I remember when the book "The Bell Curve" was released. It created brisk animosity with its' findings. Well, another libertarian has a study that will certainly cause much gloating in some, great anger in others. From a CNN report:
Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
Kanazawa's biases?
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."
I just made up that libertarians tend to have IQs around 130. It's the only reason I can think of not to have included other worldviews beyond 'liberal' and 'conservative'. There will be enough animosity and jealousy without having to include libertarians and their vastly superior IQs. Only thing that makes sense. Ha!
I thought the Left and the Democrats had it right when some warned against Iraq turning into the next Vietnam, back in 2002. We're still there, but we're also still in Afghanistan, which President Obama has called 'the right war'.
I thought this opinion in CNN today was noteworthy in comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam. From Andrew West:
After the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, U.S. Col. Harry Summers remarked to his North Vietnamese counterpart, "You know you never defeated us on the battlefield." After a moment, the North Vietnamese officer replied: "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
Although that blunt exchange took place nearly 35 years ago, it's still worthy of close consideration in light of America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Americans did win their battles in Vietnam, but, as the outcome of the war made clear, raw battlefield prowess did not lead to victory. Why? Because the war there was not for Americans to win or lose. It was a Vietnamese war.
Looking to capture and bring to justice those who masterminded the attacks of 2001 is excellent. Going to war within a country to root out terrorism, generally? Not our war.
Where are the Democrats who were opposed to the wars when GW Bush was president? I can only conclude by their general silence that their opposition was not principled, but raw political opportunism.
I've always been a little flat on the Libertarian Party's national platform. It doesn't function like a party platform should, but rather as a manifesto. That's ok for a new party, but not one that is trying to let the country know, "We're an established party, and here is what we will do as a focused effort to improve the country. Now, vote for us on the strength of this".
I believe that at each national convention of the LP, we should be adopting 3-5 planks that represent our solutions to the major issues of the day. If I could wave my magic wand, the platform going into 2010 elections would look like this:
No more bailouts. Nobody is 'too big to fail'. If you make bad decisions, they won't be subsidized by the rest of the country.
No more stimulus spending. Deficit spending is a placebo, and doesn't generate genuine wealth. It drains the country of tomorrow's wealth.
Fix the health care problems caused by government intervention. Eliminate the federal mandates that generate inefficiency and needlessly drive up costs.
End the wars. Pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan immediately. Stop trying to be the world's police officer. It doesn't work.
Restore civil liberties. Repeal the Patriot Act and all other laws that direct law enforcement to spy on American citizens.
For my part, as a County Chair, I will be directing the Libertarian Party of Hamilton County towards having a platform that does just this sort of thing- presents the issues and solution we will run on locally for 2010.
Doing this does not represent an abdication of the full range of policy solutions libertarians have for the myriad issues we could address. Rather, it prioritizes the response to the most pressing issues affecting the greatest number of citizens.
I'll have info on the LP of Hamilton County's convention posted shortly.
Update: A correction has been made to replace the word 'panacea' with 'placebo'. Thanks to Todd for the Websterian QC action!
Now I'm sure it's just coincidence in following up my previous post with this, but yesterday, I found a curious entry on my Visa statement.
2/14 Taco Bell $31.24
That jumped out at me because a) it was Valentine's Day, and I sure wasn't taking my bride there if I wanted not to sleep on the couch; b) I can't remember the last time I ate at Taco Bell; and c) even if I did, I can't imagine eating 30 tacos.
So, I called Chase and had the charge investigated. I found out the charge was made in Dallas. I've never even been to Dallas! They said a card had been swiped there.
This was all mystifying to me. I'm pretty responsible with financial documents and credit cards. I use a cross-cut shredder. The remnants of credit cards do go into the trash can, while the old shredded statements are used for kindling in the fireplace. It's good kindling, too!
I had an old friend tell me he had a scam run on him where someone made an entry, he didn't catch it, and they attached his account to a PayPal account, drained his charge account, and closed the PayPal account. Well, that's pretty scary!
Fortunately, Chase closed my card account after reviewing my other charges. The Taco Bell one was the only one I didn't recognize. I'll be refunded the money on that charge, and will get a new account.
I'd love to know what I can do to be more careful.
This time, it's credit card 'reform' that will help enrich the credit card companies that were supposed to be reigned in. From Reason Hit & Run:
Lo some nine months ago, Congress took a politically courageous stand against mom, apple pie, and credit card issuers by supposedly reining in the excesses of the latter (excesses which largely consisted of giving lots of people the ability to purchase goods and services on the automated installment plans otherwise known as credit cards). The goal of the new legislation was to clear the books, start anew, blah blah blah, and hem in the contagion known as excessive credit, which was widely believed to be behind the financial crisis that may or may not be over. And, at the same time, of course, Congress was going to make sure that all Americans had access to the credit that is our god-given birthright. The streets of America are paved with gold MasterCards and all that.
So now the new rules are in effect. And credit card issuers (banks, mostly) are now coming up with new ways to squeeze money out of customers, just like restauarants doubling up on corkage fees, extra charges for more butter, you name it.
So many people want Congress to act. Not me! Give me gridlock, stalemate, pussyfooting, and deliberation! I can't think of a single Congressional 'reform' in my lifetime that made anything better, only worse.
I've really been enjoying what I can catch of the Olympic hockey this year, mens' & women's. It wasn't the Miracle On Ice last night, but watching the US men's team defeat the Canadians, in Canada, while playing most of the game in the American defensive zone, was a great thrill. From NHL.com's report on USA's 5-3 win:
[T]he young and brash Americans had silenced not only the capacity crowd at Canada Hockey Place, but an entire nation with a gritty 5-3 win that featured two goals by Rafalski, single strikes from both Langenbrunner and Drury and 42 saves from Miller.
"Those guys know what to do to win," said American coach Ron Wilson.
David Backes, part of America's youth brigade couldn't suppress a smile when asked about the veterans stepping to the fore Sunday.
"Veteran leadership; there's not much of it, but those are the guys that came here tonight and got it done," said Backes, who is making a name for himself on the international game's biggest stage. "Ryan Miller, Brian Rafalski, Jamie Langenbrunner. Those are guys that are blue-collar and get it done."
They certainly did Sunday, against what many considered the longest of odds.
Canada entered this tournament as the odd-on favorite and, on paper, was better than the Americans at almost every position. Now, the Canadians (1-1-0-1, 5 points) are relegated to Tuesday's qualification round, forced to play Germany in an unwanted winner-take-all game.
The Americans (3-0-0-0, 9 points) not only win Group A, but will have one of the top-two seeds in Wednesday's quarterfinal round.
While I'm excited, I doubt this win is yet capturing the imagination of Americans from sea to sea. 1980 won't be duplicated. It can't be. Those were different times.
The Soviet Union and other Soviet Bloc countries fielded teams that were amateur in name only, unofficial pros from the Red Army teams. More importantly, it was still the Cold War, and besides that, the US had endured a 10+ year malaise. The country needed something to believe in and rally behind, and this was it.
Since those conditions don't exist, I love the fact of the NHL pros in the Games. The competition is as level as it's ever been, and at a high level besides. People think of Canada & Russia as the top teams, but the Swedes won the last gold, and are undefeated with the US. Great hockey!
The US is not assured a medal yet, but they are spared the first round of elimination games. After that, win one game, and the US will advance to the medal round.
The US women are in the same spot, having won their preliminary games. I do hope the women's final is US-Canada. Unlike the men's game, there is great disparity in national talent, and the North American squads are far and away the most talented.
This sums up our economy for me. Morgan Freeman portrays me, and the young man is an amalgam of Ben Bernanke, The Obama Administration, The Bush Administration, and Congress.
When the Premier of a Canadian Province leaves his country for the US for heart care, that tells me about all I need to know about the relative differences between socialized health care and private care. Basic facts, from the CBC:
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams will be sidelined from three to 12 weeks because of heart surgery he'll undergo at an undisclosed location in the United States, acting premier Kathy Dunderdale says.
Telling details:
"Having the surgery done in the province was never an option that was offered to him," Dunderdale said.
"Ultimately, we have to be the gatekeepers of our own health, and he has taken medical advice from a number of different sources," she said. "Based on all of the medical advice that he's received, he is doing what is best for him, to do everything he can to ensure that he can have the best outcome from the surgery and that he can be back on his feet and back here doing his job as quickly as possible."
Never an option. Doing what's best for him. Well, so great that the Canadians in high places can leave their country to get adequate care. What about the rest of the country? The little people?
More! How about the claims that innovation will be stifled in the US if we have socialized care. That's BS, right?
Kaminski said people shouldn't view his decision to seek medical help elsewhere as a condemnation of Canada's medical health system.
"It could be something as simple as a slightly new technique that's being tried that gives a speedy recovery and that's not yet approved in Canada," she said.
Kaminski said it might also be a procedure that can't be performed for whatever reason by medical professionals in the province.
People vote with their feet. That's where the results are shown. One could say, "Oh, the Premier left Newfoundland, which is a pretty remote Province". True, but he didn't go to Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, or Vancouver, either. He went to the USA.
One of Senator Bayh's stated reasons for bowing out is the increasingly partisan nature of the game.
Ok, but if Bayh is a moderate, and believes that being a moderate is for the better, what does leaving accomplish but reduce the number of moderates and throw it more over to the more purely partisan? It doesn't make sense.
I'm a Libertarian, and it's frustrating as hell being one. So, I should quit, stand aside, and assure that the Republicans and Democrats continue to destroy the country? Um, no.
I really believe one of two things, or a combination: He didn't want his wife to take arrows on the basis of her corporate board positions; and, there's some heavy dirt out there that he just didn't want to have see the light of day. Pure speculation, of course.
Can someone smarter than me explain why school districts have these two-hour delays? I mean, other than to make the lives of parents more difficult, because employers aren't on a delay.
Indiana just turned into a circus with Evan Bayh's retirement announcement. It wouldn't be the case if the 17th Amendment hadn't been passed.
Quick! What's the 17th?
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Big deal, right? Prior to the passage of the 17th, the various state legislatures appointed their two US Senators, for the purpose of protecting the interests of the states.
It was with great amusement that I visited the Daily Kos to observe the wailing, anguish, and knashing of teeth over the 'betrayal' of Bayh to the Democratic Party. You know what? If you're in any state other than Indiana, you can get bent! Bayh isn't your Senator! Project the failings of your party onto your own Congress Critter!
Now, I know- it's impossible to reconcile the votes of Bayh and Dick Lugar and conclude that both could possibly have had the interests of Indiana in mind. And, prior to the passage of the 17th, the state's legislature could have observed the very thing, and recalled one or the other, and installed a new Senator.
While the push for direct election of Senators was populist inspired, and while it did take that power away from the states (the real Point Of Beginning for the diminuation of State's Rights, btw), it empowered a new class like never before- corporate donors, which tend to be national interests.
Ironically, it was also intended to diminish the influence 'industrialists' had over Senators. Oops! The anticipated main attraction in Bayh vs. Coats was to be the attacks against Bayh's corporate interest wife, and against Coats' corporate interest last 12 years.
This wouldn't be, couldn't be, with legislature appointed Senators. There would be no campaign committees for Senators. They wouldn't spend their time chummying with lobbyists for the purpose of trading law for war chests. They would have to please their statehouse.
The first thing that came to mind for me upon the news of Evan Bayh's sudden announcement that he is retiring from the US Senate is regards the rules for elections. Tomorrow is the deadline for Democrats and Republicans to file their signatures to be on their parties' respective primary election ballots. A Huffington Post article sums up the rules well.
It does not appear that there will be time for Indiana Democrats to choose a top-flight candidate to back, and get signatures for. There was one intrepid Democrat, Tamara D'Ippolito, who was prepared to give Bayh a Primary challenge- if she herself could collect the necessary signatures on time, which has not been done. This suits the Democratic Party elite, apparently. From Fire Dog Lake:
I just spoke with Tamyra D’Ippolito, the candidate who was already running in the US Senate primary as a Democrat in Indiana before Evan Bayh ended his re-election bid today. D’Ippolito’s potential presence on the primary ballot complicates the ability for Indiana Democrats to handpick a nominee. If nobody qualifies for the primary, Indiana Dems can choose the candidate. But if D’Ippolito qualifies, then she would be the only candidate on that primary ballot, and Brad Ellsworth or Baron Hill or whoever would have to run a write-in campaign to defeat her in that primary in May.
So how’s D’Ippolito doing? She’s collected 3,500 of the 4,500 signatures, 500 in each Congressional district in Indiana, which are needed by noon tomorrow in order to qualify. D’Ippolito said that she’s particularly short in IN-08, in the Terre Haute/Evansville area of the district. Her campaign manager has contacted all of the heads of the county Democratic parties asking them if they would help her get on the ballot.
But she’s not getting the sense that they want to be helpful in that effort. “Politics in Indiana is the old boy’s school. They’re getting ready to put one of their own in,” D’Ippolito, a cafe owner in Bloomington who gained experience in politics running a primary campaign for Gretchen Clearwater in 2006. “My gut feeling tells me they’re meeting in a room, I don’t know if they’re smoking cigars,” D’Ippolito said, basically working under the assumption that Bayh’s announcement was timed so the state party could pick the nominee by themselves. “The timing of this is amazing.”
D’Ippolito told me she is the first woman to ever run for the US Senate in Indiana. Her impression from working on prior campaigns and from this one is that Indiana political culture is a “tight old boys school, it borders on sexism.” In a state where the population is 52% women, D’Ippolito says “in the future, we women of Indiana are not going to tolerate” the chummy, insider culture.
Now, I suspect it may be as much as that she's a complete unknown, and one that hasn't raised any significant money, and hasn't yet mustered the needed signatures. Her website is child's play. Really, when I looked it over this afternoon, the first thing I thought was, "A complete amateur like this could perhaps win the US Senate, thanks to party label. I can think of a thousand better Libertarians".
But her comments are interesting. The Democrats? Good ol' boys? Borderline sexists? I love it. May they eat each other alive.
I must be, if the President really believes what he's saying here. From Bloomberg:
Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he and his administration have pursued a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda and are “fierce advocates” for the free market, rejecting corporate criticism of his policies.
“The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business; and then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business,” Obama said in a Feb. 9 interview in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands tomorrow.
Well, those on the left are correct- the Administration is in the pockets of big business. Note how he did not say, 'and then on the big business side...'. He said, 'then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business'. That's an important distinction, and business (generally) is correct in its' criticism as well.
What is fundmantally business friendly about considering compelling all business owners to provide health insurance for their employees, whether they can afford to do so or not? Or, about considering environmental regulations that would make our energy costs skyrocket? What is inherently 'free trade' about the huge tariffs the Administration slapped on Chinese tires? Or, in taking a huge stake in GM?
It seems like Obama recognizes some inherently beloved aspect of the terms 'free market' and 'business friendly' such that he can sling them around without meaning.
“We are pro-growth,” Obama said. “We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.”
Yeah, right. I can tell how much you respect a free market by how much you meddle in it. Bollocks.
Under the Bush Administration, jobs were being lost, and under a full year of Obama's Administration, it has gotten worse. When you read comments that follow graphics like these, the wilfull partisan ignorance is amazing. Mainly, both sides have failed. Pointing fingers at the Rs or Ds yields one response: You're both right. They're at fault.
I had to laugh when checking out ESPN's website this morning. They had a poll asking which song The Who will play at halftime on Sunday. The winner, in something like 45 of 50 states? "Who Are You".
Give the NFL's edginess about FCC regulations since the Wardrobe Malfunction, I'm thinking there's no way they play "Who Are You". Hope they do. I love the tune, and NFL nervousness makes me grin.
When is the last time a German national fled his country for the USA seeking something like religious freedom? Looks like 2006. From a Time Magazine article:
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are not like other asylum seekers, people fleeing war or torture in places like Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia. They're music teachers from a village in southern Germany. And yet, in what appears to be the first case of its kind, the couple and their five children were granted asylum in the U.S. last week by an immigration judge who ruled that they had a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their home country for engaging in what has become a popular albeit somewhat controversial American practice — homeschooling their children.
The Romeikes, who are Evangelical Christians, took their three eldest children out of school in the town of Bissingen in 2006 because they were concerned about the impact the government-approved curriculum and the public-school environment would have on their social development. "Over the past 10 to 20 years, the curriculum in public schools in Germany has been more and more against Christian values, and my eldest children were having problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. It's important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught," Uwe Romeike said in a statement provided by the couple's attorney, Michael Donnelly of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).
It's as much religious freedom as educational freedom, so the last lines of the story intrigued me greatly:
The ruling is sure to ignite passions on both sides of the debate — and may spur other parents around the world to follow the Romeikes' lead. If this happens, the U.S. could see a flood of a new type of refugees —educational asylum seekers.
With the kinds of jobs current immigrants tend to seek drying up, we've seen a slackened rate of immigration from places like Mexico in the last year or so. Might this ruling indeed spur a new kind of immigrant? It all comes as a surprise to me, as I had viewed American homeschoolers as a sort of hassled bunch. Apparently 'hassled' and 'freedom' continue to be relative terms. Good to know we're more free, and at least for one family, a destination.
The Indianapolis Colts made two Super Bowl tickets available at face value to each of the members of the City-County Council. To get the measure of the graft that represents, consider how difficult it is to get that ticket at any price.
I just checked Stub Hub, a ticket re-seller, where I bought NY Rangers tickets two weeks ago at 60% face value. The cheapest nosebleed seat is currently posted at $1,418. The good seats in Section 114 go for as much as $9,131. Each. Hell, they're $3,000+ in the end zones! Stub Hub Super Bowl ticket link.
I don't care that the tickets were offered at face value. The City-County Council votes on Capital Improvement Board issues, which can (and has) put money directly into the pockets of Colts ownership. It's graft. There's no other way to describe it.
I am very proud of Libertarian Councilor Ed Coleman, who was apparently just one of three Councilors to refuse the offer. Why elect Libertarians? They can't be bought like Republicans and Democrats can. 26 of their Councilors accepted the graft, according to the Indy Star:
Ward said the Colts received requests from 32 legislators and four members of Congress. Each was able to purchase two tickets.
Twenty-six of the 29 City-County Council members had purchased two tickets at the $800 face value.
"It's a show of appreciation for their public service," Ward said. "It's very typical among professional sports teams to make this offering."
I'd like to know who did take the tickets. Their names should be MUD.
I had a Facebook dialogue prompt this post, centering on Super Bowl ads for CBS' broadcast, where in one case, perfectly good money was refused because of one controversial message, and in another, a different controversial message will be aired. From a Christian Science Monitor article:
Working in a tough advertising climate, CBS surprised many Americans by explaining a new policy on advocacy ads after news emerged that it had agreed to show an antiabortion ad featuring Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.
That decision caused an uproar over the ad itself, the sponsor (the conservative organization Focus on the Family), and the prospect of politics seeping into a three-hour block where most Americans are trying to escape from the daily grind.
But after CBS on Friday rejected a potentially controversial ad from ManCrunch, a Toronto-based gay dating site, it opened itself up for criticism – which came fast and furious. The so-called “man-kiss ad” shows two football fans touching hands over a bowl of potato chips, which then leads, as the ad implies, to a make-out session."
CBS has a problem when they do something like this at the same time as they allow an anti-gay group like Focus on the Family to place ads during the Super Bowl,” says Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.) “This network should come clean to the public about what's going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard."
Well, of course it's a double standard. Interested parties certainly should be unhappy with CBS. Complain loudly if you don't like it. Just don't call it censorship or an affront to free speech.
As owner of their channel, CBS has every right in the world to air, or not air, anything it chooses. They have the right to display any bias they wish with their advertising. That is genuine free speech, when the owner of the medium decides. Indeed, the worst case scenario would be that CBS was made to air an ad it didn't wish to. That's worse than censorship. That's fascism, literally, where one owns a property, but is dictated as to its' use.
As for me, I would love to see other broadcast stations take up the ad. Sure, it's not the same as advertising to the largest TV audience of the year. At the same time, the rejection has generated some buzz that would-be advertisers don't usually enjoy more than a week before the big game.
So, here's what all the fuss is about:
Just doing my part to show that ManCrunch hasn't been censored. Gratis.
(The most objectionable part is showing a Packer and Viking fan embracing. Everyone knows that would never happen.)
Update: Apparently, there is an ad that should be every bit as controversial as these, courtesy of Bud Light. Check out this Reason blog post.
It seems that every year, Indiana's Senate passes a bill that causes me to feel shame about the state I live in- one that recommends a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
For one thing, the premise is complete bunk. From the mouth of the author, via the Indy Star:
"Marriage is one of the foundations of our society," said Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury, who authored the amendment. "It is something that I firmly believe needs to be protected."
I've never understood, despite a ton of hot air, how a same-sex union threatens marriage. I'm married to my wife, and not once have I felt any suspect inclination that it would come crashing to an end upon hearing that gay people were marrying in California or Massachusetts, or some other state. Nothing affects my marriage, because it is between myself and my wife.
You want to protect marriage, Yoder? Ban divorce.
Better yet, get government out of the business of regulating marriage altogether. Let the churches marry people who want to be married. Let the courts uphold the contracts and agreements made by two people, whether married or not. How hard is that?
Apparently, for Republicans, that's too much to take. They apparently are much happier sticking their nose into people's private lives. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric about smaller government. What a load of crap. Don't let me hear another Republican derisively shout 'socialism'! Physician? Heal thyself!
So, I was especially proud of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, when the party stood up to declare opposition to this bill.
The notion of changing our Constitution to include Senate Joint Resolution 13 is in complete disharmony with the Preamble of this State’s guiding document.
Our Constitution reads, “WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being.”
Let me translate for the proponents of SJR-13. Our government was instituted to protect the right of every Hoosier to make decisions as they see fit. Our Constitution was written to protect us from invasive government.
Shame on those members of both the Senate and House that seek to violate the purpose of our Constitution. For all the sign waving by my Republican friends about liberty and socialism, it is striking that they would propose to write into this document discrimination and direct government interference.
Beyond this, the Republicans who promote this nonsense actually make Pat Bauer look like he's got his finger on the pulse of the state. From the Star:
House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said the amendment is unlikely to receive a hearing this year, arguing the state's trial and appeals courts have upheld Indiana's marriage law.
"It's the same old song," Bauer said. "Some people don't have enough to do creating jobs and moving this economy forward, so they think up divisive things."
So, I'm proud of the LPIN, and ashamed of the Republicans. Why could I never get on board with the Republicans? Because they do so many irrelevant and needlessly antagonistic, counterproductive, and oppressive things.
Did the President give a speech tonight? Forget about that. Glenn Beck will be all over what Chris Matthews said on MSNBC. It's so egregious that Media Matters posted it up:
I was just remarking the other day what a complete douchebag Chris Matthews is. So it goes.
If Glenn Beck said this, there would be calls for his head and his job. Let's see if there are similar calls for Matthews.
It's just as well. The State of the Union address was what is becoming typical Obama: Great speechifying, little real substance, contradictions and impossibilities within the text, and the masterful deception of making one's own messes appear to have been someone else's doing and cause for alarm/action. Seemed like a campaign speech rather than a report.
