Just a quick round up of the net. Class was interesting, but since it was ITIL version 2, it will likely be useless to me.
Nice piece over at Ace of Spades:
Christopher Hitchens asks: “Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?“
Uh, is that a trick question?
Obama acts like an aimless twit because that’s what he is. There is no “deeper Barack.” Sure, he does fine on the topics he’s rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: “Present.”
That’s what happened with Georgia. He gives a statement that he probably read on a bumper sticker: “War is bad for humans and other living things.” Then revises it after his advisers have a chance to write up a few position papers (cribbing from McCain) and run a few polls.
That’s what happened this past weekend with the financial bailouts. First he sounded like a fourth grader aping a tour guide on Capitol Hill: “Congress has an important role to play.” Then, after declaring that now is not the time for specific details to fix the problem he was mocked on Leno. And today he has his advisers have a six point plan.
The real racists are the liberal assholes that support Obama. Anyone that keeps bringing up the race issue that is non-existent is a friggin’ racist douche bag. In other words, the Democrats are a bunch of racist assholes.
Their mantra of hate just switched from hating blacks outright, to needing their votes to continue the hate in other ways, such as the BS that is welfare.
Here’s more on the subject from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:
Good G-d, but the poor flailing donks must be desperate for material. After more than a week of trying, once again, to drag racism kicking and screaming into the campaign since the Republicans that they’ve been accusing of wanting to do so continue to stubbornly refuse to live down to liberal standards, one of the New York Obama Times’ editorial hacks once again drags the carcass of the old nag out of the barn for yet another beating:
It was not that long ago that black people in the Deep South could be beaten or killed for seeking the right to vote, talking back to the wrong white man or failing to give way on the sidewalk.
“Not long ago” if you’re the same age as Robert KKK Byrd, that is, which precious few people are. Most of his contemporaries passed away around the end of the Civil War, leaving poor old Bobby to carry on the fight against the nigras all by himself.
Time for the left to finally shut the fuck up. These two were traitors and got what they deserved.
A startling confession again proves their guilt. Now it’s time for their left-wing defenders to acknowledge it.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.
It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century. After his comments were published, even the Rosenbergs’ children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, were left with little hope to hang on to — and this week, in comments unlike any they’ve made previously, the brothers acknowledged having reached the difficult conclusion that their father was, indeed, a spy. “I don’t have any reason to doubt Morty,” Michael Meeropol told Sam Roberts of the New York Times.
With these latest events, the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government. Since the couple’s trial, the left has portrayed them as martyrs for civil liberties, righteous dissenters whose chief crime was to express their constitutionally protected political beliefs. In the end, the left has argued, the two communists were put to death not for spying but for their unpopular opinions, at a time when the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were seeking to stem opposition to their anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War.
And now, to the current “crisis” in the markets. This may hurt your head.
This is a great piece from a professor
I currently teach several sections per year of economics for MBA students. My MBA students are a joy to teach: they are energetic, curious, engaged, and motivated. (And even better, they laugh at my jokes. Most of the time.)
But this term, even before the first midterm exam, there has been some sotto voce grumbling.
Why is he messing around with indifference curves when financial history is being made? When the World As We Know It is Ending?
I know. I’m finally interested in economics and want to learn what’s going on, but Newmark’s doing . . . other stuff.
My defense, which I plan to offer my students this week, is two-fold:
1. My university has a fine finance faculty–the MBAs will take at least one course in finance–and it seems both proper and efficient to let those folks discuss the issue.
2. It’s too early. A lot of what we–economists as well as everybody else–think we know about the current trouble could change depending on what happens in the months and years to come.
But perhaps those are cop-outs. And there is one economics-related aspect of the mess that I am intensely interested in, even if I’m far from the best person to address it.
There will be a huge fight, just as there was about the Great Depression, over whether the current mess was caused by “free markets”. The sneering and jeering have already begun: “The Free Market: A False Idol After All?” (Peter S. Goodman, NY Times); “Americans May Be Losing Faith in Free Markets” (Peter G. Gosselin, LA Times); “Capitalism’s Reality Check” (E. J. Dionne, Washington Post).
It is hard to overstate how important the outcome of this fight will be for public policy in the United States and throughout the world. And while, as noted, it’s early, let me declare my bias: by instinct, training, and experience, I believe free markets work well the vast majority of the time. To coin a phrase, based on one from one of my favorite authors, Ernest Hemingway, “Markets are a fine thing, and worth fighting for.”
And more cluelessness from the One. If he were any more clueless, he might be a Senator, oh, wait, he is…then again, maybe I should look at classifying him for what he really is:
Right now I have been calling B. Hussein Obama a moron. Maybe I should down grade him to an imbecile?
Here’s how to tell the difference:
Any child with an IQ of above 70 was considered “normal,” while kids above 130 are considered “gifted.” To deal with kids below 70, psychologists invented a nomenclature of retardation. Those with IQs between 51 and 70 were called morons. Morons had adequate learning skills to complete menial tasks and communicate. I placed him in this category because he can learn and communicate. Obviously, his handlers are able to teach him new tricks and he can communicate through a teleprompter.
Imbeciles, with IQs between 26 and 50, never progressed past a mental age of about six.
I think maybe he really belongs here. Without handlers and a teleprompter, he sounds rather childish at best.
Don’t make me reclassify your ass to idiot.
And the lowest of all were the idiots, with IQs between 0 and 24, who were characterized by poor motor skill, extremely limited communication, and little response to stimulus.
This comes from Michael J. Totten’s website:
Senator Barack Obama’s answer to Katie Couric’s question a few days ago about why he thinks there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001, was bizarre.
“Well,” he said, “I think that the initial invasion into Afghanistan disrupted al Qaeda. And that was the right thing to do. I mean, we had to knock out those safe havens. And that, I think, weakened them. We did some work in strengthening our homeland security apparatus here. Obviously, the average person knows that when they go to the airport, because they are goin’ through taking off their shoes … all that. The problem is when we got distracted by Iraq. We gave al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself.” [Emphasis added.]
Jennifer Rubin correctly noted that Couric asked Obama why the U.S. has not been attacked, but let’s leave that aside. The notion that “we gave Al Qaeda time to reconstitute itself” is breathtakingly ahistorical.