Tuesday, February 03, 2004
the bolsheviks take over at business week
a comment i posted over at calpundit:
interesting tid-bit from a business week article:
YOUNG HAVE-NOTS. "Not only are there going to be a lot more people retiring, but how many of them have made any preparations beyond relying on Social Security and Medicare?" wonders Deak. Some economists even speculate that as boomers start selling off their assets -- primarily homes and stocks -- to fund their retirements, they'll create gluts that could drive down housing prices and the stock market.
Most economists insist that such worries are premature. For now it's enough to fret about mounting federal debt, a huge Social Security funding gap, and worsening retirement-plan shortfalls at the same time the first boomers are getting ready to retire.
"The most fundamental conflict is between the haves and have-nots," says Zandi. "But younger workers tend to be in the have-not group." Thus, pressure is mounting on both aging boomers and the Gen X-ers that will follow them. And soon, they may be ready to rumble.
is it considered class warfare when conservative commentators and analysts begin to use terms like "haves" and "have-nots?"
UPDATE: added the article's hyperlink
a comment i posted over at calpundit:
interesting tid-bit from a business week article:
YOUNG HAVE-NOTS. "Not only are there going to be a lot more people retiring, but how many of them have made any preparations beyond relying on Social Security and Medicare?" wonders Deak. Some economists even speculate that as boomers start selling off their assets -- primarily homes and stocks -- to fund their retirements, they'll create gluts that could drive down housing prices and the stock market.
Most economists insist that such worries are premature. For now it's enough to fret about mounting federal debt, a huge Social Security funding gap, and worsening retirement-plan shortfalls at the same time the first boomers are getting ready to retire.
"The most fundamental conflict is between the haves and have-nots," says Zandi. "But younger workers tend to be in the have-not group." Thus, pressure is mounting on both aging boomers and the Gen X-ers that will follow them. And soon, they may be ready to rumble.
is it considered class warfare when conservative commentators and analysts begin to use terms like "haves" and "have-nots?"
UPDATE: added the article's hyperlink
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
shorter nicholas kristof
The God Gulf
if i ignore my own assertion that george bush's irreligious policy decisions are completely opposed to his religious rhetoric, then i cannot help but conclude that he is a truly devout man whose "religious convictions are deeply felt."
The God Gulf
if i ignore my own assertion that george bush's irreligious policy decisions are completely opposed to his religious rhetoric, then i cannot help but conclude that he is a truly devout man whose "religious convictions are deeply felt."
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
shorter david brooks
The Era of Distortion
liberal conspiracy theories that suggest that high ranking defense and state department officials with clearly articulated neo-conservative views are influential in setting bush administration foreign policy are as dangerous, radical, and off-base as conservative conspiracy theories that suggest that bill clinton was an international drug kingpin who murdered one of his closest friends.
The Era of Distortion
liberal conspiracy theories that suggest that high ranking defense and state department officials with clearly articulated neo-conservative views are influential in setting bush administration foreign policy are as dangerous, radical, and off-base as conservative conspiracy theories that suggest that bill clinton was an international drug kingpin who murdered one of his closest friends.
Friday, November 14, 2003
shorter andrew sullivan
Bi-Polar Nation
although the title of this op-ed suggests i will be making an unbiased analysis of the rise in american partisanship amongst both parties, i will actually use it to slander the entire liberal movement by using the extreme statements of fringe radicals and insinuating that said statements are representative of the Left in general.
Bi-Polar Nation
although the title of this op-ed suggests i will be making an unbiased analysis of the rise in american partisanship amongst both parties, i will actually use it to slander the entire liberal movement by using the extreme statements of fringe radicals and insinuating that said statements are representative of the Left in general.
shorter charles krauthammer
Success On the High Seas
i have now passed so far into fantasy-land that i have begun looking to hollywood--which by the way is full of bleeding-heart, pinko, liberal scum who want to turn your kids into queers--for inspiration on iraq.
Success On the High Seas
i have now passed so far into fantasy-land that i have begun looking to hollywood--which by the way is full of bleeding-heart, pinko, liberal scum who want to turn your kids into queers--for inspiration on iraq.
mission accom...DOH
Op-Chart
A few main messages emerge. For starters, violence against coalition troops has increased as the occupation has lengthened and, in regard to the all-important objective of winning Iraqi hearts and minds, unemployment rates are still too high. However, most other trends are encouraging -- declining crime rates in Baghdad, increasing numbers of Iraqi police officers being trained, and telephone and water services at about 80 percent of pre-war levels. Once one accepts the premise that the United States and its partners are still at war in Iraq, and that the mission there is clearly the most challenging American military operation since the Vietnam War, the most accurate long-term outlook is one of guarded optimism. (emphasis added)
hey, wait a minute, someone forgot to tell this guy.
Op-Chart
A few main messages emerge. For starters, violence against coalition troops has increased as the occupation has lengthened and, in regard to the all-important objective of winning Iraqi hearts and minds, unemployment rates are still too high. However, most other trends are encouraging -- declining crime rates in Baghdad, increasing numbers of Iraqi police officers being trained, and telephone and water services at about 80 percent of pre-war levels. Once one accepts the premise that the United States and its partners are still at war in Iraq, and that the mission there is clearly the most challenging American military operation since the Vietnam War, the most accurate long-term outlook is one of guarded optimism. (emphasis added)
hey, wait a minute, someone forgot to tell this guy.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
to snark or not to snark
tbogg can be pretty smart when he wants to be.
Getting back to Totten, my beef with him is his constant "the party is leaving me behind" mewling. He's so wrapped up in the war-war-kill-the-Islamofascists-before-they-destroy-my-way-of-life swill that the administration is selling that he's not only drinking it, he's having Sparkletts deliver it in five-gallon bottles. If he supports the war, fine. But while supporting the administration's foolhardy attempt at reshaping the Middle East, he is giving tacit approval to their assault on the environment, workers rights, and on a woman’s right to choose. He is allowing them to hand out huge tax cuts to the rich while impoverishing our children. He agrees with the insertion of government-sponsored Christianity into our secular society. He thinks packing the courts with Federalist Society judges is a good thing. (emphasis mine)
but wait, tbogg, didn't you get the memo: 9/11 changed everything.
tbogg can be pretty smart when he wants to be.
Getting back to Totten, my beef with him is his constant "the party is leaving me behind" mewling. He's so wrapped up in the war-war-kill-the-Islamofascists-before-they-destroy-my-way-of-life swill that the administration is selling that he's not only drinking it, he's having Sparkletts deliver it in five-gallon bottles. If he supports the war, fine. But while supporting the administration's foolhardy attempt at reshaping the Middle East, he is giving tacit approval to their assault on the environment, workers rights, and on a woman’s right to choose. He is allowing them to hand out huge tax cuts to the rich while impoverishing our children. He agrees with the insertion of government-sponsored Christianity into our secular society. He thinks packing the courts with Federalist Society judges is a good thing. (emphasis mine)
but wait, tbogg, didn't you get the memo: 9/11 changed everything.
Friday, November 07, 2003
shorter tnr
The TNR Primary
despite the fact we are a "liberal" publication, we nonetheless find every single one of the major democratic presidential candidates so personally unappealing that the weighted average of all their General Likeability scores for the past six-months is an utterly average 2.0. oh, and we really hate howard dean.
candidate: total points earned (total entries), six-month average
clark: 21.3 (11), 1.9
dean: 43.2 (28), 1.5
edwards: 18.1 (8), 2.3
gephardt 20.1 (7), 2.9
graham 15.1 (7), 2.2
kerry 56 (24), 2.3
lieberman 4 (2) 2.0
totals 177.8 (87), 2.0
The TNR Primary
despite the fact we are a "liberal" publication, we nonetheless find every single one of the major democratic presidential candidates so personally unappealing that the weighted average of all their General Likeability scores for the past six-months is an utterly average 2.0. oh, and we really hate howard dean.
candidate: total points earned (total entries), six-month average
clark: 21.3 (11), 1.9
dean: 43.2 (28), 1.5
edwards: 18.1 (8), 2.3
gephardt 20.1 (7), 2.9
graham 15.1 (7), 2.2
kerry 56 (24), 2.3
lieberman 4 (2) 2.0
totals 177.8 (87), 2.0
mmmmmm, testosterone...
i spend a lot of time attacking andrew sullivan and i'm not really sure why. to be honest, i actually like some of his longer magazine pieces (you know, the ones that an editor has to look at to ensure that the piece is intellectually consistent, well argued, and devoid of too many instances of glaring hypocrisy and paranoid hysteria). but when it comes to his blog, i have to make fun, because it's just too easy.
take, for example, this post in which he defends himself against eric alterman's assertion that andy is a "wannabe ayatollah"--at least in terms of his exuberance in denouncing as an unpatriotic america-hater anyone who disagrees with his (i.e. the bush admin's) positions.
If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know I don't pull a lot of punches in exposing what I think is dumb or malign or just wrong out there in the media and politics. If such criticism means I'm an ayatollah, then I guess Alterman is entitled to his opinion. But I'm a First Amendment absolutist, an opponent of all attempts to control people's thoughts and ideas, a long opponent of religious fundamentalism of all kinds, an anti-theocrat, a supporter of the war against Islamist terror, and a strong proponent of gay rights.
Now this post was written at 12:51:02 AM (at least that's what it says on his blog. but go over to sullywatch if you want an explanation of how these time stamps are often incorrect) and i can just imagine the situation. the boyfriend went to bed hours ago; the beagle's snoozing on the couch; andy's just rubbed a whole tube of andro on his newly naired chest, and he's starting to feel a little giddy. Which explains why, a scant three minutes later, he writes this post, in which he applauds as a "new media triumph...CBS's welcome decision to punt on its anti-Reagan biopic" (tbogg has some choice words about andy's love of the "new media meme"; emphasis in quote mine). now, i never went to no harvard, but i got me a good sniffer, and i know when i smell the putrid stench of hypocrisy. in fact, it smells like horseshit, and let me tell you, right now i think a herd of incontinent clydesdales just galloped by:
[The biopic] was so egregiously designed to attack a beloved president in his waning years, so riddled with obvious lies and distortions, so hateful in its intent, that I doubt any major network would have gotten away with it in any time.
"designed to attack?" perhaps. "riddled with obvious lies and distortions?" maybe. "hateful in its intent?" possibly. "beloved president?" debatable. at any rate, the point is, andy, even if this despcription of the movie is 100% correct, remember, you're a self-styled "FIRST AMENDMENT ABSOLUTIST" which means you should be outraged--OUTRAGED--to learn that a small interest group pressured a media outlet into spiking programming simply because said programming disagreed with said focus group's agenda.
in fact, what i think you meant to say is that you are a first amendment relativist and that you are a staunch defender of every american's right to free speech provided they don't say anything that runs contrary to the opinions expressed by (including but not limited to): the reagan and bush administrations; the rnc; fox news channel; charles krauthammer; the wall street journal editorial page; or any other of your sacrosanct heroes, the fond memories of which must be preserved for all eternity and must not be besmirched by any castro-loving, terrorist-adoring, islamofascist-supporting, america-hating, left-leaning media mogul like les moonves, who--as the head of a multi-billion dollar media corporation--has an obvious stake in perpetuating the current system but nevertheless harbors a deep-seated wish to turn the united states into stalinist russia, if he only had the chance.
i spend a lot of time attacking andrew sullivan and i'm not really sure why. to be honest, i actually like some of his longer magazine pieces (you know, the ones that an editor has to look at to ensure that the piece is intellectually consistent, well argued, and devoid of too many instances of glaring hypocrisy and paranoid hysteria). but when it comes to his blog, i have to make fun, because it's just too easy.
take, for example, this post in which he defends himself against eric alterman's assertion that andy is a "wannabe ayatollah"--at least in terms of his exuberance in denouncing as an unpatriotic america-hater anyone who disagrees with his (i.e. the bush admin's) positions.
If you've read this blog for a while, you'll know I don't pull a lot of punches in exposing what I think is dumb or malign or just wrong out there in the media and politics. If such criticism means I'm an ayatollah, then I guess Alterman is entitled to his opinion. But I'm a First Amendment absolutist, an opponent of all attempts to control people's thoughts and ideas, a long opponent of religious fundamentalism of all kinds, an anti-theocrat, a supporter of the war against Islamist terror, and a strong proponent of gay rights.
Now this post was written at 12:51:02 AM (at least that's what it says on his blog. but go over to sullywatch if you want an explanation of how these time stamps are often incorrect) and i can just imagine the situation. the boyfriend went to bed hours ago; the beagle's snoozing on the couch; andy's just rubbed a whole tube of andro on his newly naired chest, and he's starting to feel a little giddy. Which explains why, a scant three minutes later, he writes this post, in which he applauds as a "new media triumph...CBS's welcome decision to punt on its anti-Reagan biopic" (tbogg has some choice words about andy's love of the "new media meme"; emphasis in quote mine). now, i never went to no harvard, but i got me a good sniffer, and i know when i smell the putrid stench of hypocrisy. in fact, it smells like horseshit, and let me tell you, right now i think a herd of incontinent clydesdales just galloped by:
[The biopic] was so egregiously designed to attack a beloved president in his waning years, so riddled with obvious lies and distortions, so hateful in its intent, that I doubt any major network would have gotten away with it in any time.
"designed to attack?" perhaps. "riddled with obvious lies and distortions?" maybe. "hateful in its intent?" possibly. "beloved president?" debatable. at any rate, the point is, andy, even if this despcription of the movie is 100% correct, remember, you're a self-styled "FIRST AMENDMENT ABSOLUTIST" which means you should be outraged--OUTRAGED--to learn that a small interest group pressured a media outlet into spiking programming simply because said programming disagreed with said focus group's agenda.
in fact, what i think you meant to say is that you are a first amendment relativist and that you are a staunch defender of every american's right to free speech provided they don't say anything that runs contrary to the opinions expressed by (including but not limited to): the reagan and bush administrations; the rnc; fox news channel; charles krauthammer; the wall street journal editorial page; or any other of your sacrosanct heroes, the fond memories of which must be preserved for all eternity and must not be besmirched by any castro-loving, terrorist-adoring, islamofascist-supporting, america-hating, left-leaning media mogul like les moonves, who--as the head of a multi-billion dollar media corporation--has an obvious stake in perpetuating the current system but nevertheless harbors a deep-seated wish to turn the united states into stalinist russia, if he only had the chance.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
shorter david brooks
True Believers, Please Rise
i am shocked--SHOCKED--to learn that many of the republicans in congress who painted themselves as staunch defenders of fiscal responsibility and small government during their campaigns are in fact duplicitous opportunists and shameless hypocrites.
True Believers, Please Rise
i am shocked--SHOCKED--to learn that many of the republicans in congress who painted themselves as staunch defenders of fiscal responsibility and small government during their campaigns are in fact duplicitous opportunists and shameless hypocrites.
