Little girl runs from the President at the White House tee ball game - hilarious. You can see Loren with the little girl before she runs away from President Bush. I blame Loren.



Apparently, the little girl was hit by the ball in the game and she was crying... just thought this was cool.

What if the Candidates Pandered to Economists?

An interesting article in the NY Times. Here

1. Support Free Trade
2. Oppose Farm Subsidies
3. Leave Oil Companies and Speculators Alone
4. Tax the Use of Energy
5. Raise the Retirement Age
6. Invite More Skilled Immigrants
7. Liberalize Drug Policy
8. Raise Funds for Economic Research

Ridiculous

"If you are ever going to be elected president, you have to change positions or take positions that are completely ridiculous (SM)."

Even foul-smelling libertarians like myself can agree.

"Ironically enough, the only way to deliver real change in Washington is to not deviate from the proven path to winning a presidential election (SM)."

It is this sentence that you have made a dramatic jump and where I think you are missing the point entirely. To be honest Steven, it kind of scares me. I'll put aside the assertion that the only change in Washington occurs in the Presidency of the United States - I'm sure you didn't actually mean that. I'm sure that you meant that in order for one to change Washington, one must first actually be elected and that can't happen without taking "positions that are completely ridiculous."

I disagree. Change does not necessarily come from the powerful. More importantly, it does not necessarily come from those who are elected. More often, change comes from independent and rebellious citizens who refuse to conform to the status quo - who demand something different of their society and their leaders. Your vote yields little power if it supports those that continue to do the same thing. We will only see something different out of our leaders if we demand something different with our votes, instead of our commentary - no matter how clever and unsubstantive it is.

The Republican and Democratic parties have changed over the last 50 years not just because of the leaders they elected, but often because of the those that they did not. What would the Republican party look like right now if the evangelical right hadn't asserted its power by being willing to vote for someone else? Where would the Democratic party be right now if the environmentalists and trade unions weren't willing to vote for someone else? What would our nation look like right now if more citizens refused to vote for politicians who did not display sanity, honesty, and transparency?

But instead, you choose to believe that a candidate's foolish positons are evidence of their wisdom and their ridiculousness evidence of their sanity. Unfortunately, the system will only supply you with what you are demanding. Expect more of the same.

Craig lives in Fairyland

It finally happened. Chalkb0ard Libertarian Craig Moore has finally divorced himself from reality. In his mind, the White House is located at the 1600 block of Gum Drop Lane. Yeah, Obama never really had a clear policy on NAFTA. He made himself sound protectionist while campaigning to backwoods hillbillies who are afraid of mexicans and laid-off factory workers in rust belt states. He changed his mind on taking public money when he realized that people with $ overwhelmingly prefer younger, smart, self-made guys over old, batsh*t crazy, non-independently weathly dudes who basically want to continue all the policies of one of the worst presidents in our nation's history. He seems to be trying not to back himself into a corner on Iraq when he gets elected. (It should be noted, however, that in every one of those instances he changed to a correct position, unlike this guy, who by the way is the real master of the flip flop)

Here is the reality, Craig: If you are ever going to be elected president, you have to change positions or take positions that are completely ridiculous. This is because presidential elections are decided in states that are full of really stupid people (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc). These states are loaded old people, rednecks, factory workers, and Cubans who wear clothes with very bright colors. I wouldn't trust any of those people to choose the next song on my iPod, much less the leader of the free world. And Obama has the rabid support of most educated people, save for the following subgroups:
1) Xenophobes and/or Wackos (Grand Dragon John Cornyn, Brian Shipley)
2) Rich people who ignore everything and only vote with their wallets (T. Boone Pickens, Larry Moore)
3) Long haired, unkempt, foul-smelling libertarians (Ted Kacinski, Craig Moore)

Ironically enough, the only way to deliver real change in Washington is to not deviate from the proven path to winning a presidential election (pander to the extreme for the primary, move to the center for the general, raise lots of $). Obama realizes this. That is why he is going to crush Ol' Poopy Pants in November. It may not fly in Fantasy Land, but it win elections in the real world.

Pot, meet kettle

I am Karl Rove and Cheney combined. Cross me and I'll smear you and shoot you in the face!


Lets take a look back at the play by play.

1. Craig criticizes Obama for shifting positions on issues like Iraq and NAFTA based on political convenience
2. Adam fights back by labeling Craig as the new Karl Rove (Karl Rove. as you will remember, is famous for diverting attention and clouding debates as to avoid important issues)
3. Adam defends Obama's position by claiming his Iraq comment isn't a shift at all - suggesting instead that it's smart leadership
4. Adam ignores section on NAFTA which Craig mentions is bigger issue (or "fiasco")

You can blame me for using the "tactics of the old-GOP", but by not addressing the entire issue or even my main point and labeling me as "Rovian" you are using their playbook as well. Congratulations!

This isn't just Iraq. This is about NAFTA (which you didn't address at all - Hello Rove!), public financing, selling out Jeremiah Wright, and all other convenient rhetoric. I don't care about public financing or Wright - but he changed his opinion on all these issues when they were convenient for him. As Wright said, "He goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician."

You can say all you want that his policy hasn't shifted. Fine - cause I never said that. His rhetoric/message/words have. You've been out of marketing classes for awhile so I'll refresh your studies. He's rebranding his message for a new audience to create room for a shift later in the election or during his presidency. He's not just trying to deceive the American voters, he's actually preparing just in case he has to. You may see this is an insignificant change, but in the words of Barack Obama, "Just words???" Apparantly it has been decided that words actually don't matter.

I read a great book one time by Harry Frankfurt called "On Bullshit". It was fantastic. He says that bullshit is more dangerous than lying because liars actually care about the truth. Bullshitter's decisions are not based on truth at all. Allow me to "refine" my position as well. It wasn't a lie; it was bullshit.

From Arianna Huffington, your classic conservative pundit. Enjoy

Welcome back Adam.

Think Inside the Box

I am thankful everyday that I did not get a M.B.A. Otherwise, I would be destined to speak MBAish for the rest of my life: synergy, value-added, paradigm shift.

The worst is the infamous, "think outside the box." My new boss can't stop saying that during executive meetings. "We need to start thinking outside the box guys! Come on!"

Idiot. What's wrong with the box anyway? The box has made us a lot of money. The box has put food on the tables of hundreds of employees for years. The box wasn't always broken, but it's broken now. Why do I have to drive my mind all the way outside the box and think there? Gas is really expensive!

If more people thought inside the box, it would save a lot of time.

Craig-Rant over.

Craig is the New Rove

How do you force Adam to post on the blog?

1. Criticize Obama.
2. Perpetuate Rovian-style political tactics.

I agree with my learned sibling that Obama's stance on Iraq is not an insignificant shift. It's a distinct shift I'll grant you, but a change so significant that it constitutes deceit? No, Karl.

While Obama could be more candid about his reasoning for shifting his position on Iraq, isn't this exactly what the majority of Americans have been craving from President Bush? President Bush has employed an overarching theme the last 7 years: a "war on terror" that is willing to limit civil liberties and a "stay the course" approach in Iraq and damn the consequences.

Senator Obama has employed an overarching theme as well: the war was a mistake, America should not be in Iraq and the troops should be out as soon as possible. The flexibility that America has been wanting from President Bush is exactly what Senator Obama is offering in this shift that according to Craig is so shameful that it rises to the level of "lying." He has, and continues, to advocate a withdrawal of troops within 16 months. However, at the mere mention that he might back off that plan, that circumstances could change, and that the advice of his commanders may demand a modification of his plan, the punditry goes ablaze and regurgitating the Rovian bile of the last two presidential elections.

I want a President that is willing to reconsider his position on an issue. I want a President that sticks to theme like President Bush has, but is willing to compromise and shift his stance within that theme like President Bush has not. (Sorry, the surge doesn't count).

I am tired of pundits, politicians and bloggers that continue to employ the tactics of old-GOP - that see a shift and immediately label them a liar, a flip-flopper and deceitful. That take the words of General Clark and spin it to an attack on McCain's military service. That take Ferraro's words and label them racist. That take Michelle's words and call them unpatriotic.

I want something different. I think America does too. No wonder Obama is slaughtering McCain in the polls. Yes Craig, change is on the horizon.

Change on the Horizon

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11517.html


This isn't a small shift. This was a major selling point of his campaign and something that he emphasized on the campaign trail against Hillary. This is almost as bad as his NAFTA fiasco when he said he would bring the hammer down on the deal and opt out while at the same time his economic advisor told the Canadians that this was political maneuvering and not indicative of actually policy.

Maybe some of us will vote for him regardless of these changes as they see him as the best overall candidate or that no other candidate (outside of McCain) has a realistic chance. However, I think we should demand something more of our politicians than lying to us on the campaign trail and then expect us to trust them in office. Our only leverage is our votes. Continue to support lying candidates if you so choose.

Canadian Health Care Architect

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

From Article:

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

...

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."