Ace of Spades HQ

April 15, 2011

Mash-Up of Atlas Shrugged And Our Dispiriting Reality
— Ace

Speaking of actors playing their parts. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 AM | Comments (96)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama's Deficit Speech: Nothing But Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
— Ace

Very clever way to put it from Tarranto.

Obama's speech was little but waste (of time), fraud (on the public), and abuse (of invited guests, who were prompted to expect a serious proposal, not a demagogic, unserious nakedly-political attack).

On that last point, before turning to Taranto: Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator (and known as a deficit-hawk), and Obama's appointee to the deficit commission (the first one which he ignored, not the second one he will soon be ignoring), said before his speech that he expected "movement." He thought Obama was going to seriously tackle these things. He thought that Obama would dig down deep and find his inner statesman. He thought -- with Republicans now putting themselves at political risk by offering a real plan -- this freed the cautious, weak, vain Obama up to show a little courage in kind.

He too was invited to witness this travesty. I knew he was wrong and said so. But now he knows he's wrong, too.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson appeared jarred by the political nature of President Barack ObamaÂ’s speech on reducing the deficit Wednesday at George Washington University.
The Wyoming Republican, who had a front-row seat for Mr. ObamaÂ’s speech and co-chaired the White HouseÂ’s panel on deficit-reduction last year, didnÂ’t want to comment directly on the speech after it was over. His co-chairman, Erskine Bowles, wouldnÂ’t even turn around to talk to reporters. Such a response is unusual for both men, who usually seek out reporters to talk about the countryÂ’s growing fiscal problems and demand immediate action.

We know Simpson wasn't pleased because where before he placed his hopes in Obama, now he could only place his hopes in the Gang of Six, six Senators (including three Democrats) who are actually sounding serious notes about some kind of real plan for the deficit and entitlements.

Â“Pray for the Gang of Six,Â” Mr. Simpson told two reporters after the speech, referring to a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Senate who are working on a deficit-reduction plan. Â“They are six guys, three Republicans, three Democrats, that are committed to doing something. Just pray for the gang of six.Â”
...
The one point of criticism Mr. Simpson would offer on Mr. ObamaÂ’s speech was the way the president characterized a proposal last week from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.).
Â“Put your plan on the table, but donÂ’t just label [the Republican proposal] as the Â‘Great Republican themeÂ’ because thatÂ’s not what it is. ItÂ’s a plan,Â” Mr. Simpson said.

He was asked what happens if the Gang of Six failed, too.

Â“Guys like you will be picking grit with the chickens when you are 65,Â” he replied. End of interview.

This is theme common to Obama -- profound disappointment. Obama, due to the sharp crease in his trousers, is able to convince people that he's a serious-minded, intelligent, and wise person. One by one they keep having the scales removed from their eyes.

Obama is just an actor. That's a good analogy, I think. Some actors are deemed leading men due to their looks, "type," and ability to project confidence and serious demeanor. Some actors can be credibly cast as scientists, professors, presidents, and captains of men. Heroes.

Some are always doomed to play the comic relief roles, the Hero's Friend roles, the character actor roles.

Importantly, this is just the ability to fake a heroic manner. Alec Baldwin, for example, seems well-cast as a brilliant corporate executive or a gutsy general in World War Two. But of course, in reality, he's wildly incompetent in either of these fields, and pretty much every other field, too.

This is what the Educated Elite don't get about Obama. This is where what they consider to be their inferiors do get, and the Educated Elite keep on being shocked to discover: That appearances can deceive.

For David Brooks, Obama is/was a candidate straight out of Central Casting, and I mean every inch of that analogy. He looked the part. He sounded the part. He had the right bullet-point credentials that you'd expect a Hero in a Movie to have -- Harvard, Columbia, mixed-race past, sonorous tones of enlightenment and idealism and rationality. And of course those impeccably-creased trousers.

He was well-cast in the Role of President.

But they never bothered to ask the questions their alleged inferiors did -- "What has he actually done?" He rabble-roused a bit and then served very briefly in politics, doing nothing of importance, except to advance himself politically. Hell, he's currently disowning his own vote on 2006 debt-ceiling increase as completely frivolous, selfish, and political.

But it didn't matter to the Educated Elite. Because, for them, it's not about accomplishments or character or actual thought, but the surface of things, and it's crucial they keep that system of the Surface of Things running smoothly because their livelihoods depend on it.

An economist (apparently a big-deal, accomplished one) also finds the scales dropping from his eyes.

In his speech on our nation's long-term budget crisis Wednesday, President Barack Obama identified the problem, but he failed to provide concrete solutions.
Indeed, when it came to describing how he would fix federal health care spending, Obama stayed pretty close to his budget document in which he said that Medicare and Medicaid costs would come down because they'd come down and, if they didn't, a panel of experts would tell Congress to lower them.
Give us a break. This is simply a continuation of kick-the-can down the road, which leaves ever larger government bills for our kids to pay.
...
Eloquence is no substitute for substance. We need real leadership now, not after the next election.
But Obama's speech made no effort to find common ground with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's plan to address Medicare and Medicare. Ryan was brave enough to say exactly what he thinks needs to be done with these programs.
If you read his Medicare plan carefully, you'll see that it's highly progressive because the size of each Medicare participant's voucher is based on his/her pre-existing health conditions, and poor participants have worse health status, on average, than rich participants.
Ryan's plan also puts the government on a fixed health care spending budget when it comes to these two programs, each of which is fully capable, on its own, of bankrupting the country.
I voted for and even campaigned for the president, and my jaw drops every time I hear him speak. But eloquence is no substitute for substance. We need real leadership now, not after the next election.

He goes on to say that if Obama proposed a serious reform, he'd be cheerleading for his reelection.

David Brooks, the highly regarded expert on trouser-creasing, still seemed to be holding out hope for Obama a week ago.

It also creates the pivotal moment of truth for President Obama. Will he come up with his own counterproposal, or will he simply demagogue the issue by railing against ''savage'' Republican cuts and ignoring the long-term fiscal realities? Does he have a sustainable vision for government, or will he just try to rise above the fray while Nancy Pelosi and others attack Ryan?

Why is it that the very smart David Brooks didn't know the answer to these questions when we peons did?

Take note of this -- before the speech, when David Brooks could still live in a world of optimism about the intentions and seriousness of his nicely-trousered hero Barack Obama, he had harsh words for a then-hypoethetical demagoguing of the issue. Before Obama opened his mouth, and could still take either the high road or the low road, Brooks slammed the low road, as you'd expect.

But after Obama took that low road, Brooks has now changed his tone, and finds it just splendid.

The president, meanwhile, hit the political sweet spot with his speech this week. He made a sincere call to reduce debt, which will please independents, but he did not specify any tough choices. He called for defense cuts and asked the Pentagon to find some. He called for a reduction in tax credits but didnÂ’t point to any that should actually go. He called for reductions in Medicare costs and asked his board of technocrats to come up with some.
These are exactly the sort of vague but well-intentioned policies that have sold well in election after election. The president is not being cynical about this. He genuinely does believe that seniors and the middle class can be spared from any shared sacrifice. He really does believe in calling together teams of experts to devise proper solutions. ObamaÂ’s sincere preferences happen to be more popular.

See what he did there? Before Obama spoke, he specifically warned him away from this sort of naked demagogic appeal. But now that Obama has made that naked demagogic appeal, David Brooks is delighted, and can't say enough good things about it.

Oh well -- I included Brooks as the exception that proves the rule. For some people, the scales will never fall away. David Brooks is like a ten year old boy who is Michael Jackson Super Fan #1 and who will scream in horror if you mention that maybe the King of Pop was a boy-hungry pervert. Little children, and David Brooks, can never get over their hero worship and address reality.

Back to Taranto.

Obama said he was going to start "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." It's hard to cut spending: "You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but like the stuff that it buys." It's hard to raise taxes: "My finely honed political instincts tell me that almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes." And politicians are selling voters a bill of goods when they "feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse."
What's needed, he claimed, is "a serious plan" that will "require tough choices." He then outlined a four-step "approach"--it wasn't detailed enough to achieve planhood--that showed his promise of honesty to be an utter fraud.

Taranto then outlines that each of Obama's meager cost-cutting promises involves -- get this -- clamping down only on waste, fraud, and abuse, and vowing to make no cuts except to those spending cateogries.

Does no one else in the media notice this? That after sounding like an adult in the very beginning, and telling the public that any politician who tells you that we can reduce our deficit just by cutting "waste, fraud, and abuse" is a demagogic liar, he then goes on to only specify cuts targeting "waste, fraud, and abuse"?

Just words?

This is a man who owes his position to words (and his ability to play-act the role of Thoughtful, Wise Urban Professional).

Does no one else notice that we just heard that Obama is a demagogue, and a liar, and unserious about governance from the highest possible authority possible -- the mouth of Barack Hussein Obama himself?

There is literally nothing to Obama but an actor's craft -- lies, words penned by others appearing on cue-cards, feigned empathy, the ability to seem "right for a role," a bit of good (but not too good looks), and a talent for projecting a false air of competency.

People have compared Reagan and Obama. The comparison is apt, but requires some nuance:

Reagan was a popular actor who became a presidential candidate.

Obama was a presidential candidate who became a popular actor.

More: It doesn't want to, but even the the media is beginning to fault the formerly-praised performances of Captain Bullshit.

Even Democrats in Gang Of Six Can't Defend Naked Emperor: "Pray for the Gang of Six."

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., offered a terse reaction. Â“Our bipartisan group of six Senators continues to work for a comprehensive solution to our nationÂ’s debt,Â” Durbin said. Â“The presidentÂ’s speech makes it clear that he is committed to the same goal.Â”

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (194)
Post contains 2015 words, total size 13 kb.

Unproven Missile Defense Defies Presidential Skepticism, Successfully Intercepts Ballistic Missile (Again, at Night Even)
— Dave in Texas

Something even a Third World country can be proud of.

As the IRBM target continued along its trajectory, the firing shipÂ’s AN/SPY-1 radar detected and acquired the ballistic missile target. The firing shipÂ’s Aegis BMD weapon system uplinked target track information to the SM-3 Block IA missile. The SM-3 maneuvered to a point in space as designated by the fire control solution and released its kinetic warhead. The kinetic warhead acquired the target, diverted into its path, and, using only force of a direct impact, destroyed the threat in a Â“hit-to-killÂ” intercept.

Unproven. Unreliable. Expensive. And sassy!

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 08:10 AM | Comments (54)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's Get Alinsky on Obama With Respect to Third World
— Ace

Slubs just posted about this. But I really want to talk about it too.

I'm actually glad Obama said we're becoming a Third World country, because this gives us the license to use this line like crazy. And it will work for us.

A couple of days ago I admitted maybe Obama does have a vision for the future, but that vision is Mexico. It just seems to me that he is taking this country down the road to failed third-world socialist quasi-democracies, with hyperinflation and defaults and bailouts and seizing of industries and so on.

And I don't think that's just me, or conservatives. I think that basic idea, that Obama is changing the country from an exceptional country, which has been prosperous, good, and strong, into one of the dismally ordinary countries wherein the government exists chiefly to write checks to retirees and pensioners and the poor and default every seven years when it can't pay the bills.

Me? I would use this constantly against Obama. I think it preys upon public fears, which would often be called a bad thing, except in this case I think those fears are not only justified but required if America is to right itself.

And he gave us license to say what we actually think without politically-correct penalties. No one can demagogue us for making "racist" attacks about Africa or Mexico or whatever. This guy said it first.

As they say in law, "you opened the door."

You want to talk about third world countries? Which country has previously remained rich, hard-working, virtuous, vital, and free, and which sorts of countries have become poor, idle, cynical, sclerotic and feudal, and which type of country is Obama pushing us towards?

Since you brought it up, Pal -- you're turning this once-great nation into a goddamned unstable Third World hellhole.

Thanks for introducing the topic. I've been meaning to mention this.

Posted by: Ace at 07:30 AM | Comments (122)
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

A Helpful Reminder
— Slublog

Remember this?

Today, I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America--they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Obama sure doesn't:

"I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."

April 14, 2011

Overnight Open Thread
— Maetenloch

Was busy all day so the current ONT Suckage Advisory Level is YELLOW.

To get you in the proper mood for tonight I offer you this:

Along with full analysis here.

Plus here's a trailer for the new movie, 'Super', starring The Office's Rainn Wilson. Just based on this scene it could be worth watching.

more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:35 PM | Comments (565)
Post contains 830 words, total size 8 kb.

Duke Fake-Rape Accuser Crystal Gayle Mangum Silences Her Critics By Swimming Over A Mile To Rescue a Drowning Child
— Ace

Ah, no, I'm just kidding again. She killed a guy.

Last time the punchline was "She stabbed a guy."

But now reports say her victim -- I mean her latest victim -- has died of the wounds she inflicted, so it's straight-up murder.

Remember when the left was celebrating this nightcrawling crack-addled lunatic whore as some kind of "scholar"?

Yeah. Good times, good times.

Posted by: Ace at 02:49 PM | Comments (376)
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

More Obama Punting To A Commission: Medicare Board Is Supposed To Do All The Rationing and Death Paneling He Won't Propose As Law
— Ace

One of Obama's few specific plans -- I should say "goals" -- is to simply mandate that the board overseeing Medicare payments hold costs to rate of inflation +0.5%, and not inflation + 1.0% as he previously insisted.

You know how this works? It's supposed to make recommendations for changes -- what won't be covered; rationing, in other words -- which Congress then needs to pass into law.

First of all, that's Obama punting, once again, to a commission with no actual power, which can only make recommendations to professional politicians.

And, as Mickey Kaus notes:

The all powerful Independent Payment Advisory Board will save us! This is always ObamaÂ’s deficit solution. Democracy canÂ’t handle the truth!(Â“It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels.Â”) But will Congress freely cede power over who gets what treatment to an unelected Â“advisoryÂ” board of experts? It happens with the Fed. But health care involves actual constituents living and dying[.]

So his plan is to have a commission recommend changes to Congress. He's punting to two different groups which conveniently do not include Barack Hussein Obama in their membership.

But why would Congress suddenly get tough on Old People when Obama can't even bring himself to utter the words "grandma gets rationed"? Obama's up for reelection in 2012; so is Congress. If Obama can't even say the words "ration" how can he expect other politicians to act first and pass rationing measures into positive law?

And this is his "plan." Another commission, another directive to Congress to do what he doesn't have the guts to do, another punt, another "present."

This is not a plan. The Doc Fix -- a cut in medicare reimbursements for doctors -- was passed in 1995 and has been rescinded every year since then (hence, doctors keep getting paid more, not less).

If Congress doesn't have the guts to cut doctors' pay (as they say they won't take Medicare enrollees anymore if they do that), how is Congress going to vote affirmatively to let old people die?

I ask once again: What is worse? Telling someone honestly, upfront, that they'll be expected to pay the first $5000 of their health care costs, but beyond that, we'll pick up every dime, or lying to someone, telling them Daddy Government Got Dey Healthcare squared away, paying for minor shit that people really should be paying for themselves, but then, when they're old and desperately sick, having death panelists step in and say "Too expensive; you've lived long enough. We're pulling the plug. Here, here's some advil and codeine. God Speed you on your way."

That last part is a nasty surprise. But Obama prefers that scheme, because the people alive and voting are getting paid by the government and hence will vote for him, whereas the people death-paneled out of existence aren't going to be voting.

Well, some of them will keep voting Democrat, of course. But they'll be the minority.

So those are the two plans: We ration some up front when you're healthy and you know, in advance, what your maximum health care expenses will be year to year, or we'll pretend we've got everything covered, and then, if you're old and sick, surprise, it's too expensive to treat you so Gram-Gram go bye-bye now.

One is "cruelty," according to Krugman. I agree. But we disagree on which.

Kaus also points out that Krugman rants about the cruelty of the Ryan plan but then endorses rationing by Obama's death panels, which he euphemizes as "health care professionals:"

So the difference between ObamaÂ’s Medicare and the Ryan Plan, according to Paul Krugman is whether you get your coverage denied by Â“insurance company executivesÂ” or by Â”health care professionals.Â” To the barricades!

Kaus is snarking; he doesn't see that as much of a difference worth fighting for.

But Krugman and Obama are fighting very hard for just that distinction -- Kaus should ask why.

Posted by: Ace at 02:17 PM | Comments (112)
Post contains 708 words, total size 4 kb.