Luck of the Draw

A friend of mine used to have a saying to the effect that he’d rather be lucky than smart. While I think President Obama is pretty darn smart, if current trends continue, he may also prove to be very, very lucky.

Conventional wisdom–which is conventional because it tends to be right fairly often–is that Presidents presiding over poor economies have a hard time getting re-elected. Ordinarily, then, even a President who didn’t have a lot of people who already hated him for the color of his skin would be in trouble in 2012. But the Republicans, bless them, are helping him out.

The GOP field–filled with embarrassingly retrograde candidates–is one thing. These are mostly people who would have trouble running for City Council in normal times, and they have even some reliable Republican voters wincing. Those voters may not switch in November–but they also may not vote.

But if Obama is REALLY lucky, here’s the scenario: Gingrich wins the nomination, and Ron Paul runs as an independent. As conservative columnist Kathleen Parker has pointed out, no one thinks Gingrich can win the general election. He’s an unstable megalomaniac, without the discipline to run a sustained campaign. And Ron Paul–who will not run again for his House seat–has sent signals that suggest he’s contemplating a third-party run. He’s done it before, and he has the donors and volunteers to sustain such a candidacy. None other but George Will speculated that Paul would pull 80% of his votes from the eventual GOP candidate.

Paul could be a spoiler if the candidate is Mitt. If the candidate is Gingrich, Obama will have quite a mandate.

Hard to believe that anyone could be THAT lucky, but you never know.

Comments

About Those Cows….

A cousin sent me an updated version of the old “A man has two cows” explanation of capitalism, socialism, fascism and nazism (and yes, ranting radio people and Faux News anchors, there is indeed a difference between them–they aren’t just interchangeable insult words). I don’t usually pass on Internet humor, but this new version really does capture the crazy that is our global economic life. (Look especially at the “Venture Capitalist” explanation…)

—–

Subject: how the world REALLY works….made simple
*A Cow based Economics Lesson;

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
You sell one cow to buy a new president of the 
United States , leaving you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you
want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.

Comments

Maybe the Gingrich Stole Christmas??

Okay–there isn’t going to be much of a post today, because I am waging my  own “War on Christmas.” And unlike the one manufactured by the professional rabble-rousers on Faux News, mine is personal.

I have been crawling on the floor under our pre-lit “keep it simple, save a fir” tree all morning, trying to figure out why some of the lights don’t work. I’ll spend most of the rest of the day–assuming we’ve accurately diagnosed the problem (I’ve sent Bob to the hardware store for replacement fuses–those teensie little fuses that are hidden in the plugs that are hidden in the needles and are impossible to remove without the eagle-eyed vision of the young and the skinny talons of a small but vicious bird) wrapping gifts.

I was raised Jewish. We don’t know how to wrap. I’ll try my best, but I’ll undoubtedly end up with the sad and lumpy-looking packages that are so unlike the beautiful, beribboned gifts you see on television.

When I’m done grousing, I’ll admit that Christmas–the way my husband celebrates it and the way I’ve learned to approach it–is a lovely family holiday. In our “multi-cultural” home, the tree has a yarmulke on top and among the ornaments are dreidles and other decidedly non-traditional elements. There’s a menorah on the fireplace next to the tree, and we send gifts to a Buddhist cousin and give and get others from atheist family members. It really IS a “wonderful time of the year”–as the song goes. (Well–at least it’s a festive occasion that makes a generally cold and unpleasant time of the year SEEM wonderful.)

For those who celebrate the holiday as a “holy day” (which, by the way, is what “holiday” means Mr. Dumb-ass O’Reilly), I have the utmost respect. For those who want to throw tantrums whenever they see someone’s enjoyment of the season deviating from their script, I  say “Bah, Humbug.”

What cracks me up about the “War on Christmas” folks is that they tend to be the same people who agree with Newt Gingrich that poor kids ought to do janitor duty in their schools. Listen, guys, I’m not a Christian, but it seems to me if you’re really into the religious meaning of Christmas, it might be appropriate to act a bit more…Christian.

Just sayin’

Comments

Another Year (Almost) Over

The coming year is going to be ugly.

The economy is still in the toilet, environmental degradation is edging dangerously close to the point of no return, our infrastructure is crumbling, and Republicans in Congress remain committed to one thing and one thing only—defeating Barack Obama—even if they have to take the country down to do it.

Meanwhile, Larry, Moe and Curly are vying for the GOP Presidential nomination.

It isn’t easy finding things to be upbeat about in this environment, but there are some—and amazingly enough, the few bits of good news involve gay rights.

This year we’ve seen—finally—the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” More recently, the Obama Administration, represented by both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the President himself, put the treatment of gay citizens by their governments squarely on the human rights agenda—serving notice to governments like Uganda’s that American aid would henceforth be dependent upon their willingness to treat their gay citizens humanely. New York became the 6th state to recognize same-sex marriage. And for the first time ever, Gallup found a majority of U.S. citizens supporting such marriage. Not just civil unions—real, honest-to-god marriage.

Not a bad year on the equality front.

Perhaps the most gratifying element of this cultural shift is the diminishing salience of far-right appeals to homophobia. (One of the very few good things about an economic downturn is that it does tend to focus people’s attention on bread and butter problems rather than the hot-button, divisive social issues so beloved by the culture warriors.) A recent New York Times poll found that even among likely Republican primary voters in Iowa—one of the most conservative (dare we say batshit crazy) electorates in the country—appeals based on the old reliable “God, Guns and Gays” have lost traction.

And when “all hat, no cattle” candidate Rick Perry—desperate to reverse his falling poll numbers—made a homophobic video ad in which he decried the “attack” on Christianity signified by allowing gays in the military but not organized prayer in public schools, the ad was met with satisfying ridicule—probably not the response he was trying for.  (Hate to tell you this Rick, but that “liberty” you keep talking about includes religious liberty even for people who aren’t Christians. There’s this provision in the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause that prohibits government from imposing your religious beliefs on other people’s children in the public schools. And there’s another clause in that Constitution you clearly have never read that requires government to treat its citizens equally. Can we say “oops”?)

I’m not sure why it is that at a time of real social discord, gay citizens are finally beginning to achieve a modicum of equality. It seems counter-intuitive, but the social changes that are bringing GLBT citizens out of legal purgatory (or worse) are too obvious to deny and appear too strong to resist.

Of course, if one of the clowns running for President on the GOP ticket actually manages to defeat Obama, all bets are off—not just for the gay community, but for all the rest of us.

Why Do Gun Rights Trump All Other Rights?

As readers of this blog know, I’m a pretty rabid civil libertarian. But even I know that my right to free speech doesn’t mean I can stomp into your living room to harangue you. My right to free exercise of religion doesn’t include the right to impose that religion on students in my public university classroom. My right to petition my government for a redress of grievances doesn’t translate into a right to march into the legislature when it is in session and disrupt the proceedings.

In other words, the exercise of my rights is conditioned upon my willingness to respect the equal rights of others.

Granted, that little caveat is widely ignored by citizens who are absolutely convinced that they and they alone are in possession of Truth that must be imposed upon others despite the fact that those others may have Truths of their own. Nevertheless, respect for the equal rights of others is a foundational premise of our legal/constitutional system.

Those for whom the Second Amendment is less a statement of rights than a religion just don’t get that. They seem to believe that the Second Amendment trumps all the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. A couple of years ago, the Indiana legislature blithely ignored the rights of employers to determine what safety measures they would require, and passed a measure allowing workers to pack heat in the workplace. Now, a state representative has introduced a bill to allow students–and presumably others–to come armed to campus.

There are sound reasons why IUPUI and other universities do not want guns on campus. We have our share of immature students, troubled students, and far more troubled visitors. (There used to be a self-described “evangelist” who “preached” loudly on the plaza next to my building, calling female students “whores of Babylon” and ranting about various sins he attributed to passersby. I don’t think arming him would have been a great idea.) I know that gun lovers really believe arming students would prevent tragedies like Virginia Tech;  I don’t share their sunny suppositions–my guess is it would be equally likely to increase the bloodshed. But whether I am correct or they are is not the point.

The point is that government should not be able to decide who can come armed into my home, my place of business or my office on campus.

Gun rights activists who are constantly criticizing government over-reach, constantly talking about limited government, ought to take a good hard look in the mirror. Their hypocrisy is showing.

Comments