going to be considered a great Speaker of the House by historians? He won't even merit a footnote except as the loser that spent the surplus and blew things up between Newt and Nancy and started the snowball of debt rolling again. But Talent apparently considers that a plus since he did little or nothing to hold the line against excess spending during his shortened tenure in the Senate.
Jim Talent, I used to say, is a really nice guy who just should never have run for a statewide office. Well, Mr. Talent proved me wrong. He is not a nice guy. He appears, at best, to be a traitor with no principles who is for sale to the highest bidder for any necessary hatchet work. He has no qualms about back-stabbing the man who broke the Democrats' forty year stranglehold on the House.
Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed person. He proved faithless to two wives. I have no respect for that kind of attitude. You take your cards, and you play them. You make a vow, and you keep it. I think he is sleazy, and I probably won't vote for him in the primary. At least, I hadn't planned to, but now I might. What Jim Talent calls Gingrich's "outrageous" comments are what make Gingrich a viable candidate. Newt knows how to reframe the argument, to wrest definitions away from the leftist, statist media and communicate the truth to the country at large. He is warped but very intelligent. Jim Talent is not very bright. Talent lacks any ability whatsoever to think outside the box or to question the left's definitions and force them out of their verbal camouflage. Not only does he lack such ability, he even lacks the ability to recognize when someone else is able to do it. I'm not sure what that makes Jim Talent except for being pretty much the opposite of Newt Gingrich.
I am sure, despite his traitorous ad, Jim Talent is still a less sleazy man than Newt. He is probably a much better husband, possibly a better Christian than Gingrich. Nevertheless, Jim Talent has no business criticizing Gingrich for a utilizing an ability that Talent is incapable, so it seems, of even comprehending.
Senator Talent, if you should happen to read this, for your own good, please shut up. An intellectual cage match with Speaker Gingrich is not going to turn out well for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)