President Obama and his Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, are both committed to the idea of expanding the charter school movement. Both have been involved in the success of this movement in providing under-privileged kids in Chicago with educational options.
The really interesting question is, now that he is President, what will Obama do about the tension between the teachers unions and the overall idea behind school choice. One reason (there are many) that the charter school movement emerged was the perceived need to develop new schools that were free to operate more like private businesses than public institutions. In some states, the teachers unions are doing everything they can to undercut the charter movement (by ensuring a limited number of charters and squeezing public funding sources) because it is a very real threat to them.
This is a political nightmare for President Obama. His convictions, and his background as a community organizer, have made him a believer in the charter movement. His politics point in the other direction. He owes the unions big time. Now they want their bill paid. And, the charter school movement is standing exactly in their cross-hairs.
It will certainly be interesting to see what the President does now.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Presidential Indecision
President Obama seems to be having a hard time deciding what to do about the whole issue of interrogation methods, who authorized them under the Bush Administration and what, if anything, to do about the legal consequences of those decisions. Initially, that is to say, when he first took office three months ago, the President's instincts were that we should not be prosecuting public officials of previous administrations for decisions on these matters.
The President came out early against prosecutions. His Attorney-General, Eric Holder, also came out a few weeks ago against the idea of prosecuting Bush era officials. The reasoning behind both of those positions was clear. There were national security issues to consider (i.e. it will be harmful to release certain documents that reveal sources, methods, etc...) and, although it may "feel good" to punish those that made policy in the last administration, it may actually undercut our security to do so. Competing interests.
There was also the general notion that it is a bad idea for newly installed public officials to prosecute public officials of previous administrations for making decisions during the heat of the battle, when that battle involves keeping America safe from terrorism. And, when it is altogether unclear at the time the decisions must be made what exactly is the nature of the threat. As long as those public officials are making decisions in good faith and without malice, the thought goes, who are we, years later, to second guess their decision making.
This is a complex area, but in a nutshell, prosecuting public officials later for decisions made under stressful circumstances in a period of national insecurity, will do nothing but drive good people away from the idea of serving in Government. And, possibly punish the very people who may have been instrumental in keeping us safe for the past seven years.
So . . . taking this all into consideration . . . the President must have gotten an earful from the part of his constituency which is more concerned with, and focused on, hanging some scalps on the wall. Because Obama has suddenly decided that, now, the question of prosecutions is an open book. He quickly corrected himself the next day by saying that what he meant to say was that it was up to the Attorney-General to decide if prosecutions are merited. Don't be surprised to see another few statements from the President on this matter.
He can not decide what to do. His instincts, which guided his initial stance on this issue, tell him one thing. His consituency on the left tells him quite another. Since he has already let down this constituency, big time, with his decisions to send more troops to Afghanistan and to let the military advise him on the best way to extricate us from Iraq, rather than pretending that he knows more than the professionals on these matters. The left, which got him to the White House, is pissed. And, he's feeling the heat.
This is the only explanation behind his waffling.
The President came out early against prosecutions. His Attorney-General, Eric Holder, also came out a few weeks ago against the idea of prosecuting Bush era officials. The reasoning behind both of those positions was clear. There were national security issues to consider (i.e. it will be harmful to release certain documents that reveal sources, methods, etc...) and, although it may "feel good" to punish those that made policy in the last administration, it may actually undercut our security to do so. Competing interests.
There was also the general notion that it is a bad idea for newly installed public officials to prosecute public officials of previous administrations for making decisions during the heat of the battle, when that battle involves keeping America safe from terrorism. And, when it is altogether unclear at the time the decisions must be made what exactly is the nature of the threat. As long as those public officials are making decisions in good faith and without malice, the thought goes, who are we, years later, to second guess their decision making.
This is a complex area, but in a nutshell, prosecuting public officials later for decisions made under stressful circumstances in a period of national insecurity, will do nothing but drive good people away from the idea of serving in Government. And, possibly punish the very people who may have been instrumental in keeping us safe for the past seven years.
So . . . taking this all into consideration . . . the President must have gotten an earful from the part of his constituency which is more concerned with, and focused on, hanging some scalps on the wall. Because Obama has suddenly decided that, now, the question of prosecutions is an open book. He quickly corrected himself the next day by saying that what he meant to say was that it was up to the Attorney-General to decide if prosecutions are merited. Don't be surprised to see another few statements from the President on this matter.
He can not decide what to do. His instincts, which guided his initial stance on this issue, tell him one thing. His consituency on the left tells him quite another. Since he has already let down this constituency, big time, with his decisions to send more troops to Afghanistan and to let the military advise him on the best way to extricate us from Iraq, rather than pretending that he knows more than the professionals on these matters. The left, which got him to the White House, is pissed. And, he's feeling the heat.
This is the only explanation behind his waffling.
More on Obama's Cost Cutting . . . and His Naivete
It is more than a little naive for our President to think that anyone would be impressed by the dictate to his Cabinent to cut out 0.0025% of the federal budget, which is what he did when he told them to cut $100 Million in spending. Did he somehow have the notion that he would receive praise for this? Does President Obama think that this figure, because it is on any objective scale, a lot of money, is meaningful to the federal government, in light of how much of your money they spend each year?
Let's put this figure into perspective. If your household income is $100,000, then your efforts to save 0.0025% would mean you would need to somehow, some way, scrimp and scrounge to find a way to trim . . . $2.50 from your spending. Do you think you could do that? Well, that's what President Obama has told his Cabinet to do.
And, in recognition of how difficult this is going to be, he gave them 90 DAYS TO FIGURE IT OUT!!! How about, "Get back to me by lunchtime, and get used to this because your budgets are going to be under close, close scrutiny."
Instead, his move sends exactly the wrong message, and it illustrates just how inexperienced and naive President Obama is. He has signalled to his Cabinet that he is not serious about cost cutting. That this is all a big charade to fool the taxpayers. This tells us that all he really wants to do is appear to be cost cutting, but that he doesn't actually want to cut anything meaningful.
All his campaign rhetoric about how there would be a new sheriff in town when it comes to spending, and how he is going to cut wasteful spending. Remember the figures he was talking about on the campaign trail, and in the debates? With all his cost cutting talk in the debates, he made John McCain look like a spendthrift, when that guy had the real credentials of standing up to government waste. Now, he is in office and this is what we get.
I think what this tells us is that President Obama is finding out that it is a lot harder to govern than to run for office. His big problem is going to be living up to the expectations his campaign rhetoric created. When people begin to understand that he didn't mean half of what he said . . . things will turn quickly.
The President has another, more serious, problem looming. The Democratic Congress is out of control. They are relishing their newfound power and they are locking out opposing viewpoints from determing public policy. This is a mistake of epic proportions. And, it will come back to haunt them in two ways. First, it will alienate the President, who is not really an idealogue. Unlike Pelosi, Durbin, Waxman and Reid, the President is not interested in fighting last decade's battle.
The second, more serious problem for Congress, is that with each move, they are creating a new constituency for the Republicans. In poker, this is called "over playing their hand", which can sometimes win in poker, but in politics, it is fatal. If they keep this up, it is only a matter of time (2010, 2012, 2014) before they lose their majority in one house. The reason is that the American People are not an idealogical People. We are pragmatists.
That's it for today . . .
Let's put this figure into perspective. If your household income is $100,000, then your efforts to save 0.0025% would mean you would need to somehow, some way, scrimp and scrounge to find a way to trim . . . $2.50 from your spending. Do you think you could do that? Well, that's what President Obama has told his Cabinet to do.
And, in recognition of how difficult this is going to be, he gave them 90 DAYS TO FIGURE IT OUT!!! How about, "Get back to me by lunchtime, and get used to this because your budgets are going to be under close, close scrutiny."
Instead, his move sends exactly the wrong message, and it illustrates just how inexperienced and naive President Obama is. He has signalled to his Cabinet that he is not serious about cost cutting. That this is all a big charade to fool the taxpayers. This tells us that all he really wants to do is appear to be cost cutting, but that he doesn't actually want to cut anything meaningful.
All his campaign rhetoric about how there would be a new sheriff in town when it comes to spending, and how he is going to cut wasteful spending. Remember the figures he was talking about on the campaign trail, and in the debates? With all his cost cutting talk in the debates, he made John McCain look like a spendthrift, when that guy had the real credentials of standing up to government waste. Now, he is in office and this is what we get.
I think what this tells us is that President Obama is finding out that it is a lot harder to govern than to run for office. His big problem is going to be living up to the expectations his campaign rhetoric created. When people begin to understand that he didn't mean half of what he said . . . things will turn quickly.
The President has another, more serious, problem looming. The Democratic Congress is out of control. They are relishing their newfound power and they are locking out opposing viewpoints from determing public policy. This is a mistake of epic proportions. And, it will come back to haunt them in two ways. First, it will alienate the President, who is not really an idealogue. Unlike Pelosi, Durbin, Waxman and Reid, the President is not interested in fighting last decade's battle.
The second, more serious problem for Congress, is that with each move, they are creating a new constituency for the Republicans. In poker, this is called "over playing their hand", which can sometimes win in poker, but in politics, it is fatal. If they keep this up, it is only a matter of time (2010, 2012, 2014) before they lose their majority in one house. The reason is that the American People are not an idealogical People. We are pragmatists.
That's it for today . . .
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Painful Cuts Ahead . . . ?
This week, in a sign of his seriousness about reducing federal government spending, President Obama instructed his cabinet to reach deep and look for ways, if possible, to cut out $100 million in spending. The President fully understands the difficulty of reducing spending by 0.0025%, but he will not be deterred. He knows full well that the American People's want responsible government.
Say what you will about this move, but it is clear where the President stands on fiscal responsibility from this public announcement.
Say what you will about this move, but it is clear where the President stands on fiscal responsibility from this public announcement.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose . . .
The Editors of the WSJ agreed today ("The Goldman Two Step", pg A14) that Goldman should not be allowed to payback the TARP money right now. There appears to be a growing consensus on this issue. And, it all seems to revolve around the essential problem that Goldman has been deemed "too big to fail", therefore we must bail out counter-parties of Goldman, and provide cheap bank financing, and an implied backstop for them.
BUT . . . they get to continue to trade on their "own" account (with your money) and they get to pay themselves however they want (last year $4.7 BILLION - over 950 Goldmanites were paid over $1 MILLION in 2008, the year of the financial meltdown).
Now, THAT is a pretty sweet deal. Even a child understands that "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" is a bad deal. Do you think Congress will figure it out?
BUT . . . they get to continue to trade on their "own" account (with your money) and they get to pay themselves however they want (last year $4.7 BILLION - over 950 Goldmanites were paid over $1 MILLION in 2008, the year of the financial meltdown).
Now, THAT is a pretty sweet deal. Even a child understands that "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" is a bad deal. Do you think Congress will figure it out?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tell Goldman to Stuff It
If we had an independent Treasury Secretary (by that, I mean one not in bed with the leaders of the industry he is tasked with overseeing), he would have called up Lloyd Blankfein and told him to shelve his plan to pay back the TARP funds. Something along the lines of this:
TG: "Uh, Mr. Blankfein, sir, I need to talk to you about something, sir . . . "
LB: "Yes, Timmy, what is it now?"
TG: "Well, Mr. Blankfein, you see, these plans you have to sell some stock and pay back the TARP funds so you don't have to operate with Government oversight . . . we, uh, don't think that's such a great idea right now."
LB: < Silence >
TG: "I know you are upset, Mr. Blankfein, but you see, there are some people who kind of want to sort things out before we start letting Goldman, and others, off the hook and allowing them to operate without Treasury oversight."
LB: < Silence, followed by a low growling noise >
TG: "You see, some people are asking questions about the $13 BILLION in bets with AIG that Goldman made and that Treasury's bailout of AIG made good, at 100 cents on the dollar."
TG: "Some folks in Congress want more information about that, and other bets that Goldman made, where Goldman was made whole by the bailouts. You see, there are some people who feel, and I'm not saying I'm one of them, Mr. Blankfein, sir, but some people kind of, sort of, a little bit, feel that Goldman may have . . . gamed the U.S. Treasury a bit in all this and, you see, Mr. Blankfein, sir, they, that is to say, these other people - not me - want to hold hearings on this and dig a little deeper into how this all transpired. There are even some people who are asking questions about the < GULP > compensation scheme at Goldman."
LB: "WHAT THE F*!@ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TIM? The compensation system at Goldman is a sacred cow, not to be touched. We are worth every penny we are paid over here at Goldman Sachs."
TG: "Yes, Mr. Blankfein, I understand that. But, you see, the U.S. Taxpayer has, in effect, paid your bonuses this year, because of the way they made whole your bets with AIG, and others, and did not force Goldman to take a haircut on some of those bets that Goldman made with a firm that was ultimately not capable of making good on them. So, I am afraid, you will have to hold off on paying the TARP funds back just yet. Sorry."
LB: < GRRRRRRRR . . . . CLICK!>
TG: "Uh, Mr. Blankfein, sir, I need to talk to you about something, sir . . . "
LB: "Yes, Timmy, what is it now?"
TG: "Well, Mr. Blankfein, you see, these plans you have to sell some stock and pay back the TARP funds so you don't have to operate with Government oversight . . . we, uh, don't think that's such a great idea right now."
LB: < Silence >
TG:
LB: < Silence, followed by a low growling noise >
TG: "You see, some people are asking questions about the $13 BILLION in bets with AIG that Goldman made and that Treasury's bailout of AIG made good, at 100 cents on the dollar."
TG: "Some folks in Congress want more information about that, and other bets that Goldman made, where Goldman was made whole by the bailouts. You see, there are some people who feel, and I'm not saying I'm one of them, Mr. Blankfein, sir, but some people kind of, sort of, a little bit, feel that Goldman may have . . . gamed the U.S. Treasury a bit in all this and, you see, Mr. Blankfein, sir, they, that is to say, these other people - not me - want to hold hearings on this and dig a little deeper into how this all transpired. There are even some people who are asking questions about the < GULP > compensation scheme at Goldman."
LB: "WHAT THE F*!@ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT TIM? The compensation system at Goldman is a sacred cow, not to be touched. We are worth every penny we are paid over here at Goldman Sachs."
TG: "Yes, Mr. Blankfein, I understand that. But, you see, the U.S. Taxpayer has, in effect, paid your bonuses this year, because of the way they made whole your bets with AIG, and others, and did not force Goldman to take a haircut on some of those bets that Goldman made with a firm that was ultimately not capable of making good on them. So, I am afraid, you will have to hold off on paying the TARP funds back just yet. Sorry."
LB: < GRRRRRRRR . . . . CLICK!>
Professor DeYoung Agrees With Me!
Click and paste below article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123966856055415377.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123966856055415377.html
Monday, April 13, 2009
AIG Bonus Fallout
AIG is 85% taxpayer-owned at this point in time. As such, we want to make sure it is successful. Mostly because if it fails, we have no shot at getting back any part of the $160 BILLION in bailouts . . . but also because as shareholders, we want the value of the company to grow. What is a company? It is people and products. In the case of AIG, the value of the company is pretty dependent on the people. It is a financial services company. So, we need the people to stay and we need to help them be successful.
So . . . recall back to the AIG Bonus Issue when certain commentators (who shall remain nameless, but who's initials closely match mine) said that we need to pay the good people to stay. Now, read this from today . . .
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The outcry over bonuses paid to executives of American International Group likely hurt taxpayers because the unwinding work of its financial products unit was set back by weeks, the unit's chief told The Wall Street Journal. In an interview in Monday's paper, Gerry Pasciucco said about 20 out of 370 staff left amid the controversy and remaining staff were so "stunned" that their work slowed down. The unit needs staff familiar with its portfolio to help maintain hedges on current trades, he said. Pasciucco added that the unit's trading partners were concerned about being dragged into the situation. Staff are worried that their pay could again come under political attack, said Pasciucco.
Remember, we own this company. Take out your anger on something else, people. We need them to be successful to get our money back.
Jim
So . . . recall back to the AIG Bonus Issue when certain commentators (who shall remain nameless, but who's initials closely match mine) said that we need to pay the good people to stay. Now, read this from today . . .
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The outcry over bonuses paid to executives of American International Group likely hurt taxpayers because the unwinding work of its financial products unit was set back by weeks, the unit's chief told The Wall Street Journal. In an interview in Monday's paper, Gerry Pasciucco said about 20 out of 370 staff left amid the controversy and remaining staff were so "stunned" that their work slowed down. The unit needs staff familiar with its portfolio to help maintain hedges on current trades, he said. Pasciucco added that the unit's trading partners were concerned about being dragged into the situation. Staff are worried that their pay could again come under political attack, said Pasciucco.
Remember, we own this company. Take out your anger on something else, people. We need them to be successful to get our money back.
Jim
Friday, April 10, 2009
Just Say No to Pirates . . . and Other Thoughts for the Day
1. Time to station a few U.S. warships off the coast of Somalia and put an end to the new era of piracy. This is ridiculous.
2. Iranians are kind of kooky. See below for a clip of a prominent Iranian college professor giving a lecture detailing his theory about the cartoon, Tom & Jerry, and how this cartoon is actually a Jewish conspiracy to control thought in Europe. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40VFcJTIduw
3. Leading (Government Controlled) Egyptian newspaper called Sheik Nasrallah of Hezbollah, a "Dracula". Say what you will about the evil Nasrallah, but I find it hard to believe he drinks people's blood. On the other hand, you haven't seen him in daylight in a very long time so maybe the Egyptians are onto something.
4. France is back in NATO. I feel safer already . . .
5. The World is starting to look less bleak. The financial chirping class want us to believe the hurricane has passed over us. If you ask me (which you didn't, I know), this is the calm in the eye of the hurricane and not the end of the storm. We are going to get whacked by high inflation due to fact that Government printing presses have been working overtime to get more dollars on the street. High inflation brings all sorts of new problems.
6. Goldman Sachs wants to sell stock so they can pay back their TARP money . . . and resume paying themselves greedily (to paraphrase their fearless leader, Lloyd Blankfein). Or, was Blankfein only talking about "other" people being greedy by taking humongous bonuses? Surely, he earned $68 MILLION in 2007 and $43 MILLION last year. He was worth it. But other people . . . they're driven by greed.
2. Iranians are kind of kooky. See below for a clip of a prominent Iranian college professor giving a lecture detailing his theory about the cartoon, Tom & Jerry, and how this cartoon is actually a Jewish conspiracy to control thought in Europe. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40VFcJTIduw
3. Leading (Government Controlled) Egyptian newspaper called Sheik Nasrallah of Hezbollah, a "Dracula". Say what you will about the evil Nasrallah, but I find it hard to believe he drinks people's blood. On the other hand, you haven't seen him in daylight in a very long time so maybe the Egyptians are onto something.
4. France is back in NATO. I feel safer already . . .
5. The World is starting to look less bleak. The financial chirping class want us to believe the hurricane has passed over us. If you ask me (which you didn't, I know), this is the calm in the eye of the hurricane and not the end of the storm. We are going to get whacked by high inflation due to fact that Government printing presses have been working overtime to get more dollars on the street. High inflation brings all sorts of new problems.
6. Goldman Sachs wants to sell stock so they can pay back their TARP money . . . and resume paying themselves greedily (to paraphrase their fearless leader, Lloyd Blankfein). Or, was Blankfein only talking about "other" people being greedy by taking humongous bonuses? Surely, he earned $68 MILLION in 2007 and $43 MILLION last year. He was worth it. But other people . . . they're driven by greed.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Letter from Senator Durbin
Dear Children:
In my infinite wisdom (because I am infinitely wise . . . and you are not), I am outraged at the high interest rates that those nasty currency exchanges charge you for payday loans. Outraged, I tell you!
So, I am going to fix this. I am going to propose a law that limits the interest rate those bad guys can charge you to . . . uh . . . 36 percent! Yes, I think that's the right number. 36%. Not too much to deplete your paycheck, but enough so that you will think twice about it and maybe save some money (like I told you to do when I gave you your allowance!)
Now, that should settle things. What? The currency exchange told you they would not lend at those rates because of the high loan delinquency rates? Well, I'll fix that! Now, I will propose legislation that if they want to make payday loans at all, then they must, by law, loan money at those rates. What? Currency exchanges are getting out of the payday loan market and now you have no place to turn for immediate cash?
Those nasty no-good currency exchange owners! Always working to undermine the working people (or is that me?) I can not believe in these trying times, they are unwilling to make loans at my federally mandated rates. My children, you are in no position to negotiate loans at your own rates without my infinite wisdom to help you. How could they think they can get away with that? I am at the moment thinking up some new legislation to fix this problem and I'll get right back to you.
In the meantime, cuddle up for some bedtime stories, brush your teeth and get ready for more fun because . . . Senator Dick knows what's best for you, kids.
All my best,
Dick
In my infinite wisdom (because I am infinitely wise . . . and you are not), I am outraged at the high interest rates that those nasty currency exchanges charge you for payday loans. Outraged, I tell you!
So, I am going to fix this. I am going to propose a law that limits the interest rate those bad guys can charge you to . . . uh . . . 36 percent! Yes, I think that's the right number. 36%. Not too much to deplete your paycheck, but enough so that you will think twice about it and maybe save some money (like I told you to do when I gave you your allowance!)
Now, that should settle things. What? The currency exchange told you they would not lend at those rates because of the high loan delinquency rates? Well, I'll fix that! Now, I will propose legislation that if they want to make payday loans at all, then they must, by law, loan money at those rates. What? Currency exchanges are getting out of the payday loan market and now you have no place to turn for immediate cash?
Those nasty no-good currency exchange owners! Always working to undermine the working people (or is that me?) I can not believe in these trying times, they are unwilling to make loans at my federally mandated rates. My children, you are in no position to negotiate loans at your own rates without my infinite wisdom to help you. How could they think they can get away with that? I am at the moment thinking up some new legislation to fix this problem and I'll get right back to you.
In the meantime, cuddle up for some bedtime stories, brush your teeth and get ready for more fun because . . . Senator Dick knows what's best for you, kids.
All my best,
Dick
Nancy Won!
Despite the low low odds of running against incumbents, and the fact that she was fighting the "old boys network" in which the Mayor of Highland Park endorsed a slate of men who had been serving on the City Council for many years, Nancy Rodkin-Rotering won election to the City Council last night.
Not only did she win . . . she came in FIRST out of the four candidates.
Congratulations to Nancy and, keep an eye on her, because Nancy is a winner and she could be moving up to higher office in the future.
Woldy
Not only did she win . . . she came in FIRST out of the four candidates.
Congratulations to Nancy and, keep an eye on her, because Nancy is a winner and she could be moving up to higher office in the future.
Woldy
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Something is not right . . .
Dare I say that something is amiss when the President fires the CEO of a major American corporation, as President Obama did with the CEO of GM? Even though the U.S. Government is loaning that corporation money, and even though it is possible that Rick Waggoner was not the most wonderful CEO on the face of the planet, it still strikes me as untenable a situation in which corporate CEO's answer to the President. This is not good for our economy or our country.
Why? Because that is not how our economic system should work. We don't have a nationalized economy, like the Soviet Union was. We made a societal decision long long ago that that type of economic system is not what we wanted in this country. It seems that this is being tested now. Isn't it ironic that China is moving in the direction of having a free economy while we move in the opposite direction?
I will tell you another reason it is not a good idea to have the President firing CEOs. The President is an elected official, a political animal. The drivers for the President are political calculations. That is the nature of the beast. Always has been. Always will be. On the other hand, the drivers for corporate CEOs are (supposed to be) delivering value to shareholder-owners and creating profits from economic activity. These two sets of drivers do not necessarily align.
It strikes me as obvious why we want them separated. They need to perform different roles in our country.
Woldy
Why? Because that is not how our economic system should work. We don't have a nationalized economy, like the Soviet Union was. We made a societal decision long long ago that that type of economic system is not what we wanted in this country. It seems that this is being tested now. Isn't it ironic that China is moving in the direction of having a free economy while we move in the opposite direction?
I will tell you another reason it is not a good idea to have the President firing CEOs. The President is an elected official, a political animal. The drivers for the President are political calculations. That is the nature of the beast. Always has been. Always will be. On the other hand, the drivers for corporate CEOs are (supposed to be) delivering value to shareholder-owners and creating profits from economic activity. These two sets of drivers do not necessarily align.
It strikes me as obvious why we want them separated. They need to perform different roles in our country.
Woldy
Friday, April 3, 2009
Get WoldyWorld Update Email - Reminder
Click on following link and sign up to get notice when new blog entries are posted.
http://groups.google.com/group/woldy-world
http://groups.google.com/group/woldy-world
Thursday, April 2, 2009
N. Korea Bullying Tactics Belie Weakness
The best way to get past a bully is to confront them. Call their bluff.
Case in Point: before Israel responded to the rain of Hamas rockets by invading Gaza in December '08, Hamas was talking about how tough they were, how they were going to slaughter the Israeli soldiers who dared step over that line. When Israeli troops showed up on their doorsteps, however, they lost their voice and found a nice warm bunker to hide in. They literally would not come out and fight.
Same thing will happen with North Korea. Aren't you sick and tired of hearing about how they are going to rain down rockets on Seoul or kill American troops? Or, blah, blah, blah, as they continue to defy the UN, international community, and the norms of human dignity in their own country? Today, North Korea says that if Japan shoots down a rocket they fire (possibly at/over Japan, again, as they have done in the past), then North Korea will "rain down" death and destruction on Japan and other targets.
It is time for this to end. If North Korea shoots a rocket at or anywhere near Japan, they have every right to shoot it down (if they can). And, if North Korea decides to respond by attacking Japan, we should respond as if they attacked San Francisco or LA. The bullying must stop.
W
Case in Point: before Israel responded to the rain of Hamas rockets by invading Gaza in December '08, Hamas was talking about how tough they were, how they were going to slaughter the Israeli soldiers who dared step over that line. When Israeli troops showed up on their doorsteps, however, they lost their voice and found a nice warm bunker to hide in. They literally would not come out and fight.
Same thing will happen with North Korea. Aren't you sick and tired of hearing about how they are going to rain down rockets on Seoul or kill American troops? Or, blah, blah, blah, as they continue to defy the UN, international community, and the norms of human dignity in their own country? Today, North Korea says that if Japan shoots down a rocket they fire (possibly at/over Japan, again, as they have done in the past), then North Korea will "rain down" death and destruction on Japan and other targets.
It is time for this to end. If North Korea shoots a rocket at or anywhere near Japan, they have every right to shoot it down (if they can). And, if North Korea decides to respond by attacking Japan, we should respond as if they attacked San Francisco or LA. The bullying must stop.
W
Are Individual Liberties on the Run?
Are we, as a country, headed to a point in which the bedrock of individual liberty is starting to weaken?
Safety is Not a Partisan Issue
Yesterday, in an extraordinary example of our American Democracy, there was a Rally in favor of amending the CPSIA in the U.S. Capitol complex. As a reminder, the CPSIA is a law passed in haste by our Congress in response to a rash of toy recalls. Turns out that the law is inherently flawed and in need of amendment (for more see, www.amendthecpsia.com). The Rally was organized by Rick Woldenberg, Chairman of Learning Resources, a leading educational products manufacturer. The room was standing room only, with the crowd spilling out into the hallways.
The speakers included Senators, Congresspeople, representatives of trade groups, small businesspeople, toxicologists, authors of childrens books and concerned citizens. But, not a single elected Democrat showed up. Why, you may ask, would Democrats not come to at least hear what is being said about this law? Why would no Democrats speak at the Rally to defend the law, or otherwise address the law's shortcomings? For the same reason that there has been no progress to date in fixing this law.
They don't want to hear it. They literally do not want to hear from us. Rep Waxman even cancelled an appointment we had to speak to his staff yesterday. The Congressional Democrats are not interested in compromise. They have taken child safety law and politicized it. Rather than try to forge the most sensible public policy in this critical area, which is what we pay them for (to govern, that is), they are more interested in kicking around this political football.
We deserve better than this. We really do. And it is outrageous that our elected officials (who are supposed to work for us, remember, to run our country) will not even give us the courtesy of a hearing to listen to our concerns.
What concerns me even more than this is what this law, and the subsequent obstructionist manner in which the Democratic majority has acted, portend for the future. Not good news for us, folks. This trend, if allowed to continue, will result in a further concentration of power in Washington, where bureacrats can determine what is best for us, on a whole new level. This trend will become clearer over time, but you can see the outlines of it now.
The Congressional Democratic Majority is the best friend the Republican Party has right now. The Democratic Majority may actually save the Republicans from themselves. All the Republicans need to do is get out of the way (oh yeah, and they should also do somthing to stop Rush Limbaugh from defining what they stand for).
W
The speakers included Senators, Congresspeople, representatives of trade groups, small businesspeople, toxicologists, authors of childrens books and concerned citizens. But, not a single elected Democrat showed up. Why, you may ask, would Democrats not come to at least hear what is being said about this law? Why would no Democrats speak at the Rally to defend the law, or otherwise address the law's shortcomings? For the same reason that there has been no progress to date in fixing this law.
They don't want to hear it. They literally do not want to hear from us. Rep Waxman even cancelled an appointment we had to speak to his staff yesterday. The Congressional Democrats are not interested in compromise. They have taken child safety law and politicized it. Rather than try to forge the most sensible public policy in this critical area, which is what we pay them for (to govern, that is), they are more interested in kicking around this political football.
We deserve better than this. We really do. And it is outrageous that our elected officials (who are supposed to work for us, remember, to run our country) will not even give us the courtesy of a hearing to listen to our concerns.
What concerns me even more than this is what this law, and the subsequent obstructionist manner in which the Democratic majority has acted, portend for the future. Not good news for us, folks. This trend, if allowed to continue, will result in a further concentration of power in Washington, where bureacrats can determine what is best for us, on a whole new level. This trend will become clearer over time, but you can see the outlines of it now.
The Congressional Democratic Majority is the best friend the Republican Party has right now. The Democratic Majority may actually save the Republicans from themselves. All the Republicans need to do is get out of the way (oh yeah, and they should also do somthing to stop Rush Limbaugh from defining what they stand for).
W
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)