tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12085623781036955222024-03-05T22:07:22.991-05:00Senator BlutarskyGrab a brew. Don't cost nothin'.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-27010804702012578802012-10-12T13:29:00.003-04:002012-10-12T13:29:40.093-04:00The Progressive Fiscal CliffDylan Matthews of the Washington Post has a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/11/what-the-fiscal-cliff-means-for-the-next-dollar-you-earn/">post</a> up today that offers some interesting data on whom the "fiscal cliff" would hurt most, but he presents the data in a way that I believe invites misinterpretation.<br />
<br />
Matthews draws on estimates from the <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3554&DocTypeID=1">Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center</a> of the impact of the "fiscal cliff" on marginal tax rates for various income cohorts. He performs what I view as a public service in calling attention to this data; while I can't vouch for the accuracy of the estimates, the focus on marginal rates is desirable.<br />
<br />
Where he goes astray in my view is in his presentation of the data, which focuses on the percentage increase in each income cohort's marginal tax rate in the event that we go over the "fiscal cliff."<br />
<br />
For example, a chart shows that the marginal income tax rate for people earning under $10,000 annually would see a 64% increase in their marginal tax rate, as they went from paying a 4.9% marginal rate in 2012 to an 8% marginal rate in 2013. The claim is indisputably true, in the sense that his algebra is correct, but in my estimation it creates a very misleading impression of the impact on economic incentives.<br />
<br />
The more useful way to interpret the data is by focusing not on the impact on tax rates, but on the impact on after-tax income. In the example above, someone earning under $10,000 in 2012 keeps 95.1 cents of the next dollar he earns, and the "fiscal cliff" would reduce that to 92 cents in 2013. So while the 64% increase in this person's marginal tax rate sounds dramatic, the reality is a decline of just 3.3% in after-tax income ((8.0-4.9)/95.1). A person who keeps 92 cents of the next dollar they earn is unlikely to be discouraged by his tax rate from going out and earning it.<br />
<br />
The effect is most dramatic at the extremes; Matthews' methodology creates an exaggerated impression of the impact on the incentive of lower-income people to earn that next dollar, and an understated impression of the impact on the incentives of high-earners.<br />
<br />
Here is the data, with Matthews' numbers (the percentage rise in tax rate) on the left, and the actual decline in after-tax income on the right:<br />
<br />
Cash Income % Rise in Tax Rate % Decline in After-Tax Income<br />
<$10,000 64.4% 3.3%<br />
$10-$20K 26.5% 5.2%<br />
$20-$30K 5.6% 2.3%<br />
$30-$40K 2.8% 1.4%<br />
$40-$50K 2.2% 1.0%<br />
$50-$75K 7.8% 3.9%<br />
$75-$100K 16.7% 8.2%<br />
$100-$200K 8.5% 4.8%<br />
$200-$500K 6.2% 3.8%<br />
$500-$1M 26.2% 13.8% <br />
>$1M 16.4% 10.0%<br />
<br />
In other words, the "fiscal cliff" turns out to be rather progressive.<br />
<br />
People earning between $500,000 and $1 million would see a 13.8% decline in their marginal after-tax income, and those earning over $1 million would see a 10% decline, while those earning under $75,000 would see declines ranging from 1% to 5.2%.<br />
<br />
I sent Mr. Matthews a tweet about this, and even though he doesn't know me he was nice enough to reply: <br />
<br />
<i>Sure, but (a) the poor face the highest work disincentive increase and
(b) ability to pay is logarithmic. 5% of $20k is more important than 10% of $1 million.</i><br />
<br />
Twitter doesn't lend itself to detailed discussion, but I think his first point alludes to the fact, which he notes in his post, that while low-income people appear to face a smaller impact from the "fiscal cliff" when viewed in isolation, the reality is that as benefits such as the EITC phase out, they face marginal rates that can only be described as confiscatory.<br />
<br />
As with his algebra, this much is indisputable. The disincentives to work created as eligibility for benefits phases out are a huge problem, and one to which it is difficult to imagine any good solution without a substantial commitment of additional resources, which entails its own problems.<br />
<br />
Yet I don't think this justifies the misleading portrayal of the effect on tax rates rather than on after-tax income. It easy enough to marshal the data to show effective marginal tax rates for people transitioning out of benefit eligibility; Matthews has done so himself in other posts. So I fail to see any good reason to risk one's credibility by presenting this data in such a misleading manner.<br />
<br />
The second point, regarding the ability to pay, strikes me as a non sequitur. Any presumption about ability to pay is irrelevant to the calculation of what the tax burden actually is.<br />
<br />
Moreover, while someone earning $1 million can presumably bear an increased tax rate more easily than someone earning $20,000, such a person can also more easily avail themselves of tax avoidance strategies, including exiting the labor market altogether. If you are earning a very modest income, you are unlikely to have any good alternatives to continuing to work no matter how high your tax rate goes. If you are earning seven figures or more, particularly if you have done so for a multi-year period, you are apt to have far more flexibility to decide you'd rather spend your time doing something other than making money. In short, willingness to bear a higher tax burden starts to become as important as ability to pay.<br />
<br />
Matthews' post is still well worth reading in full, but it should be read while bearing in mind that the presentation of the data seems designed to create the impression that the "fiscal cliff" would most heavily impair the incentive to work of low-income people, when in fact the data do not support that conclusion. <br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-92167882043497590122012-10-06T11:46:00.001-04:002012-10-06T11:46:49.008-04:00You Really Don't Want To Hitch Your Credibility To Jack WelchYesterday's drop in the U-3 unemployment rate to 7.8% was shocking, given the absence of a commensurate improvement in the underlying economy, or indeed in the broader labor market as measured by the U-6 rate, which was flat at 14.7%.<br />
<br />
Coming on the heels of Obama's weak debate performance Wednesday night, this seems to have led a lot of people to speculate about whether the Obama administration has somehow compromised the integrity of the BLS for the benefit of their re-election effort. <br />
<br />
While I wouldn't rule such a possibility entirely out of the realm of possibility - I am on record as stating that <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-am-done-pretending-that-barack-obama.html">Barack Obama is not merely a bad President but a bad person</a> - I think it is really, really unlikely.<br />
<br />
And the grandstanding of Jack Welch makes me even more skeptical than I would otherwise be, about which more in a bit.<br />
<br />
One good rule in the blogosphere is: when in doubt, trust Megan McArdle. And she delivers a <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/05/why-would-the-bls-bother-to-cook-the-books.html">good overview</a> of why the most likely explanation for the U-3 outlier is entirely innocent: the inherent volatility of the household survey.<br />
<br />
Conservatives dismayed by the misleadingly bullish headline unemployment number should focus less on the probability that the numbers were cooked, which is quite low, and more on the probability of mean reversion in the November number, which is high. If the September U-3 number is truly the outlier it appears to be, then there is every reason to anticipate that the October number, which will be released four days before election day, will rebound to 8% or higher.<br />
<br />
I do think one argument that Megan (and others) have advanced is faulty, and that is the idea that there is no rational motive to manipulate the data because it is too late in the campaign to do Obama any good. People making this argument invariably cite the experience of George H.W. Bush, who lost despite improving unemployment numbers as the 1992 election approached. I think this overlooks the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_special/2000/02/faster_politics.html">Feiler Faster thesis</a> popularized by Mickey Kaus. Voters will receive and process information much faster in the 2012 campaign than they did twenty years ago, and so Obama could very well benefit from late trends that did not help George H.W. Bush.<br />
<br />
The worst thing about this episode, though, and the one with the potential to do the most long term harm to the conservative cause, is that it has enticed people into ascribing credibility to former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who has been publicly questioning the integrity of the unemployment data.<br />
<br />
When the issue is credibility, history suggests that you should be very wary of lining up on the side of Jack Welch.<br />
<br />
A little over 10 years ago I started looking into General Electric. The consistency of the company's earnings over many years under Welch had been an anomaly. The idea that so large a company could grow earnings so consistently amid the vicissitudes of the global economy seemed like a red flag.<br />
<br />
In reality, this was evidence of what is described in boardrooms as "earnings management," and outside of boardrooms as "fraud." Earnings management doesn't always rise to the level of fraud in the legal sense (though it can), but in the colloquial sense that's all it is; the practice is intended to hide the true performance and condition of a company, including from the investors who own it.<br />
<br />
When asked about the seeming improbability of GE's earnings trajectory, I found that executives often fell back on a mantra: "We manage companies, not earnings."<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for them, it was about that time that Jack Welch published his quasi-memoir, "<i>Jack: Straight from the Gut</i>." On page 225, Welch described the aftermath of the Joseph Jett trading debacle at GE-owned Kidder Peabody, in which it was suddenly discovered that Jett had lost the firm $350 million:<br />
<br />
<em>"That Sunday evening, I called 14 of GE’s business leaders to
deliver the bad news and apologize to each of them for what had
happened. I felt terrible, because this surprise would hit the stock and
hurt every GE employee. I blame myself for the disaster.</em><br />
<em> </em>
<br />
<em>The previous year, 1993, when Jett’s phantom trades accounted for
nearly a quarter of the profits made by Kidder’s fixed income group,
Jett had been named Kidder’s “Man of the Year.” We had approved Mike’s
request to give Jett a $9 million cash bonus, a huge award even for
Kidder. Normally, I would have been all over this. I would have dug into
how one person could have been so successful, and I would have insisted
on meeting him.</em><br />
<br />
<em>The response of our business leaders to the crisis was typical of
the GE culture. Even though the books had closed on the quarter, many
immediately offered to pitch in to cover the Kidder gap. Some said the
could find an extra $10 million, $20 million, and even $30 million from
their businesses to offset the surprise."</em><br />
<br />
That is the textbook definition of earnings management, if not outright fraud, <i>in Welch's own words</i>. Barry Ritholtz offers a good roundup of other information that reflects upon Welch's leadership and credibility <a href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/10/ges-jack-welch-on-bls-book-cooking/">here</a>.<em></em><br />
<br />
In the battle of ideas, your credibility is really all that you've got. It's the reason why I made such a <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-gm-is-not-losing-49000-on-every-volt.html">big stink</a> about Reuters' faulty claim that "GM <span id="articleText">is
still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds." Many smart
people, who believe as I do that the auto bailout and ongoing Volt
subsidies make the nation worse off, impaired their own credibility and
that of our shared cause by embracing Reuters' faulty argument.</span><br />
<br />
Writing about <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/#">another issue entirely</a> earlier this year, Megan McArdle offered a singularly valuable bit of wisdom to her readers:<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to
be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to
convince them of anything else."</i><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">That's true for Barack Obama, and its true for Jack Welch. </span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">Anyone wondering how much credibility to ascribe to Welch's comments on the unemployment data should bear that in mind.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-15572889634801103192012-10-05T15:47:00.001-04:002012-10-08T07:34:16.052-04:00Rule 5 Post: Cosplay with Olivia Munn<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm6AxctGsx5AhKSznRBjm8K0IBLlV9UW7pQ1-FS1IbZBZ5-nMhFJNIdJygWHvleFAG4OeCNdaW3iSEptjhzppGhVieVLUGemtXf09vxGwS7un3ggA0z86mLsa7Pi4joEEBmqzB5_iB2W8/s1600/olivia-munn-taraji-p-henson-new-years-02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm6AxctGsx5AhKSznRBjm8K0IBLlV9UW7pQ1-FS1IbZBZ5-nMhFJNIdJygWHvleFAG4OeCNdaW3iSEptjhzppGhVieVLUGemtXf09vxGwS7un3ggA0z86mLsa7Pi4joEEBmqzB5_iB2W8/s400/olivia-munn-taraji-p-henson-new-years-02.jpg" width="357" /></a></div>
<br />
UPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/08/rule-5-sunday-bat-out-of-hell/">THE OTHER McCAIN</a>! THANKS!<br />
<br />
On Friday, September 14 I abandoned the pretense of political relevance and offered up a Friday Rule 5 post consisting of nothing but photos of <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/rule-5-post-janina-gavankar-is-dreamy.html">Janina Gavankar</a>, and noted that I would be interested to see whether there was any difference in traffic. There was: three weeks later, the Janina Gavankar post is the 10th-most-viewed post in the history of this (admittedly young) blog.<br />
<br />
Senator Blutarsky is nothing if not responsive to the desires of the readership, so henceforth any topical elements in Rule 5 posts will be incidental to the objective of posting photos of beautiful women. After admiring said beautiful women, however, please feel free to stick around and check out other posts if you're interested in such disparate topics as the <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/10/voltonomics-detailed-analysis-of-chevy.html">economics of the Chevy Volt</a>, or the <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-have-seen-future-of-liberal-media-and.html">future of liberal news media</a>, or why <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/nhl-players-would-be-better-off-without.html">NHL players may be better off without a union</a>.<br />
<br />
This week we bring you Olivia Munn. Like Janina Gavankar, she is exceptionally beautiful, yet also conveys the illusion of attainability by virtue of being a bit of a geek in real life and not seeming to take herself to seriously. Unlike Janina Gavankar, we also have Olivia Munn is cosplay pics: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1_v6C4HvgvwG2wnM_H71bgrt-q5tmJfrct7pYzM0HOX3hMBgdvuWLwVA9Bnq8sWtd9tW5Gya3B40DWAal8dj-v_uaQB0iqsrqL8Hch9qfEUSMZmpCFK8AKTeNG990Q8wWcJeE4ievqXQ/s1600/olivia-munn-wasp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1_v6C4HvgvwG2wnM_H71bgrt-q5tmJfrct7pYzM0HOX3hMBgdvuWLwVA9Bnq8sWtd9tW5Gya3B40DWAal8dj-v_uaQB0iqsrqL8Hch9qfEUSMZmpCFK8AKTeNG990Q8wWcJeE4ievqXQ/s400/olivia-munn-wasp.jpg" width="340" /></a></div>
<br />
More after the jump.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD2qVi7J-Urmcp2S7oJw59CRid4Km1xnCn_vkDYyhw1nkngyO9zXejKjQ7JOA2VxEQYSmJvk1JMSXa8XC3oTtgVZcIhlbRsGbqf5ZtnMBDHdW2ey7Q0DC_sYsL_irYJ_xw0_qBnmf25XY/s1600/user69234_pic10510_1254493606.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD2qVi7J-Urmcp2S7oJw59CRid4Km1xnCn_vkDYyhw1nkngyO9zXejKjQ7JOA2VxEQYSmJvk1JMSXa8XC3oTtgVZcIhlbRsGbqf5ZtnMBDHdW2ey7Q0DC_sYsL_irYJ_xw0_qBnmf25XY/s400/user69234_pic10510_1254493606.jpg" width="273" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqASeBQU14NeUfQQBewy12cuLS-2JObNbUD5RcTDt73vCbc0h-hG12LEq3cPesj-lGqakdnb2vEZvu__LpSRKUGwPbeGD6yYX9ZgxUm7Grwn0L8kACHvMjmrddah2OWXjZBoDhdFNn8V4/s1600/Olivia-Munn-Small_Black_Top.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqASeBQU14NeUfQQBewy12cuLS-2JObNbUD5RcTDt73vCbc0h-hG12LEq3cPesj-lGqakdnb2vEZvu__LpSRKUGwPbeGD6yYX9ZgxUm7Grwn0L8kACHvMjmrddah2OWXjZBoDhdFNn8V4/s400/Olivia-Munn-Small_Black_Top.jpg" width="315" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHnqAPbN0k9xM5iaDLklt7hkHSoz5OPupLZ19DMsILBqqK8HViIRpDIq1-VXUSvKxdKKbfCV9Bg49VVBZ5lJF1t1errNPt8dgO6_n98gol1yLcjMXA7TNP6HIxw8b-5dLMHSb5RkrF6ng/s1600/Olivia-Munn_01-678x1024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHnqAPbN0k9xM5iaDLklt7hkHSoz5OPupLZ19DMsILBqqK8HViIRpDIq1-VXUSvKxdKKbfCV9Bg49VVBZ5lJF1t1errNPt8dgO6_n98gol1yLcjMXA7TNP6HIxw8b-5dLMHSb5RkrF6ng/s400/Olivia-Munn_01-678x1024.jpg" width="263" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbtWpQlojRQxgP8YNbNT3Squ4wBH52ci722W4sAJ7ONsKkxSvib1dfmwxkkCkpeicKlhP4LCScZadU37NTOlGf2fEN37c35F4g5g690QzcpSEZhRdidbTIrwfEcz8W4264VYjEfsn8EK8/s1600/olivia-munn-420-bikini-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbtWpQlojRQxgP8YNbNT3Squ4wBH52ci722W4sAJ7ONsKkxSvib1dfmwxkkCkpeicKlhP4LCScZadU37NTOlGf2fEN37c35F4g5g690QzcpSEZhRdidbTIrwfEcz8W4264VYjEfsn8EK8/s400/olivia-munn-420-bikini-01.jpg" width="328" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8Dm4SHg2oaaM6gdYEh251dYKPyeY6s7i0L1DLrndlK3uidvkwSKmTpNOn_uF5yHQHK0ND86Ls44gcj8YwSrymVAjMaY8wz-iJD8u_n4JuXszw_c_VeeNZx7ck1QxCqvnFOPtvEUyGIiw/s1600/263766_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-05.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8Dm4SHg2oaaM6gdYEh251dYKPyeY6s7i0L1DLrndlK3uidvkwSKmTpNOn_uF5yHQHK0ND86Ls44gcj8YwSrymVAjMaY8wz-iJD8u_n4JuXszw_c_VeeNZx7ck1QxCqvnFOPtvEUyGIiw/s400/263766_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-05.jpgx.jpg" width="310" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqrbtWMPpwDKVOZFPr0EtZHCv38vYBChKEw7J3zT3kJjcY3emG5q-AKiJfozMMNKg2UaYMfOI73mCFlfam3hnWWOuYMj9z5cprAmXKxSqSSmt5BXTA398rzJ5FHIMvZ9NKMm71aTIk2Yg/s1600/263769_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-08.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqrbtWMPpwDKVOZFPr0EtZHCv38vYBChKEw7J3zT3kJjcY3emG5q-AKiJfozMMNKg2UaYMfOI73mCFlfam3hnWWOuYMj9z5cprAmXKxSqSSmt5BXTA398rzJ5FHIMvZ9NKMm71aTIk2Yg/s400/263769_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-08.jpgx.jpg" width="266" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtNd8SR0YtNDjS-i20HKC6yT0iFFecrbnOoxlmZWV9s85tYHcZf1JdMyMzQXbdM2ZGDZQzaSlewYT893WxDd-aSBdNW0NxX4wHvAevtpSN9VqhZBwis2XBYCFG5uQbue9U_M12uAW2x5I/s1600/263768_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-07.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtNd8SR0YtNDjS-i20HKC6yT0iFFecrbnOoxlmZWV9s85tYHcZf1JdMyMzQXbdM2ZGDZQzaSlewYT893WxDd-aSBdNW0NxX4wHvAevtpSN9VqhZBwis2XBYCFG5uQbue9U_M12uAW2x5I/s400/263768_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-07.jpgx.jpg" width="217" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5uDDweri8qAGScN_UPU25qhejbZM3yt_Jkl3oPKeZ8-5SctXRypMCKYz79PvYTa_F2rr2Wq3slWd2lqaNk90KD4eYr7u-mW5Nb5ZNuSiBeALFgG7DXsh3oOa5ZPI2QU5rFC1dy_pPc_E/s1600/263764_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-03.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5uDDweri8qAGScN_UPU25qhejbZM3yt_Jkl3oPKeZ8-5SctXRypMCKYz79PvYTa_F2rr2Wq3slWd2lqaNk90KD4eYr7u-mW5Nb5ZNuSiBeALFgG7DXsh3oOa5ZPI2QU5rFC1dy_pPc_E/s400/263764_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-03.jpgx.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>As I said, she doesn't take herself too seriously:</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9_b1ymnr6ei50yv66ar9oMu4CW1Mhm2qyWNeG4XsxI1HFeyISDtasPuuOa_t6q1l35qa_9ueTCA0w7Gae1Br9v4xAUILXXAAFBn2wuDAhXnml_pj20jExWzZYrOyIuTBoP6BdALQ9Q24/s1600/Olivia-Munn-14.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9_b1ymnr6ei50yv66ar9oMu4CW1Mhm2qyWNeG4XsxI1HFeyISDtasPuuOa_t6q1l35qa_9ueTCA0w7Gae1Br9v4xAUILXXAAFBn2wuDAhXnml_pj20jExWzZYrOyIuTBoP6BdALQ9Q24/s400/Olivia-Munn-14.jpg" width="298" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixdyMBsH3MV8SzCKDcEV_9YPsCjyDLY9g26w_ucPoDEIvCQGYYhO9uxBGphW5-eIysRrCEEJ-WHEvVJ4SU9yArTIADUPNcwSnj76SPZHo8JEAqfbPQ-iyhZsL5IlU3YcQdXYpfEj0VnxM/s1600/Olivia-Munn-31.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixdyMBsH3MV8SzCKDcEV_9YPsCjyDLY9g26w_ucPoDEIvCQGYYhO9uxBGphW5-eIysRrCEEJ-WHEvVJ4SU9yArTIADUPNcwSnj76SPZHo8JEAqfbPQ-iyhZsL5IlU3YcQdXYpfEj0VnxM/s400/Olivia-Munn-31.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>And as promised, Olivia Munn cosplay:</b><br />
<br />
Chun Li: <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXFMgF7kK2Y9Mt_Ru1GWITlKej4hHpUlxZL_wN3qpHb7VO4c0yxqASlwtPdkMdptfB__iDdZvAfUTxanlKjhvKGJ_9GK_A25i1ACKS5rZ3x_0gBqd6hduW74QXLt5HvafdGh466WecBs4/s1600/olivia-munn-3+street+fighter+chun+li.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXFMgF7kK2Y9Mt_Ru1GWITlKej4hHpUlxZL_wN3qpHb7VO4c0yxqASlwtPdkMdptfB__iDdZvAfUTxanlKjhvKGJ_9GK_A25i1ACKS5rZ3x_0gBqd6hduW74QXLt5HvafdGh466WecBs4/s400/olivia-munn-3+street+fighter+chun+li.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The Wasp:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAYTRvseu9amp4sNY2asIzXNcZUa_GbY4ue2HdNLEFdtJ1Y5V3bmQnGR8JgWBEGbItbQb8-FNSBbrE0ofhUOuAQ3qsBFNlMuufU8R5w0CP5ml9YTX3TzW6i7iyqw1oT5GaYJsBiAhpka4/s1600/263767_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-06.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAYTRvseu9amp4sNY2asIzXNcZUa_GbY4ue2HdNLEFdtJ1Y5V3bmQnGR8JgWBEGbItbQb8-FNSBbrE0ofhUOuAQ3qsBFNlMuufU8R5w0CP5ml9YTX3TzW6i7iyqw1oT5GaYJsBiAhpka4/s400/263767_fullsizeimage_Olivia-Munn-06.jpgx.jpg" width="236" /></a></div>
<br />
Emma Frost:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Kn2yusCZV0lzHMFOJjtKf5_XxXr3aky1tb6kMv2n6vAAHja3uwYc6-LahI1I9EPvQTaccyJ6gnTaRDUaRkIf3hOiLRy61GyGs7V-y76T9A4u4lgrptKpH8dqZokMhSRCpC2jf_ogR4s/s1600/252235_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-11.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Kn2yusCZV0lzHMFOJjtKf5_XxXr3aky1tb6kMv2n6vAAHja3uwYc6-LahI1I9EPvQTaccyJ6gnTaRDUaRkIf3hOiLRy61GyGs7V-y76T9A4u4lgrptKpH8dqZokMhSRCpC2jf_ogR4s/s400/252235_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-11.jpgx.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyU389Rj-VJUbcdbIU7zB396YUhSkbHrD-zn4oJSv-L4XroASEFXS9IMsiUbhHqdc_wZohQzIOWG1G49Rgbr5mrsgqWGQFUW4RRcEv8IVTu29zOeAtBRpOTERA3uSgvGRBerPZ8uR3BEo/s1600/252236_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-12.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyU389Rj-VJUbcdbIU7zB396YUhSkbHrD-zn4oJSv-L4XroASEFXS9IMsiUbhHqdc_wZohQzIOWG1G49Rgbr5mrsgqWGQFUW4RRcEv8IVTu29zOeAtBRpOTERA3uSgvGRBerPZ8uR3BEo/s400/252236_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-12.jpgx.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Princess Leia:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYI6EVzGWWgivPnGyj35jpw9v6zI3XrfQhVehzVte_V01jCat6OFaWtvxBcw131TZuc6GHJw600gDlUPC1HcNUPwuBGU2uRUA0_VtY8i38Q9aq8HpMyvTjinE8bxe672DhEhqegvOx10k/s1600/252222_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-06.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYI6EVzGWWgivPnGyj35jpw9v6zI3XrfQhVehzVte_V01jCat6OFaWtvxBcw131TZuc6GHJw600gDlUPC1HcNUPwuBGU2uRUA0_VtY8i38Q9aq8HpMyvTjinE8bxe672DhEhqegvOx10k/s400/252222_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-06.jpgx.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9GVC1x31OHURDwZaAtRApPC2QZaP4ibAmu6TAu_WP8JL8SimwP8yURi4DZt7NyAXb2mIzDhXoCw7Wsx1V2gZpjH4dNQOsvKxoCz5zgaOmHds63oA_KVR6sDwCMmiaZygLaAE3hv4ikDA/s1600/252240_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-leia-03.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9GVC1x31OHURDwZaAtRApPC2QZaP4ibAmu6TAu_WP8JL8SimwP8yURi4DZt7NyAXb2mIzDhXoCw7Wsx1V2gZpjH4dNQOsvKxoCz5zgaOmHds63oA_KVR6sDwCMmiaZygLaAE3hv4ikDA/s400/252240_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-leia-03.jpgx.jpg" width="251" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Lara Croft:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-0mUeLWV4kyEj8qOIAHO_skavx6Xscq6i-wujFmPIgWIG2gmFXR3ORstkTZJV7wVerclBplkiET1FFP5AUOD_C0VOz0L05_Bp5MZUWey_nNT_eZGligG0H3HrvkuOhvVCWnq0lKRj4eQ/s1600/252225_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-08.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-0mUeLWV4kyEj8qOIAHO_skavx6Xscq6i-wujFmPIgWIG2gmFXR3ORstkTZJV7wVerclBplkiET1FFP5AUOD_C0VOz0L05_Bp5MZUWey_nNT_eZGligG0H3HrvkuOhvVCWnq0lKRj4eQ/s400/252225_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-08.jpgx.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wonder Woman:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh30JWqh1ysBdBBEiAsJvWvVD2xobekWCJ0ytLU1tnJM3WeCrB_FbmgoQ68O7Z5huTqkHKcJh0keCDTHAJRVgXpstEOlCyn7cqoEonk-Jq_oWuXymzkCMOrb2siYMhkxC239xVKJborx8M/s1600/252217_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-02.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh30JWqh1ysBdBBEiAsJvWvVD2xobekWCJ0ytLU1tnJM3WeCrB_FbmgoQ68O7Z5huTqkHKcJh0keCDTHAJRVgXpstEOlCyn7cqoEonk-Jq_oWuXymzkCMOrb2siYMhkxC239xVKJborx8M/s400/252217_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-02.jpgx.jpg" width="272" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5qrDpKrMEBgI-IN3x8tU0n2hTRZDLO7IJ-0umwSQ43EVodm06_k-pk_gx5nNU0NSDlDThq4fAZB0TG5Mg2JVqZqc9VsYxZZgAPwDLr7nNCNEzaqREWsDzDBK4gKQGFdmDg-EcWl9LWy4/s1600/252218_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-03.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5qrDpKrMEBgI-IN3x8tU0n2hTRZDLO7IJ-0umwSQ43EVodm06_k-pk_gx5nNU0NSDlDThq4fAZB0TG5Mg2JVqZqc9VsYxZZgAPwDLr7nNCNEzaqREWsDzDBK4gKQGFdmDg-EcWl9LWy4/s400/252218_fullsizeimage_olivia-munn-comic-con-03.jpgx.jpg" width="292" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And random hackneyed sexy librarian archetype:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1b4ATmnFCEh4HnDM3td8T5CRHxWZedEklq9z66SzFdqNdDlrhirlb6IpZUpBHRF5B8abwLVCXDF1bFtgBN013om-91gHCSiL1NLJZXPcl7jLP950vWAUkC7whyphenhyphenYzzCfdFb_QJzTTx5H0/s1600/olivia-munn-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1b4ATmnFCEh4HnDM3td8T5CRHxWZedEklq9z66SzFdqNdDlrhirlb6IpZUpBHRF5B8abwLVCXDF1bFtgBN013om-91gHCSiL1NLJZXPcl7jLP950vWAUkC7whyphenhyphenYzzCfdFb_QJzTTx5H0/s400/olivia-munn-1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-88483219972452203472012-10-05T14:17:00.002-04:002012-10-06T00:23:10.579-04:00Pre-Post Mortems on the Remaining Presidential DebatesUPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/">LEGAL INSURRECTION</a>! THANKS!<br />
UPDATE #2: LINKED BY <a href="http://coldfury.com/2012/10/05/the-real-barky/">COLD FURY</a>! THANKS! <br />
<br />
It seems fair to say that most of us on the right were pleasantly surprised by the result of the first Presidential debate, Wednesday evening, if nothing like so shocked as the mainstream media or the Obama fluffers at MSNBC.<br />
<br />
In 2008, Obama got to debate John McCain. The acclaim for his campaign has always struck me as over the top in light of that fact. And on Wednesday night we saw what Obama looks like in a debate where the dessicated and ineffectual old man in the room in not his opponent but merely the moderator.<br />
<br />
From where I'm sitting, the best thing about the outcome of the first debate is how it sets Mitt Romney up for the second debate. Like a power pitcher behind in the count, Obama is under pressure to bring the heat, but he's got to be exceedingly careful about how he does it. <br />
<br />
Obama's most fervent partisans want to see him become much more aggressive in attacking Romney, and after seeing the reviews of his performance in the first debate, Obama is probably happy to oblige. And therein lay the danger.<br />
<br />
The upside, from Obama's perspective, of his performance on Wednesday night, was that it kept his natural churlishness in check. He smirked, and offered other tells, but mostly you had to be looking for them in order to notice. In going after Mitt Romney aggressively, Obama risks showing Americans a side of his personality that he'd be better off hiding.<br />
<br />
Simply put, Barack Obama is a smug prick. He is not used to being challenged, and is prone to react badly when it happens. The more effectively he conceals this, the better off he'll be, but he is now under pressure to adopt a debate posture that risks highlighting it.<br />
<br />
In this way, the town hall format of the second debate may work to his disadvantage. Obama may be disciplined enough to refrain from ad hominem attacks on Romney directly. But will he be able to resist inserting them into answers to the voters' town hall questions? And once he goes on the attack, will he remain sufficiently self-disciplined to avoid revealing his inner Marxist?<br />
<br />
In the first debate, Romney took the battle to Obama with great success. In the second debate, Romney needs to adapt to Obama's heightened aggression and be prepared not only to parry more attacks, but to invite certain lines of attack that can be used to make Obama seem angry, extreme, or just generally less presidential.<br />
<br />
I predict that this is just what will happen. After the second debate, the MSNBC hosts will have gotten their wish for an Obama who much more aggressively presses the case for wealth redistribution, and government intervention in the economy.<br />
<br />
I further predict that as the impact of this registers in the polls, they will regret getting what they had wished for so fervently.<br />
<br />
Forecasting the outcome of the other debates is far simpler:<br />
<br />
The Vice-Presidential debate may never take place, as the prospect of debating Paul Ryan may well cause Joe Biden to rationally decide instead to commit seppuku. And of the debate does take place, the end result is likely to be about the same as if he had: Biden's entrails scattered across the floor.<br />
<br />
The third Presidential debate will focus on foreign policy. The Obama campaign probably preferred that when the schedule was agreed to, figuring that would be their strong suit. Life can be funny.<br />
<br />
If the second debate goes as I expect it to, then by the third debate Obama will be back on a leash, and Romney will have a fairly easy go of it. Challengers always have the advantage of being able to assume away the problems of the real world, and even just to make things up out of whole cloth (such as JFK's assertion of a non-existent "missile gap").<br />
<br />
But Romney won't even need to rely on that. He can just promise to stop apologizing to savages for the First Amendment, and maybe for good measure add that "If elected, I will send our ambassadors U.S. Marines instead of Chevrolet Volts." <br />
<br />
Sometimes life is very regressive, as advantages beget additional advantages. Romney's trouncing of Obama in the first debate is one such time.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-76536499988553335862012-10-02T11:01:00.001-04:002012-10-03T09:39:34.684-04:00Voltonomics: A Detailed Analysis of the Chevy Volt's ProfitabilityUPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/">POWERLINE</a>! THANKS GUYS!<br />
UPDATE #2: LINKED BY <a href="http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/10/02/chevy-volt-analysis/">POINTS AND FIGURES</a>! THANKS JEFF!<br />
UPDATE #3: LINKED BY T<a href="http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/02/voltonomics/">HE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY</a>! THANKS TODD!<br />
UPDATE #4: RESPONSE FROM GENERAL MOTORS (SEE BOTTOM)<br />
UPDATE #5: <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/152337/">INSTALANCHE</a>! THANKS GLENN!<br />
UPDATE #6: LINKED BY <a href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/larwyns-linx-exposed-white-house-had.html">DOUG ROSS</a>! THANKS DOUG! <br />
UPDATE #7: LINKED BY <a href="http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/10/bishop-hill-blog-myday-busy-but.html">TOM NELSON</a>! THANKS TOM!<br />
<br />
<u>Like what you see? <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">Follow me on Twitter</a></u> <br />
<br />
This post will be the first in a series in which I attempt to bring some
clarity to the profitability - or, more accurately, lack thereof - of
the Volt.<br />
<br />
There is a lot of misinformation floating around regarding the Chevrolet Volt.<br />
<br />
Recently reporters have unearthed some very useful data about the
economics of the Volt. Unfortunately, these reporters clearly lack
the basic financial and accounting knowledge to turn that data into
useful information, and instead have muddied the waters with foolish
claims, such as <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910">Reuters' assertion</a> that Chevy loses $49,000 on every
Volt it makes. I explain why this claim is faulty in <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-gm-is-not-losing-49000-on-every-volt.html">this post</a>.<br />
<br />
For this post, I have modeled out the current and prospective profitability of the Volt, using publicly available data and estimates, as well as some estimates of my own. My estimates are certainly open to debate, but on balance I believe that I have erred on the side of generosity to GM.<br />
<br />
<b>THE BOTTOM LINE: even with generous assumptions, the first generation of the Chevrolet Volt will consume about $1 billion in federal tax credits, and STILL result in an economic loss to GM shareholders in excess of $600 million over its lifetime.Without the subsidies, the cumulative loss would triple to $1.8 billion.</b><br />
<br />
Let's start with a look at the Volt's cost of production.<br />
<br />
Reuters published estimates of the Volt's marginal cost of production ranging from $20,000 to $32,000. That's an awfully wide range. For the purposes of this exercise, I will use the midpoint: $26,000.<br />
<br />
At that cost of production, the marginal Volt is quite profitable. The MSRP is $39.995. Of course, even if someone pays the full sticker price, GM doesn't see the entire $39,995. Dealers have to eat, too. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs/">According to Bob Lutz</a>, who ought to know, GM sees a dealer net price of about $37,000, implying an $11,000 profit margin on each marginal Volt sold.<br />
<br />
That's nice work if you can get it, but there are some mitigating factors.<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b>Margins Swollen By Subsidies:</b> The first factor is that the buyer isn't actually paying the $39,995 MSRP because he's getting a $7,500 federal tax credit. In other words, fully 68% of the profit on the marginal Volt is the result not of GM's creation of economic value, but of GM's rent-seeking. The money is still green, but it suggests that the volume of Volt sales, weak as it is, is artificially propped up. Absent the tax credit, which expires after 200,000 qualifying sales, GM either sells far fewer Volts at the same profit margin, or the same number of Volts at a much lower profit margin.<br />
<br />
<b>Model Year-End Discounting: </b>The second is that <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/09/24/gm-offers-big-discounts-to-boost-volt-sales/">GM is actually employing some pretty significant incentives</a> - reportedly about $10,000 per vehicle, mainly in the form of highly subsidized leases. This is probably the driving force behind the Volt's record sales volume in September. This isn't the end of the world; it's just the end of the model year. Presumably GM is moving aggressively to clear out the 2012 models, and will dial back the incentives once the 2012 models are gone. And if their marginal production cost really is around $26,000, then they are still eking out a modest profit on those heavily subsidized leases.<br />
<br />
The one caveat is that leasing entails making assumptions about the Volt's residual value, even though there is little data on which to base those estimates, so the profits GM prints today could be illusory, and wind up being offset by writedowns when those 2-year leases begin expiring in 2014. <br />
<br />
<b>Low Margins On Fleet Sales: </b>The third is that some proportion of Volt sales are to fleet buyers at substantially reduced margins. I haven't seen a lot of data on fleet sales. In fact, I could only come up with three data points from various media reports. Fleet sales accounted for 35% of sales in December 2011, 7% in March 2012, and 3% in June 2012. The 35% is certainly an outlier. The mid-point of the other two data points, or 5%, seems like a conservative placeholder in the absence of better data.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, anecdotal evidence suggests that unless retail Volt sales significantly accelerate, the proportion of lower-margin fleet sales will rise. General Electric alone has said that it will purchase 12,000 Volts by 2015, and the Department of Defense is buying 1,500. <br />
<br />
Despite this, in the model I assume that 95% of Volt sales are at the MSRP and earn GM $11,000, and 5% are fleet sales at $30,000, yielding a profit of $4,000. This gives us an estimated weighted average profit margin of $10,650 per vehicle, before accounting for development costs.<br />
<br />
<b>Development Costs: </b>Reuters reported that GM spent approximately $1.2 billion bringing the Volt to market. If true, then at an average profit of $10,650 per vehicle, GM just needs to sell 112,676 Volts (total development costs divided by average unit profitability) over the next few years to break even, right?<br />
<br />
Not so fast.<br />
<br />
<b>Capital Costs: </b>That $1.2 billion spent to bring the Volt to market didn't just fall from the sky. To the extent it was borrowed, GM incurred interest expenses. And any money that wasn't borrowed belonged to GM's shareholders, and if GM is going to invest it on their behalf, it needs to earn enough of a return to make the risks worthwhile. Otherwise, GM should just return the money to shareholders, who can spend it, or invest it elsewhere, as they see fit. <br />
<br />
The question of how much of a return shareholders require depends on things like the mix of debt and equity used, and how risky the investment is. There is no single, definite answer, and such discussions can quickly become very abstract, so in the interests of caution and simplicity I will assume a cost of capital of only 10%.<br />
<br />
I will also make the generous assumption that the $1.2 billion was invested in equal $400 million increments in 2008, 2009, and 2010. In reality, some meaningful chunk of that money was spent in prior years - the Volt concept car was introduced in 2007 - and so the real-world compounded required return may well be higher than in my model.<br />
<br />
<b>Sales Volume: </b>Finally, the big question is, how many Volts can GM sell? Ultimately, if they sell enough of them, they will earn back their investment, including the cost of capital, and can declare victory, albeit a hugely subsidized one.<br />
<br />
According to publicly available data, GM sold 326 Volts in the U.S. in December 2010, 7,671 in 2011, and 16,348 through September 2012. The surge in 2012 is a bit misleading since 35% of the year-to-date sales came in August and September, concurrent with those margin-destroying incentives.<br />
<br />
<b>Foreign Sales Count, Too:</b> On the other hand, Volt sales are not limited to the U.S. The Chevy Volt is sold as the Vauxhall Ampera in the UK, the Opel Ampera in continental Europe, and the Holden Volt in Australia and New Zealand. In the first five months of 2012 - the only data I could find - GM sold 2,284 Amperas, equal to 32% of sales in the U.S. during the same period.<br />
<br />
I have no idea about subsidies, or the retail/fleet breakdown, or overall profitability of overseas sales, so let's err on the side of generosity, and assume that GM can sell one Volt somewhere overseas for every three it sells here, at the same pre-subsidy profit margin (despite the very real possibility that total auto sales in Europe may be more likely to collapse then grow).<br />
<br />
For the purposes of this exercise, I assume that GM sells 2,000 Volts per month for the remainder of 2012 (lower than the August-September rate due to the presumed termination of model year-end incentives), rising to 2,500 per month in 2013, 3,000 per month in 2014 and 2015.<br />
<br />
In other words, I assume no decline in first generation Volt sales even as the second-generation Volt starts coming to market in 2015. This again errs on the side of caution in judging the continued marketability of first-generation technology in a highly competitive market.<br />
<br />
I concede that it is entirely possible that the Volt suddenly takes off,
and GM sells many more Volts than I have modeled here. Or lots of the forthcoming Cadillac ELR Hydrid, which I have left out entirely although it ostensibly will further monetize GM's investment in the Volt's technology. But I am aware of no evidence to date that would support such speculation.<br />
<br />
It is also quite
possible that non-fleet, non-incentivized sales flatline. This
uncertainty is why I have tried to give GM the benefit of the doubt with
respect to various estimates. As noted above, one could quite reasonably assume a higher required rate of return on capital, lower sales and/or margins, and wind up with losses greater by an order of magnitude than what I have estimated. <br />
<br />
Note that I also assume away tax effects. This is another act of generosity, since even if (as I expect) the Volt fails to turn an economic profit, it could still turn a nominal profit and incur tax liabilities.<br />
<br />
Finally, this all assumes that there are no recessions or economic shocks over the remaining life of the first-generation Volt that could cause demand to collapse.<br />
<br />
<b>With all that said, here is the analysis. I lack the skills to insert an Excel table here (if someone knows how I'd be grateful if they'd let me know), so I'll just describe the numbers year-by year (all amounts pre-tax):</b><br />
<br />
<b>2008:</b> $400 million in development costs, and the 10% cost of that capital, produce both an annual and cumulative loss of $440 million.<br />
<br />
<b>2009:</b> Another $400 million in development costs, and another 10% charge for the cost of invested capital, produce an annual loss of $484 million and a cumulative loss of $924 million.<br />
<br />
<b>2010:</b> Another $400 million in development costs, and another 10% charge for the cost of invested capital, along with an estimated $3.9 million in profit on the 326 Volts sold, leads to a $528 million annual loss, and $1.45 billion cumulative loss.<br />
<br />
<b>2011:</b> No more development costs (we've already accounted for the full $1.2 billion in prior years), but a charge of $145 million on the total invested capital, against an estimated profit of $81.7 million on 7,671 Volts sold nets out to a $64 million annual loss and $1.52 billion cumulative loss.<br />
<br />
<b>2012:</b> The Volt's first profitable year, as $152 million in capital costs are offset by $198 million in profit on 22,348 Volts sold in the US and $23 million in profit on 7,375 Volts sold abroad. Annual profit of $70 million reduces cumulative loss to $1.45 billion. One caveat: I have reduced domestic profits by $40 million ($20 million in August and $20 million in September) to account for the profits lost to the high model year-end incentives.<br />
<br />
<b>2013:</b> $145 million in capital costs are offset by $320 million in profits on 30,000 Volts sold in the US, and $31 million in profits on 9,900 Volts sold abroad. Annual profit of $206 million reduces cumulative loss to $1.24 billion. <br />
<br />
<b>2014:</b> $124 million in capital costs are offset by $383 million in profit on 36,000 Volts sold in the U.S., and $37 million in profit on 11,880 Volts sold abroad. Annual profit of $297 million reduces cumulative loss to $944 million.<br />
<br />
<b>2015:</b> $94 million in capital costs are offset by $383 million in profit on 36,000 Volts sold in the U.S.,
and $37 million in profit on 11,880 Volts sold abroad. Annual profit of
$326 million reduces cumulative loss to $617 million.<br />
<br />
<b>A $600 million loss after subsidies: </b>So after accounting for all the costs, and trying to err on the side of caution with estimates, the Chevy Volt would have cost GM shareholders $617 million, and U.S. taxpayers just under $1 billion. And with less generous but eminently plausible assumptions about the cost of capital, and sales volumes and margins, the loss to GM shareholders could easily top $1.5 billion.<br />
<br />
<b>Without subsidies, the loss would be $1.8 billion:</b> Just for fun, I ran the numbers on what the loss to GM shareholders would be without the $7,500 tax subsidy on each sale. Leaving all other estimates the same, the cumulative loss at year-end 2015 roughly triples, to $1.8 billion. <br />
<br />
In subsequent posts, I will examine the economics of future generations of the Volt, and address some of the red herrings offered up by the Volt's defenders.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: RESPONSE FROM GENERAL MOTORS</b><br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-volt-sales-set-record-september-2012-nissan-leaf-sales-hit-12-month-high-124693.html#comment-22163">comments section at plugincars.com</a>, Rob Peterson of Chevrolet Communications posted a response to the analysis above. He notes that this post's focus on the first generation Volt offers an incomplete picture (which is of course true; I have broken up the analysis into multiple posts because it was just getting too long to expect people to read), and raises some other valid issues. I have invited him to contact me, in the interest of making this analysis as accurate as possible. I hope he takes me up on it. Whether or not he does, in the interest of fairness, I am adding his comments in their entirety:<br />
<br />
<div class="post">
Blutarsky,<br />
<br />
This is Rob Peterson from Chevrolet Communications.<br />
<br />
Your analysis, while much more thoughtful, suffers from the same short-sighted assumptions made by Reuters.<br />
<br />
First, conservative guesstimates of limited publicly available
guesstimates does not make the information any more accurate, it only
makes the analysis different. Second, as others have pointed out, the
benefits of technologies developed are not limited to the first
generation - they will benefit the second and third generations as well.<br />
<br />
Like other analysis the fact that several technologies developed for
the Volt have already found their way into other vehicles in GM's
portfolio is ignored. Technologies such as the battery management
systems for the Buick LaCrosse E-Assist and Malibu Eco, electric motors
in the forthcoming Spark EV, low-rolling resistant tires on the Cruze
Eco and the entire powertrain into the Cadillac ELR (which you did
mention) were derived from the Volt.<br />
<br />
Also ignored is the halo affect of being the leader in technology.
Roughly 60 percent of vehicles traded in for a Volt are non-GM. Your
analysis excludes the long-term benefits of attracting new customers who
join the ranks of the most satisfied owners in the industry (based on
Consumer Reports most recent owners satisfaction survey).<br />
<br />
Cost and ROI calculations for automobiles are complex and highly
competitive. They must account for tangible and intangible costs and
benefits and reflect the impact to the entire portfolio over many years.
You only need to look at the impact of the Prius to Toyota portfolio
(a vehicle who's humble beginnings mirror those of the Volt) to
completely understand that there is more than meets the eyes when
introducing an all-new technology.<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
Rob</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-44237739930331177312012-10-01T15:52:00.000-04:002012-10-02T21:09:59.625-04:00I Am Done Pretending That Barack Obama Is A Decent Human BeingFor too long, many of us with profound political disagreements with Barack Obama have nonetheless allowed that he is a decent person. An incompetent narcissist with a wildly overrated intellect, to be sure, but not fundamentally unfit for decent society.<br />
<br />
It is now clear to me that we - I - have been wrong to extend him that benefit of the doubt.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama is not merely a bad President.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama is a bad person. <br />
<br />
Barack Obama's campaign, through his official website, barackobama.com, has chosen to <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-uses-down-syndrome-to-hit-romney/article/2509485#.UGnTx67Dvah">exploit people with Down syndrome</a> for partisan gain (H/T <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/152266/">Instapundit</a>).<br />
<br />
In short, the website has published a letter from, and photo of, a lady named Brittany who suffers from Down syndrome, calling her "<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/brittany-a-face-of-one-of-the-47?source=read-more">A face of one of the 47%</a>." <br />
<br />
Brittany feels insulted by Mitt Romney's "47%" comments from last Spring, and this is understandable. <br />
<br />
There is no denying that Romney's "47%" comments were, at best,
poorly articulated. Most fundamentally, many of the 47% who pay no
income taxes will indeed be voting for Mitt Romney next month, and many
people who pay seven- and eight-figure annual tax bills will be voting
for Obama. And at least in the segment that has been most widely circulated, Brittany could very reasonably have perceived an insult, even though common sense suggests that none was intended toward anyone who, like Brittany, actively supports themselves to the best of their abilities. Poorly worded comments allow for such misinterpretation.<br />
<br />
It is also possible that Brittany's exploitation may have gotten started before she came to the attention of Barack Obama's minions. Her letter contains the post-script "My mom and her friend helped me write this." <br />
<br />
And exploiting sympathetic people for political gain is, of course, nothing new. Just last month, Democrats attempted to <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-morally-deformed-patriotism-of.html">exploit military veterans in order to channel additional subsidies to public employee unions</a>. <br />
<br />
Exploiting people with Down syndrome, however, is particularly odious.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Veterans, for example, are more capable than most of their fellow citizens of looking after themselves and their interests. Yet as George Will writes in the piece linked below, "with limited understanding, and limited abilities to communicate
misunderstanding, (people with Down syndrome), like Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named
Desire,” always depend on the kindness of strangers."<br />
<br />
We owe them as much. They deserve it, and they deserve better than Barack Obama. <br />
<br />
The lesser outrage is Obama's implication that Mitt Romney is indifferent to the needs - and the strong moral claim on public resources - of people with Down syndrome. Obama's claim in this regard - and I will attribute it directly to him because it is too disgraceful to justify indulging the fiction of plausible deniability - is contradicted by the facts of Mitt Romney's life. Anyone who watched (or read about) the speakers at the GOP convention who talked about Mitt Romney's efforts to help their families through some of the most difficult challenges that exist in this world could not fail to be moved. <br />
<br />
The greater outrage deals not with Mitt Romney, who is perfectly capable of defending himself, but with the rights and dignity of people with Down symdrome, who are not.<br />
<br />
I don't personally know anyone with Down syndrome. The two people with the affliction that I can think of are Sarah Palin's son Trig, and George Will's son Jon. In a way, I almost feel as if I know Jon Will, because George Will has been writing beautifully moving pieces about him for most of my life (Jon is only a few years younger than me). In case you haven't had the opportunity to read any of them, here is George Will's column on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-will-40-years-and-going-with-down-syndrome/2012/05/02/gIQAdGiNxT_story.html">the occasion of Jon's 40th birthday</a>.<br />
<br />
It is perhaps not a coincidence that they are both the children of conservatives, for the same reason that it requires especially great chutzpah for Democrats to pose as the defenders of people with Down syndrome.<br />
<br />
Last month's Democratic National Convention was notable for the ubiquity and stridency of its pro-abortion rhetoric. Notably, the party changed the Clinton-era formulation that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" by dropping the pretense of hoping to make it rare. This is relevant because, as George Will points out, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836">more than 90% of prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome result in abortion</a>. <br />
<br />
To liberals, this is a feature, not a bug. As <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-have-seen-future-of-liberal-media-and.html">I discussed yesterday</a>, pro-abortion forces are greatly <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/laws-revive-world-before-roe-as-abortions-require-arduous-trek.html">vexed</a> that "nine states since
2010, including Arizona, have banned abortions after 20 weeks,
around the same time many women learn about fetal abnormalities."<br />
<br />
In other words, Democrats are outraged that Republicans might impede the abortion of 11 out of every 12 Down syndrome children, yet Barack Obama has the gall to pose as the defender of those with Down syndrome against the depredations of Mitt Romney.<br />
<br />
In a challenging environment, character shows. The 2008 election campaign was not challenging for Barack Obama, and he successfully masked his character. This campaign is testing him, and we are at last seeing what he is made of.<br />
<br />
Based on what the campaign has now revealed about Barack Obama, I offer my own revised opinion:<br />
<br />
Barack Obama is not a decent person, and has no rightful place in decent society.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-45193683061399183742012-09-30T09:49:00.005-04:002012-10-02T21:09:17.428-04:00I Have Seen The Future of Liberal Media, And Its Name Is BloombergUPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://coldfury.com/2012/10/01/masterly-snark/">COLD FURY</a>! THANKS! <br />
<br />
The liberal bias of the mainstream media, as measured by both frequency and severity, feels like it is breaking new ground during this election season.<br />
<br />
The one bit of solace for conservatives is the knowledge that the traditional liberal organs of the mainstream media are dying. Liberal newspapers have been hemorrhaging money for years. Even the New York Times, the market leader (the value of which has declined by over 80% in the past decade), seems to have little hope beyond winning the war of attrition, and picking up the readers of failed competitors as the last man standing. The viewership of network news broadcasts is both shrinking, and increasingly geriatric. The weekly news magazines seem entirely irrelevant to public discourse as they struggle to keep their heads above water.<br />
<br />
Yet even as these dinosaurs flail about in the tar pits, a new liberal news organization is rising, distinguished not by the tired leftist cant with which its reportage is riddled, but by its sustainable business model: Bloomberg News.<br />
<br />
As it happens, the best business model on Wall Street is not underwriting IPOs for 7% of the proceeds. Nor is it managing a hedge fund for 2-and-20. No, the best business model on Wall Street belongs to Bloomberg LP, which effectively levies a $2,000 per month tax on capital market professionals around the globe. Bloomberg is the most comprehensive, and thus the standard, source for financial market news and data. It would be difficult for many financial professionals to function without it, not just on Wall Street but in every financial center from the City to Shanghai. If you are a market professional, your company pays Bloomberg roughly $2,000 per month for you to have access. No discounts.<br />
<br />
That business model is why Mike Bloomberg is so much wealthier than the Masters of the Universe that comprise his customer base.<br />
<br />
And increasingly, that $2,000 monthly subscription fee for financial news also supports a broader news effort that combines the reflexive liberal bias of the New York Times with profitability the Sulzbergers can only fantasize about.<br />
<br />
Consider just one Bloomberg article from late last week, bearing no possible relevance to capital markets, under the headline, <i><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/laws-revive-world-before-roe-as-abortions-require-arduous-trek.html">Laws Revive "World Before Roe" as Abortions Require Arduous Trek</a></i>. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Is Planned Parenthood planning an IPO? Call me crazy, but I just don't see a profitable trade based on that information. <br />
<br />
In a nutshell, this article consists primarily of political advocacy decrying the fact that abortion, while legal, is less convenient than some might like. If Bloomberg published similar articles lamenting the fact that millions of Americans are forced to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest Cabela's in order to exercise their right to shop for a wide selection of firearms, then this might not be so objectionable. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for the latter story.<br />
<br />
I'll declare my own bias, such as it is, up front: while I have some strong libertarian leanings, I am also Catholic. And while I would not describe myself as an especially <i>good</i> Catholic, I subscribe fully to the Church's teaching on abortion, and would be very happy indeed to see it made illegal with exceptions only for very serious risks to the life of the mother.<br />
<br />
But I cite this particular article because you need not share my views on abortion to marvel at the bias, to say nothing of the Sandra Fluke-like sense of entitlement, embedded in this article.<br />
<br />
You may not know it, but there is a pestilence upon the land, and its name is Federalism:<br />
<br />
<i>"Over the past two years, state lawmakers across the U.S.
have been passing new abortion restrictions at a record pace.
Dozens of laws stipulating who can perform abortions, how
abortion pills can be administered, tighter building standards
for abortion clinics and what women need to do before abortions
have been enacted -- helping create a patchwork of access to the
procedure that the U.S. Supreme Court deemed a constitutional
right almost 40 years ago."</i><br />
<br />
Ah yes, laws passed by duly elected legislators - the bitter fruit of democracy. Don't these people see that until there is an abortion clinic on every block, none of us is truly free? Maybe Planned Parenthood can pursue some sort of co-location deal with Starbucks.<br />
<br />
And aren't liberals always going on about wanting abortion to be safe, and decrying prospective returns to - I'll try to hit every standard meme here but forgive me if I overlook one - "back alleys" where "butchers" were inevitably using their tool of choice, the "coat hanger?"<br />
<br />
Wouldn't the preferred alternative involve "laws stipulating who can perform abortions" to weed out those nefarious butchers, and "tighter building standards" to ensure that things aren't still taking place in those back alleys? A more cynical person than myself could almost get the impression that all this professed concern for pregnant women's well-being is just so much partisan bullshit. <br />
<br />
So precisely how are these democratically elected state governments eviscerating our freedoms?<br />
<br />
<i>"In Mississippi, new requirements on doctors threaten to
shutter the state’s last remaining abortion clinic. In Virginia,
a Board of Health decision this month to make existing clinics
meet building standards for new hospitals, may force facilities
to close, make costly renovations or move. In Utah, women must
wait 72 hours after counseling -- the longest delay in the
nation -- before they can get an abortion. And nine states since
2010, including Arizona, have banned abortions after 20 weeks,
around the same time many women learn about fetal abnormalities." </i><br />
<br />
Mississippi lacks lots of things, and if one were to triage that state's needs, I dare say an abortion clinic would be well down the list, even for ardently pro-abortion liberals. After all, Mississippi still has one abortion clinic, but it doesn't have <i>any</i> Whole Foods stores.<br />
<br />
Abortion clinics in Virginia are being required to comply with building codes? I'm not really seeing the outrage. Utah requires women to take three days to think things over? This doesn't strike me as inappropriate given the stakes.<br />
<br />
I do find it jarring that I, as a reader, am expected to be dismayed by the revelation that some states ban abortions after 20 weeks, or "around the same time many women learn about fetal abnormalities." For the moment, let's leave aside the interesting fact that Bloomberg only finds it important that <i>women</i> learn about fetal abnormalities, as though fathers have no legitimate interest in their children.<br />
<br />
Let's leave that aside because what's far more appalling is the implication that "abnormalities" should be connected with the desirability of abortions. Presumably this is because children with, say, Down Syndrome may be a burden, financially or otherwise, on their families or society, and some may judge them to have an inferior, or even inadequate, quality of life.<br />
<br />
What reporter Amanda Crawford is really doing is embracing eugenics, without having the courage to come out and say so in plain English. I can certainly understand her reticence. Simply saying "<i>Let's kill all the retards</i>" sounds so coarse. And the term eugenics itself carries all that fascist baggage. It's so much more genteel to simply point out, in an almost offhanded way, that sometimes you can't even tell if your baby deserves to live until its already enjoying legal protection from you.<br />
<br />
My favorite part, though, is a quote that combines the advocacy that runs throughout the article with the Sandra Fluke-like belief that women aren't really free to enjoy their rights unless somebody else is doing all the work: <br />
<br />
<i>“Access basically depends entirely on where you live,”
said Julie Rikelman, litigation director for the New York-based
Center for Reproductive Rights. “Even though it is supposed to
be a constitutional right available to all Americans in the
<a href="http://topics.bloomberg.com/united-states/">United States</a>, it is really a right only available to a minority
of American women.” </i><br />
<br />
Ms. Rikelman's statement is only true if one accepts a certain, rather tendentious definition of availability. If availability means being able to get an abortion on the spur of the moment without spending more than a couple minutes walking or driving, then she is absolutely correct.<br />
<br />
To those of us not completely blinkered by ideology, however, a more useful definition of availability might be something like the ability to get an abortion within a few days of one's initial inquiry, at a location close enough to home that one can sleep in one's own bed that night. Under such a definition, Ms. Rikelman is wrong and surely knows it. She is lying, and Bloomberg is uncritically publishing the lie in the service of a political agenda. <br />
<br />
Actually, you don't even need to read the article to glean the bias. You only need to look at the subheadings, only one of which is in scare quotes:<br />
<br />
New Requirements<br />
More Regulation<br />
'Unborn Children'<br />
Paperwork Hassle<br />
Limited Access<br />
Not Here<br />
<br />
Yes, the idea that abortion ends the life of innocent 'unborn children' is just an artifact of my Papist superstition. The truly abhorrent empirical reality of abortion in America is Paperwork Hassle. <br />
<br />
This is just one bit of hackery on one issue. But it is important because of its source. Bloomberg isn't materially more or less biased than traditional MSM outlets, but unlike dying liberal broadsheets, it is hugely profitable. As a result, its influence is likely to grow. Anyone concerned about media bias ignores it at their peril. <br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-13818790694530156552012-09-25T14:31:00.003-04:002012-10-02T21:12:46.160-04:00The NFL Has No Good Reason To End The Referee LockoutTo judge by the intensity of the cries from sportswriters and football fans to <i>END THE REFEREE LOCKOUT NOW!!</i> one might imagine that the NFLs' replacement referees were the first refs to ever blow a call.<br />
<br />
In reality, the phenomenon of blown calls was known to football fans, even those in Wisconsin, prior to last night's Packers - Seahawks game.<br />
<br />
In fact, Packers fans in particular should have more perspective than most on the matter. If you're going to lose a game on a terrible call, it is far better for it to happen in week 3 than in, say, the <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/1998/playoffs/news/1999/01/03/packers_officiating/">Wild Card game</a>. <br />
<br />
This isn't to justify bad calls or to say that fans shouldn't care, but simply that they should realize that the officiating by replacement referees is only worse by a matter of degree.<br />
<br />
Think of it this way: we typically get about one epically awful call per season. Let's use that as a baseline. That's about 1 irredeemably horrid call out of 267 total regular season and playoff games in a year. (We won't count blown calls in preseason or Pro Bowl games because honestly, who cares?) <br />
<br />
In comparison, the replacement refs have delivered an historically terrible call after just 48 games. Based on that sample, one could say that the replacement referees are six times more likely to completely blow a major call than the locked out referees.<br />
<br />
That's significant, but far from the end of the world, especially since the difference should narrow dramatically the longer the lockout goes on; the main thing that separates the replacement refs from the locked out refs is experience, and the replacement refs are getting more every week.<br />
<br />
Moreover, while fans are perfectly justified in being unhappy about the temporary decline in the quality of officiating, claims that the NFL "needs" to end the lockout seem misguided at best.<br />
<br />
Think about it from the perspective of each constituency - the referees curently locked out, and the fans expressing outrage at the replacement referees.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Referees are generally the one set of employees on the field that have not participated in the dramatic increase in NFL revenues over the past few decades. The NFL has been able to keep referee compensation to what is, within the context of a $9 billion revenue stream, a rounding error, on the theory that nobody pays to watch the referees do their job.<br />
<br />
If the NFL caves after three weeks with replacement referees, the league would essentially be endorsing the view that fans do, to a much more significant extent than hitherto appreciated, pay to see the referees do their jobs. This would represent a major shift in bargaining power. If the NFL is not prepared to keep its lockout in place after a high profile bad call, the long term costs will dwarf the amounts the referees are currently seeking.<br />
<br />
So the NFL has a major financial incentive to hold the line on the referees' demands, unless there are large offsetting costs to hanging in there while the replacement refs get their sea legs.<br />
<br />
Fans and writers expressing outrage today claim that there are such costs; that the damage to the integrity of the game will mute fan interest and therefore result in lost revenues.<br />
<br />
This claim is, to use a technical economic term, bullshit. It is bullshit because of another economic term, explained by Steve Young: <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/46455/steve-young-nfl-is-inelastic-for-demand">inelastic demand</a> - in this case, for the NFL.<br />
<br />
The fact that fans are hyperventilating over last night's terrible call just shows how emotionally invested they are in the NFL. The reality is that football fans are cheap dates, and we will keep watching no matter how
plain Roger Goodell makes it that he is just not that into us. <br />
<br />
NFL fans came back after the USFL, and after the Chicago Spare Bears, and after the tuck rule game. Not only did they come back, but continued paying ever more, through spiraling ticket prices, and through public subsidies for stadiums, and through personal seat licenses, and through cable television bills that effectively allow the NFL to tax nearly every television viewer in the country, whether they love football or detest it.<br />
<br />
In summation: the replacement refs aren't the end of the world, they will get much better over time, and as justifiably upset as fans are at a call like we saw last night, the NFL knows it has much to lose by caving to the locked out refs, and little to lose by angering its fans.<br />
<br />
The replacement refs aren't going anywhere until the locked out refs cave. And you will continue to watch, and you will like it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-50286152145573224572012-09-24T10:15:00.000-04:002012-10-02T21:11:11.422-04:00Is Anything Elizabeth Warren Says True?Professor Jacobson at <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/">Legal Insurrection</a> points out that Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, despite evidence that she has been doing just that.<br />
<br />
In other words, the Cherokee law professor turns out to be neither a Native American, nor even a lawyer, but merely a liar and a cheat.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is hardly a revelation to anyone familiar with the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/considering-elizabeth-warren-the-scholar/60211/">flaws - to use the most benign term possible - in her work on bankruptcy</a>. There are really only two plausible explanations for said flaws: either Professor Warren lacks a mastery of 8th grade algebra, or she is prepared to lie brazenly in an effort to advance her political views.<br />
<br />
Either explanation should disqualify her from any job in academia, though either explanation also suggests she is eminently qualified for the Senate seat she currently seeks.<br />
<br />
Maybe we should look on the bright side; if she wins, maybe she'll turn out to have been lying about believing the socialist views she espouses.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I assume that the hierarchy of Warren campaign defenses against the charge of practicing law without a license will be something along the lines of<br />
<br />
1) <i>Of course I was licensed, but the dog ate my homework so I can't prove it</i>, with the corollary<br />
<br />
2) <i>You can't prove that I wasn't licensed</i>, followed by<br />
<br />
3) <i>I am shocked - shocked! - to learn that I wasn't licensed to practice law</i>, but<br />
<br />
4) <i>This is the result of nothing more than a clerical error by my minions, for which I take full responsibility but reject any actual consequences</i>, and finally, retreating to the bunker:<br />
<br />
5) <i>Anyway, it's not like anyone was harmed. My clients got the benefit of representation by a full-blown Harvard Law professor, after all, and that matters more than some piece of paper attesting to my competence. So suck it.</i><br />
<br />
In point of fact, I think there is much to be said for fallback position number 5, in the sense that what matters should be underlying competence, rather than credentials that are intended to serve as markers of competence. I believe that both as a general proposition, and particularly with respect to professional associations that restrict competition under the guise of "consumer protection." And whatever their other merits, bar associations are very effective at restricting competition in the legal services market.<br />
<br />
My libertarian views on professional associations notwithstanding, I see at least two problems related to fallback position number 5.<br />
<br />
First, based on the quality of Professor Warren's bankruptcy work, as well as her claim of minority status, it is far from clear that she should enjoy a presumption of either intellectual or ethical suitability to practice law.<br />
<br />
Second, a law professor, of all people, should be perfectly well aware of the legal requirements of her profession, and of her status with respect to such requirements. The law says that competent to practice law or not, you must have a license to do so, full stop. There are no exemptions for Harvard faculty, even in Boston. <br />
<br />
The really amazing thing about all this is that, just weeks before election day, we are still learning that core elements of Professor Warren's biography are false. Is this representative of the sort of vetting Democrats get in Massachusetts? Actually, that would explain a lot. Still, though. How sure are we that Warren in really a grandmother from Oklahoma? At the rate we're going, by election day we will have learned that Elizabeth Warren is really a black guy from Roxbury named Dave.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-56419122631360069862012-09-23T10:34:00.001-04:002012-09-23T17:49:48.998-04:00The Morally Deformed Patriotism of the Democratic PartyUPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/">POWER LINE</a>! THANKS, GUYS!<br />
<br />
<u>Like what you see? <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">Follow me on Twitter</a>. </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
Democrats have finally found a use for our armed forces. They may oppose using the military to fight the Taliban or protect our diplomats, but now they've found a project they can get behind: converting our troops into members of the Democratic client groups known as public employee unions.<br />
<br />
The moral deformities of the modern Democratic Party could fill volumes, but this effort is particularly odious. <br />
<br />
All one really needs to know about <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3429/text">The Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012</a> is that it was introduced by Senators Nelson, Schumer and Murray. That should be sufficient information to justify opposition from any sentient observer.<br />
<br />
And perhaps it was enough for the 42 GOP Senators who blocked it. But read on to understand why this patriotic-sounding bill was so pernicious, and why the Senators who blocked it are modern profiles in courage. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>In practice, the main thrust of the Act would have been two-fold.<br />
<br />
First, it would have raised money by taxing Medicare providers - because, you know, there's so much extra money floating around the health care system that we can afford to use it as a piggy bank for other things.<br />
<br />
Second, it would have used the money extracted from the health care system to fund grants or other subsidies to encourage the hiring of veterans, with priority given to veterans serving on or after the 9/11 attacks, in conservation jobs on public lands, and as fire fighters and law enforcement officers.<br />
<br />
It does some other unrelated stuff, too, like empowering the IRS to confiscate Americans' passports if they are delinquent on $50,000 or more in taxes. Which makes sense because, if there is one social problem upon which all Americans can agree, it is that the IRS doesn't have enough power over us. <br />
<br />
But mostly, the bill would impose new Medicare taxes, in order to subsidize the conversion of veterans into dues-paying public employee union members.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now, I think we actually can all agree that aiding veterans is a laudable goal. <br />
<br />
Not all aid is created equal, however, and in a world of scarce resources, it is reckless to go around levying taxes and establishing subsidies without considering the full range of consequences, including the opportunity costs.<br />
<br />
The first question worth asking is whether this is the right type of aid to offer at all. High unemployment among veterans is a scandal, but so is high unemployment among lifelong civilians. Everyone's children need to eat, regardless of their career paths. Rather than creating a caste system wherein we reallocate economic opportunities from one group to another, perhaps Congress' time is better spent looking for ways to increase the economic opportunities available to all Americans. Toward which end, I offer a helpful tip: boosting taxes and government subsidies is unlikely to do so.<br />
<br />
The next question is, even if we decide we do want to help veterans crowd other job seekers out of the labor market with subsidies, why do all the jobs Democrats want to put them in happen to entail membership in public employee unions? Is it merely a happy coincidence that this would tend to bind them for life to the Democratic Party - as indirect and unwilling donors via union dues for even the most conservative among them?<br />
<br />
A defender of the effort might argue that military training and experience makes veterans uniquely suited to jobs in conservation, fire fighting, and law enforcement. There is surely some truth to this, but to the extent that it is so, then this program is redundant at best, and potentially deeply counterproductive at worst.<br />
<br />
It is redundant because to the extent that military training and experience are valuable in these fields, then veterans already have an advantage over competing job seekers based on merit. It is also redundant because many first-responder and related jobs already give a formal preference to veterans.<br />
<br />
And this is where it becomes potentially counter-productive. If veterans already have an advantage based on merit, and additional advantages based on preferential hiring practices already in existence, then what does it say about those who require yet another proverbial thumb on the scale? Not everybody, and not even every veteran, is cut out to bear the pressure of a fire fighter, or to wield the authority of a law enforcement officer. There is no shame at all in that, but as a society we should really consider how wise it is to force square pegs into those particular round holes. <br />
<br />
The more one thinks through - and inevitably discards as wanting - the alternative justifications for this bill, the more one comes back to the idea that this bill is a deeply cynical effort to manipulate our respect and affection for veterans, in order to secure payoffs to public sector unions.<br />
<br />
Once such a program is up and running, it is a much smaller thing to "temporarily" increase funding in a sluggish economy. And of course once veterans are ensconced in these jobs, we will inevitably face pressure to keep the subsidies flowing in order to stave off layoffs.<br />
<br />
Veterans' groups naturally supported the bill, and are unhappy with its defeat. This is understandable; the job of veterans' groups is to lobby for veterans. It is not their job to recognize that veterans are not the only highly sympathetic members of society with unmet needs. It is not their job to recognize that every dollar spent subsidizing veterans on the public payroll is a dollar than can't be spent sheltering a homeless man, or caring for the impoverished elderly, or funding pediatric oncology research. Nor is it their job to recognize that a society borrowing $1 trillion per year needs to do less of everything, veterans included.<br />
<br />
Recognizing those things are the job of the Congress elected to represent all Americans. Last week, 42 Republican Senators looked at this cynical Democratic scam, surely realizing that they may pay a political price on such an easily demogogued issue - <i>I guess John McCain just doesn't care about veterans</i>, one can almost hear Chuck Schumer lamenting to the nearest television camera - and did their job anyway, blocking the bill.<br />
<br />
Senate Republicans deserve our gratitude for doing the right thing instead of the easy thing. Senate Democrats should feel ashamed of themselves, but they won't, because that would require a capacity for shame. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-50327619367520542022012-09-21T15:31:00.000-04:002012-09-24T18:23:47.323-04:00Rule 5 Post: Girls with Guns, IDF Edition<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7aaMpbfzahVXlKiKtPFkBLncdtByYaKHLskjI40wR577Rc5lDqph-HXidYFm7HheEsmI7yNs4mSlgX_og1Bid25adMuFjI3ePThFXFmc00HtnSY_N7Ag_eoZ8ObvDeO_UvNJNhYl6xdQ/s1600/bikini-and-gun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7aaMpbfzahVXlKiKtPFkBLncdtByYaKHLskjI40wR577Rc5lDqph-HXidYFm7HheEsmI7yNs4mSlgX_og1Bid25adMuFjI3ePThFXFmc00HtnSY_N7Ag_eoZ8ObvDeO_UvNJNhYl6xdQ/s400/bikini-and-gun.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
UPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2012/09/24/rule-5-monday-13/">THE OTHER McCAIN</a>! THANKS STACY! <br />
<br />
Tommy Shaw didn't just dream up the idea of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25dSxa8-LdQ">girls with guns</a> out of whole cloth. They're real, and they're <i>spectacular</i>. In this week's <a href="http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-get-million-hits-on-your-blog-in.html">Rule 5</a> post, Senator Blutarsky salutes the lovely (and fierce!) ladies of the IDF:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNehfEF5po70BEaWX1AgxTeNSWa2tFh8U2UFVgVBBZKmHbqYt1LXPQ0Ujd0dp7UOWs7ui3RRuuT7njPdT7WtfhzXFqmJYIUsmujuXAy2f3k5RsdxMfbLOVuWKZjFqbvccYjFhfpCVs8p4/s1600/Israeli-IDF-bikini-soldiers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNehfEF5po70BEaWX1AgxTeNSWa2tFh8U2UFVgVBBZKmHbqYt1LXPQ0Ujd0dp7UOWs7ui3RRuuT7njPdT7WtfhzXFqmJYIUsmujuXAy2f3k5RsdxMfbLOVuWKZjFqbvccYjFhfpCVs8p4/s400/Israeli-IDF-bikini-soldiers.jpg" width="298" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFy0E5IRm6l6K2NVFg5YGnJBGkkuXB8ZjMqIR0Mjlnt1A4uyk-eYd2ZoCXj-GbDW-8Yvw7p4bt_eWFvljgUOCoPKbZL97GptMLqP61PZIrbJCp9KGchWTkqAmi-otEz7d9JLjv-LiYI6o/s1600/27.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFy0E5IRm6l6K2NVFg5YGnJBGkkuXB8ZjMqIR0Mjlnt1A4uyk-eYd2ZoCXj-GbDW-8Yvw7p4bt_eWFvljgUOCoPKbZL97GptMLqP61PZIrbJCp9KGchWTkqAmi-otEz7d9JLjv-LiYI6o/s400/27.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4NbQ1W1azgPh1SOtVxAQOJSILdP284OassK_L0cyUUNs7FnYPb4lBW7pXgcP3qoDsRbDYQDadUjR1SNngVqOfjbpECmqwbU_txYLSWsjIObIv_b44w52OjdA5jOeel60Xv2jcA2Rc9wg/s1600/3998862669_a2a8591b2e_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4NbQ1W1azgPh1SOtVxAQOJSILdP284OassK_L0cyUUNs7FnYPb4lBW7pXgcP3qoDsRbDYQDadUjR1SNngVqOfjbpECmqwbU_txYLSWsjIObIv_b44w52OjdA5jOeel60Xv2jcA2Rc9wg/s400/3998862669_a2a8591b2e_o.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdu0wc3cMr4oWPN7RXBeI0MVF5-gGHQLqtSSIjxfJzL24R8oUtDPd1oIgwyNvyPoMLsY309Xj540LdXpXHYnt8qbt5qnOD4niDu5lieB820-mK5lgW2EP7GGiWSWGqXi4GmyP9VuPK8Eo/s1600/IDf-sniper1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdu0wc3cMr4oWPN7RXBeI0MVF5-gGHQLqtSSIjxfJzL24R8oUtDPd1oIgwyNvyPoMLsY309Xj540LdXpXHYnt8qbt5qnOD4niDu5lieB820-mK5lgW2EP7GGiWSWGqXi4GmyP9VuPK8Eo/s400/IDf-sniper1.jpg" width="278" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-AvStCslNE1Y_J6GsqMEV7OcDtioCT6QgmUUisx3ncIHd2NwVJGsJJD34b_ZY-G8X3g_R4p1ggc8fua8fTwkjstcK8v0fB0JUF4hyk05cJax5oAwdUM9dEywf976HwDJDkZh59gI_i6A/s1600/Israeli_Army_Girls_49.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-AvStCslNE1Y_J6GsqMEV7OcDtioCT6QgmUUisx3ncIHd2NwVJGsJJD34b_ZY-G8X3g_R4p1ggc8fua8fTwkjstcK8v0fB0JUF4hyk05cJax5oAwdUM9dEywf976HwDJDkZh59gI_i6A/s400/Israeli_Army_Girls_49.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ77YYEFUckeVtGf42DWoLbfid98fnlDX1YDhLH_xqnEfDW3Zdy9qE_j7xc_5diy6arn9X1JfJzSJGO5Mvf2sH1M5CzpOM-7oxzAzKPtlzrFV_I7qPGJc06pW9cgvYnOjJ3BeUk9SrtIg/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ77YYEFUckeVtGf42DWoLbfid98fnlDX1YDhLH_xqnEfDW3Zdy9qE_j7xc_5diy6arn9X1JfJzSJGO5Mvf2sH1M5CzpOM-7oxzAzKPtlzrFV_I7qPGJc06pW9cgvYnOjJ3BeUk9SrtIg/s400/images.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRxtxayiNZcJf4tu3i9P4JANcGKzBCCJcGYpNCusJRIQxG6XTtctbrLOaWJFM_MPFHkJsMA83_AohtCXnAPsPW9-jsIkdfZ98wdKzD7dzBhbvR5Pqx9yfmtaxUaYeiZC2QktTDGeLcKxU/s1600/idf-flickr-620x409.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="263" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRxtxayiNZcJf4tu3i9P4JANcGKzBCCJcGYpNCusJRIQxG6XTtctbrLOaWJFM_MPFHkJsMA83_AohtCXnAPsPW9-jsIkdfZ98wdKzD7dzBhbvR5Pqx9yfmtaxUaYeiZC2QktTDGeLcKxU/s400/idf-flickr-620x409.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-64600174253210550882012-09-21T10:51:00.002-04:002012-09-22T11:19:07.817-04:00NHL Players Would Be Better Off Without A UnionUPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/9/21/3370908/nhl-lockout-2012-nhlpa-nuclear-option">ON THE FORECHECK</a>! THANKS DIRK! <br />
<br />
With yet another lockout upon us, it seems like an opportune time to ask whether NHL players are really made better off by their union, the NHLPA. A comparison with the non-unionized soccer players of the English Premier League suggests that the NHL players should ditch their union.<br />
<br />
With former MLBPA chief Don Fehr at the helm, the NHLPA has the best leadership it has ever had, by a wide margin. Yet with the NHL seeking to further ratchet down the players' share of revenues, one must concede that at some point it ceases to be worth maintaining the union. After all, without a collective bargaining agreement, it would constitute illegal collusion for the NHL to place any artificial limit on player salaries.<br />
<br />
To see how a non-unionized labor market works in a major professional sports league, one need look no further than the English Premier League.<br />
<br />
With total 2010-2011 revenues (the most recent season for which figures are available) of 2.3 billion Pounds (about $3.7 billion), the EPL is the world's most lucrative soccer league.<br />
<br />
Think about it this way; the NFL, viewed in the US as the model of a successful sports league, pulls in annual revenue of $9 billion in a home market of about 310 million people, while the EPL pulls in annual revenue of $3.7 billion in a home market of about 62 million. On a per capita basis, the EPL takes in $60 for every person in its home market, just over twice the $29 the NFL collects for every person it its home market.<br />
<br />
And with no union, players claimed a full <a href="http://football.uk.reuters.com/leagues/champleague/news/2012/05/31/32DB508A-AAB1-11E1-A45D-71238033923B.php">70% of total EPL revenues</a>. That's a lot better than the 57% the NHL players settled for in their last CBA, to say nothing of the sub-50% level the NHL owners are reportedly seeking in a new agreement. Indeed, it rivals the 75% of revenues the NHL owners dubiously <i>claimed</i> to be paying out in salaries prior to the last NHL lockout.<br />
<br />
The EPL also undermines the claims by American team owners that "competitive balance" is critical to the success of the overall enterprise.<br />
<br />
In the 20 years of the Premier League, Manchester United have won 12 championships, been runners up 5 times, and finished in third place in the remaining three seasons. More than half of the remaining top-3 finishes during the past 20 years were posted by either Arsenal or Chelsea. <br />
<br />
And the money continues to pour in at twice the per capita rate of the vaunted NFL.<br />
<br />
The NHL's annual revenues are reportedly around $3.3 billion, so even without any givebacks in a prospective agreement, if one uses the EPL as a benchmark for what players might claim in a free labor market, they are leaving about $430 million on the table in exchange for securing a collective bargaining agreement.<br />
<br />
What do the players get in exchange for that $430 million?<br />
<br />
Wealth redistribution, mostly. They get a voice in other areas, such as expansion and contraction decisions, scheduling, and rules. But mainly, through a salary cap (and floor), they force a redistribution of salaries from elite players to less talented players.<br />
<br />
Under the previous CBA, individual player salaries were capped at 20% of the team salary cap. As a result, an Alex Ovechkin earns significantly less than he would in a free market, and much of what he would have earned is instead paid to his average-to-above-average teammates, who earn more than they would in a free market.<br />
<br />
As owners continue to press for further reductions in the players' share of revenues, the proportion of players earning meaningfully less than they would under a free market system seems likely to grow.<br />
<br />
I gauging the utility of the union, one must look not at average salaries, but median salaries. I can't find comprehensive salary data for the EPL, but one would expect top EPL players to earn much more, relative to the median salary, than their unionized NHL brethren.<br />
<br />
We can look at what the top players earn as a proportion of total revenues, and there the data is surprising. There are 500 players on EPL rosters, and the top 2% - the top 10 players - claim 3.66% of total revenues. There are 690 players on NHL rosters, and the top 2% - the top 14 NHL players - claim 3.80% of total revenues.<br />
<br />
This is a counter-intuitive result; if it were completely accurate, then it seems to be that there could be no doubting that NHL players would be better off without their union. However, my instinct is to say that the EPL may use a more inclusive (and accurate) definition of revenues, making it not quite an apples-to-apples comparison. Even so, it suggests that the higher share of total revenues enjoyed by players in a non-unionized labor market may not be spread much more unevenly than those in a unionized market.<br />
<br />
That notional $430 million works out to about $623,000 per player, which would increase the average NHL salary by 26%. Or put another way, the average NHL player is taking a 20% haircut on his free market wages for the privilege of being represented by a union.<br />
<br />
And given the similarity between the share of revenues claimed by the top EPL and NHL players, it strikes me as more likely than not that the median NHL player is also taking a significant haircut on his notional free market salary. <br />
<br />
In which case, the NHL players would seem to be far better off passing on a union and collective bargaining altogether, and letting the market allocate a much higher share of revenues among them. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-14634864587185307622012-09-16T13:15:00.002-04:002012-09-16T13:15:52.885-04:00I Didn't Build This: 9/16 Rule 2 FMJRA PostIn continued obedience to <a href="http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-get-million-hits-on-your-blog-in.html">Stacy McCain's Rule 2</a>, another round of thanks to everyone who has thought enough of my ramblings to link or tweet them. If you linked or tweeted something and I have failed to note it, then I apologize; please let me know and I will be only too happy to update the list. <br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-gm-is-not-losing-49000-on-every-volt.html"><br /></a>
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/democratic-presidents-produce-more.html">Democratic Presidents Produce More Combat Deaths, Too</a><br />
<br />
was linked by: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150361/">INSTAPUNDIT</a><br />
<a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/">POWER LINE</a> <br />
<a href="http://theincendiaryinsight.blogspot.com/2012/09/war-deaths-republican-vs-democrat.html">INCENDIARY INSIGHT</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2012/09/whats-the-ratio-of-dead-servicemen.html">BRUTALLY HONEST</a> <br />
<a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2012/09/democratic-presidents-produce-more.html">ILIOCENTRISM</a> <br />
<a href="http://pfbias.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=145">POLITIFACT BIAS </a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/DartmouthReview/status/245138328930902017">retweeted</a> by @DartmouthReview <i>Wah hoo wah!</i><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/John_Monahan/status/244833289079238657">retweeted</a> by @John_Monahan<br />
<br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/no-gm-is-not-losing-49000-on-every-volt.html">No, GM Is NOT Losing $49,000 On Every Volt It Builds</a><br />
<br />
was linked by:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150413/">INSTAPUNDIT</a> <br />
<a href="http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/09/11/breakfast-links-193/#comments#disqus_thread">POINTS AND FIGURES</a> <br />
<a href="http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/the-defense-dept-will-buy-volts-instead-of-military-equipment-to-make-obama-look-good/?replytocom=13904">AMERICAN ELEPHANTS</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=159251">KILLER FROGS</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/Joseph_MSU/status/245179596755050496">retweeted</a> by @Joseph_MSU <br />
<br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-do-democrats-have-against-first.html">Democrats Vs. The First Amendment</a><br />
<br />
retweeted by @jamesperson<br />
<br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/black-wednesday-blessing-in-disguise.html">Black Wednesday: A Blessing In Disguise </a><br />
<br />
retweeted by @jamesperson<br />
<br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/rule-5-post-janina-gavankar-is-dreamy.html">Rule 5 Post: Janina Gavankar Is Dreamy</a><br />
<br />
was linked by: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://thttp//theothermccain.com/2012/09/16/rule-5-sunday-no-frills-edition/">THE OTHER McCAIN</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/rule-5-post-democratic-mistress-edition.html">Rule 5 Post: Democratic Mistress Edition</a><br />
<br />
was linked by: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://theothermccain.com/2012/09/10/rule-5-monday-12/">THE OTHER McCAIN</a><br />
<br />
retweeted by @JDanielsBrower<br />
<br />
<a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/rule-5-post-even-communist-air-travel.html">Rule 5 Post: Even Communist Air Travel Now Superior To Ours</a><br />
<br />
was linked by: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://the-classic-liberal.com/rule-5-monster/">CLASSIC LIBERAL</a> <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-45313403963880977392012-09-16T09:30:00.000-04:002012-09-16T09:34:47.331-04:00Black Wednesday: A Blessing In DisguiseToday marks the 20th anniversary of Black Wednesday, the day when the UK was forced to withdraw from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) following the Bank of England's futile effort to prop up the pound against the Deutsche Mark. Looking back, there is good reason for the British view Black Wednesday as a blessing in disguise.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, to paraphrase Churchill, if it was a blessing, then it was very well disguised indeed. The debacle reportedly cost the UK treasury some <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/feb/09/freedomofinformation.uk1">3.3 billion Pounds</a>, on top of slower economic growth and lasting damage to the reputation of the Tories.<br />
<br />
But the debacle did demonstrate the folly of monetary union, and in doing so likely helped keep Britain from joining the Euro. A few billion Pounds is a small price to pay to be clear of the Eurozone's ongoing implosion. Not for nothing does Norman Tebbit call it "<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100181043/black-wednesday-i-think-of-the-glorious-day-we-left-the-erm-as-bright-wednesday/">Bright Wednesday</a>." <br />
<br />
Black Wednesday should stand as a lesson for central planners everywhere that markets can only be subverted for so long. They eventually clear, and that is every bit as true for Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke as it was for John Major and Norman Lamont. And it is every bit as true for Dollars, Treasury Bills, health insurance and electric cars as it was for Pounds.<br />
<br />
George Soros was widely villified for making such large bets against the Pound, on which he reportedly made over $1 billion in ,profit on Black Wednesday. Considering the costs the UK would be facing had it adopted the Euro, perhaps the British should be arranging parades in his honor.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-67651606047373655072012-09-15T11:49:00.000-04:002012-09-15T18:45:58.562-04:00Henny Youngman And The Now-Popular Auto BailoutsThe past week had more than its share of bad news, with lost American lives, attacks on our embassies, and serial Obama Administration apologies for the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
Yet for all that, I think there was one bit of news which, if not worse, was at least more shocking and perhaps more ominous. Rasmussen reported that <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_bailout/september_2012/53_now_say_auto_bailouts_were_good_for_the_country">53% of Americans now view the auto industry bailouts positively</a>. Only 36% of Americans now view the bailouts as bad.<br />
<br />
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.<br />
<br />
This new popularity presumably reflects the impact of the DNC, at which all and sundry sought to perpetuate the fiction that said bailouts "saved" one million or more jobs.<br />
<br />
Any attempt at gauging the merit of the GM and Chrysler bailouts calls to mind the old Henny Youngman gag:<br />
<br />
"How's your wife?"<br />
<br />
"Compared to what?"<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>We don't get to run a separate control economy against which we can isolate and measure the effects of discrete policy choices, so we can only make comparisons with hypothetical alternative outcomes which, by definition, didn't happen. Which affords politicians ample opportunity to let their imagination run free. <br />
<br />
Compared to the barren economic Hellscape from which Obama would like to convince Americans he saved them, a million saved jobs might be a conservative estimate.<br />
<br />
Compared to anything that might plausibly have actually happened in the absence of what was in reality a bailout of the UAW's untenable contracts, however, the bailout is more likely in the long run to cost jobs. <br />
<br />
In arguing that the bailout saved one million or more jobs, the Obama administration and its supporters are implicitly arguing that the most plausible alternative to the bailout was a world in which the U.S. auto industry simply ceases to exist, equipment is scrapped, and plant sites eventually return to nature, with no activity save for the grazing of buffalo herds that happen by. Bankruptcy by neutron bomb.<br />
<br />
In fairness, people on both sides of the aisle like to make similar <i>I prevented the world from ending</i> arguments whenever it suits them. Indeed, the Bush/Paulson/Geithner cabal, along with every member of Congress who voted for TARP, routinely make that claim, including Paul Ryan.<br />
<br />
<i>If I didn't vote for TARP, mighty Apollo would have grown angry and ceased to ride his chariot across the sky. It was only through my courageous vote for TARP that we brought back the Sun.</i><br />
<br />
But TARP and other financial bailouts are more complicated, and a topic for other posts. The auto bailout was a far simpler affair with far less justification.<br />
<br />
And off the top of my head I can think of at least three options that would have been less damaging to the long term prosperity of both the auto industry and the nation than the Obama auto bailout:<br />
<br />
<b>1) Let nature take its course:</b> Given the lack of available debtor-in-possession financing during the crisis, a bankruptcy without government interference would likely have resulted in the liquidation of GM and Chrysler. Liquidation may sound scary but it just means selling off the companies' assets to the highest bidder. The plants, equipment, and intellectual property don't cease to exist, they just get sold off to someone prepared to deploy them on an economically sustainable basis. And come to that, it works that way for suppliers of liquidated manufacturers as well. Amid the conditions of 2009, such assets might have fetched a low price, inflicting great pain on GM creditors. But that's the risk they signed up for, and in any case their loss is some buyer's gain, whether it might have been Ford, or Fiat, or Tata, or anyone else inclined to take a risk.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Encourage the private sector provision of DIP financing:</b> If the government really found it intolerable to let GM and Chrysler live by the same laws as the rest of us, it still could have minimized its involvement by acting as an agent in securing private sector DIP financing. While Citigroup and Bank of America were (and in fact remain) basket cases, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and other large institutions remained not just solvent but fairly healthy throughout the crisis. The financial capacity existed. And while it is better for all involved if government does not actively use its power in this way, the reality is that bankers will ultimately do just about anything their regulators want them to do, including extending financing to customers whom they would prefer to avoid. This would have kept GM and Chrysler operating, while ultimately leaving them much more competitive than they are today by allowing them to more aggressively shed labor costs and inefficient work rules.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Guarantee or directly provide DIP financing:</b> Let's say the CEOs of healthy banks ultimately said to Treasury Secretary Geithner, "Look, Tim, you can put me on the rack and torture me if it makes you feel better, but there's just no way I can reconcile the provision of DIP financing to GM with my fiduciary obligation to my shareholders." Even then, the government could have simply offered to guarantee some or all of the required loans, and left the financing terms to the private sector and the adjudication of bankruptcy to the courts and private parties. Or it could have directly provided DIP financing and still left the adjudication to the courts and private parties. This, too, would have produced more competitive auto manufacturers than exist today.<br />
<br />
Compared to any of these alternatives, the Obama auto bailout can only claim to have "saved" a small number of jobs, all of which by definition represent a misallocation of scarce resources, at an exorbitant cost.<br />
<br />
And that's only in the short run; in the long run, the destruction of potential economic value from that misallocation of resources likely leads to a net loss of jobs. Every dollar the UAW extracts in wage premia is a dollar that can't be invested in product development. Every dollar lost to inefficient union work rules is a dollar that can't contribute incremental value to customers. Over time, this makes all the difference in a competitive market. <br />
<br />
<br />
One expects politicians and partisans to lie, especially in campaigns. And many of President Obama's followers aren't even lying, strictly speaking; many are merely ignorant of economics, or just irredeemably stupid, neither of which is a moral failing.<br />
<br />
Still, the idea that a majority of Americans would think the auto bailout a good thing - that we all sacrifice in order to sustain the lifestyle to which UAW members have become accustomed - is staggering. One hopes this is merely the residue of the DNC, and as transient as the Obama bounce with which it coincides. The alternative is just too horrible in its implications to contemplate. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-77172121001133288462012-09-14T13:11:00.002-04:002012-09-16T13:07:39.192-04:00Rule 5 Post: Janina Gavankar Is Dreamy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxT8HYbqZBD5GTsQP4ZihU3TjRc5GY8h0DcVc4AfpzEP88MqButxpuhkM2S1G4uK0aLNOGa6O7CR5LNTrkyoXP0ZNUSIe3WdNALh5TaZLDTlgn5zGpiHDKUP44fWF_-2UKb5IMEDtqubg/s1600/photo-2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxT8HYbqZBD5GTsQP4ZihU3TjRc5GY8h0DcVc4AfpzEP88MqButxpuhkM2S1G4uK0aLNOGa6O7CR5LNTrkyoXP0ZNUSIe3WdNALh5TaZLDTlgn5zGpiHDKUP44fWF_-2UKb5IMEDtqubg/s400/photo-2.jpeg" width="363" /></a></div>
<br />
UPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2012/09/16/rule-5-sunday-no-frills-edition/">THE OTHER McCAIN</a>! THANKS STACY!<br />
<br />
<u>Like what you see? <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">Follow me on Twitter</a>. </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
In previous <a href="http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-get-million-hits-on-your-blog-in.html">Rule 5</a> posts I have rationalized the inherent shameless exploitation of the medium with some sort of political tie-in, such as potential <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/rule-5-post-faded-poster-edition.html">replacements for those fading Obama posters</a>, or <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/rule-5-post-democratic-mistress-edition.html">Democratic Presidential tastes in mistresses</a>, or the <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/rule-5-post-even-communist-air-travel.html">superiority of even Vietnamese air travel</a> to our degrading government- and union-dominated airport experience. But this week I've got nothing, so I'll just post photos of an exceptionally beautiful woman and will be interested to see whether this attracts more or less traffic.<br />
<br />
<i>True Blood</i>'s season is over, and <i>The League</i>'s season hasn't started yet, which means several weeks of television with no programs featuring the dreamy Janina Gavankar.<br />
<br />
Let's not waste time trying to assign blame; this is quite obviously Obama's fault. But like most conservatives I have come to terms with the fact that part of my role in life is to clean up the messes left by feck-deficient liberals. In which spirit I present the following photos:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Etdd-Fe-0zcxlG8RtoAXjZl3UxFsG9vcjqP61vPWcVtxBUQNTvhEU5iHz5ZVtlqaE9sYwUftpS028UKMwCrasyeDN83Vq-tysFRce2COq2qxxdZ3vTJCgw9YCi5MYatZrFHTVoVXpHQ/s1600/janina01-1726794820315335257.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4Etdd-Fe-0zcxlG8RtoAXjZl3UxFsG9vcjqP61vPWcVtxBUQNTvhEU5iHz5ZVtlqaE9sYwUftpS028UKMwCrasyeDN83Vq-tysFRce2COq2qxxdZ3vTJCgw9YCi5MYatZrFHTVoVXpHQ/s640/janina01-1726794820315335257.jpg" width="403" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrmWtvGWp3nw787fUvk6zyIZzpuKlSnUK6YHT143vhOwnNJtoU6r4q3ZkOj-JDndiaITv4xLphXnoucDHX6l9h7LNqds0adCTN3b2EHOU3FrYZWy3KsdDo9FzSw6d_p8QZxWnyJf47QeY/s1600/cos-true-blood-janina-0611-med.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrmWtvGWp3nw787fUvk6zyIZzpuKlSnUK6YHT143vhOwnNJtoU6r4q3ZkOj-JDndiaITv4xLphXnoucDHX6l9h7LNqds0adCTN3b2EHOU3FrYZWy3KsdDo9FzSw6d_p8QZxWnyJf47QeY/s640/cos-true-blood-janina-0611-med.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA1UIyq7phkBNRr5xKmBafin3_fmAvgw4nrsDVdXg7bhxARTb-2EL52Kbe8tFf-c0mfEThr2WdwnaKxMLK0xGq8832lcmY3-ZQ9AjXfRjau6ilTP37seB8Ib29KlOUEpD7xGsEauJb2Vs/s1600/Janina-Gavankar-image-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA1UIyq7phkBNRr5xKmBafin3_fmAvgw4nrsDVdXg7bhxARTb-2EL52Kbe8tFf-c0mfEThr2WdwnaKxMLK0xGq8832lcmY3-ZQ9AjXfRjau6ilTP37seB8Ib29KlOUEpD7xGsEauJb2Vs/s640/Janina-Gavankar-image-1.jpg" width="480" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh7_ssJylygXfR1ZmxqWyjzOq3XO0jWfRRDywUgsN7GcpZ7Uf2O7hezpUJC562c56QR6dlxgOmrbHuXmvQEqZCVV7kMe9LZ0iuaEsYDsLyEhEBQb7A759FzUADDvUzXLAlmHNKBMRnqJI/s1600/janina-gavankar-69th-golden-globe-awards-hbo-4QIsyZ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh7_ssJylygXfR1ZmxqWyjzOq3XO0jWfRRDywUgsN7GcpZ7Uf2O7hezpUJC562c56QR6dlxgOmrbHuXmvQEqZCVV7kMe9LZ0iuaEsYDsLyEhEBQb7A759FzUADDvUzXLAlmHNKBMRnqJI/s640/janina-gavankar-69th-golden-globe-awards-hbo-4QIsyZ.jpg" width="409" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpX6h2rlPcx1sTMklKq9vFsoPa4W5tF75jj3PlV14XqqyhuaIF__8d1mT5bSzSlDmuVCoMPFZyFIck8zUKhW3OIJVBBlH6mUgbgSaerEzahqsf6ZScKo0Wu64j0c9LJaNG76EtX2aNaS0/s1600/Janina_Gavankar-660x881.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpX6h2rlPcx1sTMklKq9vFsoPa4W5tF75jj3PlV14XqqyhuaIF__8d1mT5bSzSlDmuVCoMPFZyFIck8zUKhW3OIJVBBlH6mUgbgSaerEzahqsf6ZScKo0Wu64j0c9LJaNG76EtX2aNaS0/s640/Janina_Gavankar-660x881.jpg" width="476" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ0HkkFhkqcFfOhR3FfB34M2-6wwFgKN8yuetKwVJNM5lyrkkYA3hWKNEdMADs6NvQKXEKS0DwoIV2zeGwTNaETgNAFIWKA3Zu-NR41aIDk5PxFa4qt233Ql9nZ8VLl6uiUtB8kabAz1w/s1600/janina_with_suspenders.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ0HkkFhkqcFfOhR3FfB34M2-6wwFgKN8yuetKwVJNM5lyrkkYA3hWKNEdMADs6NvQKXEKS0DwoIV2zeGwTNaETgNAFIWKA3Zu-NR41aIDk5PxFa4qt233Ql9nZ8VLl6uiUtB8kabAz1w/s400/janina_with_suspenders.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq66Sl2FRHcdXXSv6Y3K3gsFcSu8pbg2hH16cC-AJwntCx5opD-ibZnmz1k9DbrSjmPYNdV4PLMK03qFZFrSBvn9RALiEy8Syqxlc6MMUZudEHvJ4iDm2oPz_4EAmVaGC0o5eYUfDzHvw/s1600/Janina-Gavankar-FHM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq66Sl2FRHcdXXSv6Y3K3gsFcSu8pbg2hH16cC-AJwntCx5opD-ibZnmz1k9DbrSjmPYNdV4PLMK03qFZFrSBvn9RALiEy8Syqxlc6MMUZudEHvJ4iDm2oPz_4EAmVaGC0o5eYUfDzHvw/s640/Janina-Gavankar-FHM.jpg" width="425" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgto5LMi2Hv6M0DARBnl3ZyfoWY8YhyphenhyphenoYvyW1ZbQE9Dn6hxIY6F2wZuvfGSrOGLTd7Q92o6NEsVU4hW4_8PUV5EnWdiKIWXNr-ylR1tfpWP7AOFKXuYLw6gxVPCCTzXwycJPB1hRug07Vw/s1600/Janina-Gavankar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgto5LMi2Hv6M0DARBnl3ZyfoWY8YhyphenhyphenoYvyW1ZbQE9Dn6hxIY6F2wZuvfGSrOGLTd7Q92o6NEsVU4hW4_8PUV5EnWdiKIWXNr-ylR1tfpWP7AOFKXuYLw6gxVPCCTzXwycJPB1hRug07Vw/s400/Janina-Gavankar.jpg" width="332" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT74S9M_GDXzsisWDEwpnB1BAHr07ULlXfhCu60TXfLshZnSJcl8Z5pCGC5-YihGTVNBOA4TJRbI7qpZY4aXTA6sHrLmh3LifshvTLQhzPFMVN0rfqCN-wBjSJtKnqoJw1NWAjeo3gOqU/s1600/janina-gavankar-2010-hollywood-stuntwomens-0Xxex0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT74S9M_GDXzsisWDEwpnB1BAHr07ULlXfhCu60TXfLshZnSJcl8Z5pCGC5-YihGTVNBOA4TJRbI7qpZY4aXTA6sHrLmh3LifshvTLQhzPFMVN0rfqCN-wBjSJtKnqoJw1NWAjeo3gOqU/s640/janina-gavankar-2010-hollywood-stuntwomens-0Xxex0.jpg" width="428" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3IJ6ceATLimcJLrPdSUr7iBw3UE7q57ubtW-0UYonHCsyFJrp9RoZriyYzwRg5QCmk_KiVCQGHrY667Xxoz5Hrk8zmh4Gxgy-tWJZ0VKj9E90nhxix61zYrjSwPKAsbIXiw7wgRR6DBg/s1600/janina-gavankar-profile.jpgx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3IJ6ceATLimcJLrPdSUr7iBw3UE7q57ubtW-0UYonHCsyFJrp9RoZriyYzwRg5QCmk_KiVCQGHrY667Xxoz5Hrk8zmh4Gxgy-tWJZ0VKj9E90nhxix61zYrjSwPKAsbIXiw7wgRR6DBg/s640/janina-gavankar-profile.jpgx.jpg" width="474" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBnSkNsP_t0KGr40NQPZ49jIGImWzVujslDo0dj5LhEOOX31Q1ZyfVevoizPDlb3mL_S5RiV1gQA2sFMMWslFTEDIxzNeuTSVfaKM-pzbVcD2MT6FcQGQJDvjqnv2C0rN8OI7kJ80hLwE/s1600/janina.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="419" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBnSkNsP_t0KGr40NQPZ49jIGImWzVujslDo0dj5LhEOOX31Q1ZyfVevoizPDlb3mL_S5RiV1gQA2sFMMWslFTEDIxzNeuTSVfaKM-pzbVcD2MT6FcQGQJDvjqnv2C0rN8OI7kJ80hLwE/s640/janina.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
And in case you're wondering: Janina Gavankar's Bacon number is 3 <br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=janina+gavankar">Janina Gavankar</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=circus+szalewski">Circus-Szalewski</a> appeared in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=cup+of+my+blood+%282005%29">Cup of My Blood</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=circus+szalewski">Circus-Szalewski</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+pollak">Kevin Pollak</a> appeared in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=shredd+the+jon+johnsenson+story+2011">Shredd</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+pollak">Kevin Pollak</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+bacon">Kevin Bacon</a> appeared in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=a+few+good+men">A Few Good Men</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-91491297258867714502012-09-14T11:39:00.000-04:002012-09-14T11:39:05.119-04:00Google Adds Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon SearchabilityGoogle continues to make life easier in ways large and small. <a href="http://entertainment.time.com/2012/09/14/google-takes-guess-work-out-of-degrees-of-kevin-bacon/">Time</a> reports that Google has now introduced Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon functionality; just type in a celebrity name followed by "bacon number", and you get the answer, along with a list of the connections. For example:<br />
<br />
<div class="answer_predicate" style="padding-bottom: 6px;">
Elvis Presley's Bacon number is 2</div>
<div style="padding-bottom: 8px;">
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=elvis+presley">Elvis Presley</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=cesare+danova">Cesare Danova</a> appeared in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=viva+las+vegas+movie">Viva Las Vegas</a>.</div>
<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=cesare+danova">Cesare Danova</a> and <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+bacon">Kevin Bacon</a> appeared in <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=national+lampoon%27s+animal+house">National Lampoon's Animal House</a><br />
<br />
<br />
It's a great time to be alive.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-33506014520694330502012-09-11T15:10:00.001-04:002012-09-15T18:48:18.347-04:00September 11th, Eleven Years OnIn New York, the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2012 was remarkably similar to the morning of Tuesday, September 11th, 2001. A beautiful, sunny, unseasonably warm morning.<br />
<br />
I had not noticed the parallel, and in fact had not been conscious of today's date, until I took my dog out for her morning walk. We came across an elderly man who wanted to say hello to her, and in chatting he mentioned the date. A short time later it emerged that his step-son had been working at Cantor Fitzgerald, and had never come home after leaving for work that morning. That's when it dawned on me that this was such a comparably lovely morning.<br />
<br />
The man said his now-former wife had received a mid-seven figure settlement. We both shrugged. <i>So what?</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Eleven years ago I left my office to get something for breakfast, and remarked on what a gorgeous morning it was. I remember seeing someone riding a Vespa through midtown, the first one I'd seen since hearing that Piaggio was re-entering the U.S. market, and thought it looked like fun to be buzzing around on it on such a nice day.<br />
<br />
Returning to the office I bumped into a couple colleagues who had come outside for a smoke, and they mentioned that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. They didn't have any details and like most people I assumed the culprit was some novice pilot in a Cessna.<br />
<br />
When I got back upstairs, the televisions were showing live footage of the smoke billowing out of the building, which seemed awfully heavy for a Cessna. Shortly thereafter we saw the explosion from the second tower, and it was clear that this was no accident.<br />
<br />
A number of colleagues had previously worked at Cantor Fitzgerald, and a couple were able to get through on the phone to their former colleagues. Just watching that was surreal. A sample exchange, from memory, following one such call:<br />
<br />
<i>"What did he say is going on down there?"</i><br />
<br />
<i>"He said he doesn't know if they can get out, and he needed to hang up so he could try to get a call through to his family."</i><br />
<br />
One of my colleagues had a son in his twenties working in one of the towers, and he spent the morning trying unsuccessfully, and increasingly frantically, to call his son. Blackberrys were functioning perfectly but were far from ubiquitous and his son didn't have one. There was nothing any of us could do or say to help. Relief only came several hours later when his son, having hoofed it the few miles from the Trade Center to midtown, walked in the door.<br />
<br />
Two colleagues had actually had a meeting at the Trade Center scheduled for that morning. Thankfully they had been running a bit late, and they were still on the subway when the first plane struck.<br />
<br />
By early afternoon, there was nothing to do but walk home, up the empty and silent avenues. Medical professionals went to hospitals, in anticipation of a surge of injured people needing treatment, but they needn't have. The surge never came; people were either below the point of impact and got out fine, or they were above it and didn't get out at all. <br />
<br />
So I was lucky. Neither I, nor any friends or relatives, were ever in danger, though a number of people I knew professionally were lost.<br />
<br />
One thing I find interesting in the public reaction was the active solicitation of donations of supplies for search and rescue. You could bring items they were asking for to the Javits Center. My wife and I had brought down some supplies, specifically what I can't recall except booties for the rescue dogs. I'm sure the supplies were all put to good use, but it got me wondering: with the full wherewithal of the U.S. government at their disposal, why did authorities need small, irregular donations? They didn't. But the city was full of people who did need to feel like there was something they could do to help. The request for donations was, I think, as much as anything, an effort to aid the donors.<br />
<br />
I guess the thing that I find most striking today is the widely varying
ways people grieve. Some privately, some very publicly, some focused
more on individual victims and heroes, some in broader terms. Some perhaps in ways the surprise even themselves; I hadn't planned on writing anything about the topic, yet here I sit, typing.<br />
<br />
Eleven years on, I don't derive any great or unique wisdom from what happened that day. <i>Treasure the loved ones in your life while you can.</i> But one shouldn't need to be reminded of that. <i>The worst tragedies bring out the best in people.</i> Also not news, particularly - at the risk of sounding like what Californian friends deride as <i>New York provincial</i> - in New York City, where the six-sigma extremes of humanity seem to cross paths regularly.<br />
<br />
My prayers are with the people whose lives were cut short, and the people who lost loved ones, particularly the children who have grown up without a parent over the past eleven years. And that's about all I have to say. <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-89737310284309591202012-09-11T01:37:00.001-04:002012-09-11T01:37:42.624-04:00Why You Should Follow Senator Blutarsky on TwitterJust look at what people are saying:<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://twitter.com/jamesperson/status/239213173771759617">Do yourself a favor and just follow @USSenBlutarsky</a>" - <a href="https://twitter.com/jamesperson">@jamesperson</a><br />
<b> </b><br />
"<a href="https://twitter.com/smitty_one_each/status/241001157890289665">Note to all: follow Bluto => </a><a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1208562378103695522">@USSenBlutarsky</a> <span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/smitty_one_each/status/241001157890289665">#ThisIsNotOptional</a>"</span> - <span style="color: black;"><a href="https://twitter.com/smitty_one_each">@smitty_one_each</a></span></span><br />
<br />
"<a href="https://twitter.com/LilyOutLoud/status/239215599694249986">You're not clever</a>" - @LilyOutLoud, humorless feminist<br />
<br />
If you're not a humorless feminist, or even if you are yet inexplicably enjoy the blog anyway, then feel free to <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">follow me on Twitter</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-15750967221210162942012-09-11T01:24:00.003-04:002012-09-15T18:46:45.257-04:00Racist Peanut Butter & Jelly, or Why I Blog Under A PseudonymWith respective tips of the hat to <a href="http://minx.cc/?post=332723">Ace of Spades</a>, Twitchy, and Snark and Boobs, I give you the perfect illustration of why I blog under a pseudonym: the <a href="http://portlandtribune.com/pt-rss/9-news/114604-schools-beat-the-drum-for-equity">racist peanut butter and jelly sandwich</a>.<br />
<br />
To you and me, and any other sane person, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is "food."<br />
<br />
To a group of genuinely horrible sounding people in Portland, some of whom are inexplicably permitted to wield authority over children, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a "seemingly innocent example" of "the subtle language of racism."<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I don't deny the persistence of racism in the U.S. Neither do I deny being, at least to some extent, its beneficiary, in so far as I am white.<br />
<br />
But I question both the utility, and the fundamental sanity, of turning grade school into a parody of ethnic studies programs by interjecting race into peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.<br />
<br />
Bonus question: If peanut butter is racist, then does that mean that George Washington Carver was racist?<br />
<br />
What has that got to do with my use of a pseudonym, you ask?<br />
<br />
Simple. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative in a blue city in a blue state, and I don't have any desire to risk reprisals from colleagues or employers. <br />
<br />
Q: What sort of person would be unbalanced enough to seek reprisals against someone simply for being conservative?<br />
<br />
A: The sort of person unbalanced enough to see racism in peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. <br />
<br />
Perhaps eventually I will cease caring, and out myself like <a href="http://bostonglobe.com/magazine/2012/09/08/friends-don-know-conservative/6cZz78ANMMgs5uQeEnt6yI/story.html">Josh Passell</a>. But at present my sense of the calculus is that there is relatively little upside, and material potential downside. So until that changes (or Universal Studios complains about copyright infringement), I shall remain Senator Blutarsky.<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-51819521995443551872012-09-10T11:08:00.003-04:002012-09-15T18:47:45.976-04:00No, GM Is NOT Losing $49,000 On Every Volt It BuildsUPDATE: <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150413/">INSTALANCHE</a>! THANKS GLENN!<br />
UPDATE #2: LINKED BY <a href="http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/09/11/breakfast-links-193/#comments#disqus_thread">POINTS AND FIGURES</a>! THANKS!<br />
UPDATE #3: LINKED BY <a href="http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/the-defense-dept-will-buy-volts-instead-of-military-equipment-to-make-obama-look-good/?replytocom=13904">AMERICAN ELEPHANTS</a>! THANKS!<br />
UPDATE #4: LINKED BY <a href="http://www.killerfrogs.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=159251">KILLER FROGS</a>! THANKS! <br />
<br />
<u>Like what you see? <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">Follow me on Twitter</a>. </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
<u><br /></u>
An otherwise informative <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910">Reuters article</a> on the economics of the Chevy Volt makes the erroneous claim that "<span id="articleText">GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds."</span><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">No, it isn't. The reporter and editor of the story just don't understand mircoeconomics.</span><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">I take a back seat to nobody in criticizing GM for its outrageous bailout, its poor management, its rapacious unions, and its money-sucking boondoggle called the Volt. If you doubt this, then see <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-auto-bailout-is-far-costlier-than.html">here</a>, <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-general-motors-next-bankruptcy.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/forbes-defense-of-gm-is-steaming-pile.html">here</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">But I try to rely on arguments with a factual basis. If I didn't care about that, I'd just become a liberal and wallow in the smug self-satisfaction that comes from knowing that real-world results matter less than the fact that <i>I care</i>. </span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">Besides which, a reliance on demonstrably false claims is injurious to the long-term project of convincing the skeptical of the validity of conservative arguments.</span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">Which is why I bother to point out that Reuters' claim of a $49,000 loss per unit is clearly the byproduct of the author's economic ignorance. </span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">The calculation confuses sunk costs - i.e. the $1.2 billion GM spent developing the Volt - with marginal costs - i.e. the incremental cost of parts, labor and other inputs to produce the next Volt. Spreading out the sunk costs across the Volt's modest production volume gives us an average all-in cost, which is important to know for the purpose of analyzing the overall profitability of the Volt, but it is not the right benchmark to gauge whether or not GM is better off producing that next unit. </span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span id="articleText">The article cites estimates of $20,000 - $32,000 to build an incremental Volt. If these estimates are accurate, then GM can discount the $39,995 base price significantly and still earn a profit on every incremental Volt it sells.</span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">That doesn't justify the Volt's existence, because they plainly have no hope of selling enough Volts to earn back their $1.2 billion in sunk costs, let alone turn a profit on the enterprise. But that is very different from claiming that GM is losing money - i.e. is made financially worse off - with every Volt it sells.</span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">And there are other concerns raised by the article.</span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">One is the discounting in an effort to juice sales, perhaps not coincidentally in an election year. GM seems to be aggressively discounting leases, which is especially interesting because it can mask losses through the term of the lease through optimistic assumptions about the residual value of the car when it comes off lease. </span><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">This seems especially risky since there is no real history of used plug-in hybrid values on which to base such estimates. So I would not be at all surprised to see that the surge in Volt leases in 2012 results in a sizable write-down related to lower-than-expected residual values in 2014. Which happens not to be a Presidential election year.</span><br />
<span id="articleText"><br /></span>
<span id="articleText">It is also a red flag that GM seems to have abandoned any pretense of turning the Volt into a profitable product line in the next few years: </span><br />
<i><br /><span id="articleText">"It's true, we're not making money yet" on the
Volt, said Doug Parks, GM's vice president of global product programs
and the former Volt development chief, in an interview. The car
"eventually will make money. As the volume comes up and we get into the
Gen 2 car, we're going to turn (the losses) around." </span></i><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">Whether or not volume ever reaches profitable is uncertain. What is certain is that the Gen 2 car, and any and all successors, will entail their own development costs, just like the $1.2 billion spent developing the first generation Volt, about which GM used to dream the same big dreams it now has for the Gen 2 iteration.</span><br />
<br />
<span id="articleText">The Volt is a loss-making enterprise even with the massive subsidies it enjoys. It is an easy enough target on the merits. There is no need to risk one's credibility to bash it with an ill-informed argument from a reporter who doesn't grasp Econ 101. </span><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-49815389604662320432012-09-10T09:41:00.001-04:002012-09-15T18:47:17.000-04:00Democrats Vs. The First AmendmentDemocratic politicians may disagree on the desirability of gay marriage, but they are evidently united in opposition to the First Amendment.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/09/08/abuse_of_govern.html">the wise and beautiful Amy Alkon</a> comes this report from <a href="http://overlawyered.com/">Overlawyered</a> that Maryland State Delegate Emmett Burns wrote <a href="http://www.wbaltv.com/blob/view/-/16490818/data/3/-/ijsbez/-/Emmett-Burns-letter-over-Brendon-Ayanbadejo.pdf">a letter</a> to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens on official stationery stating that:<br />
<br />
"I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbedejo, would publicly endorse same-sex marriage"<br />
<br />
Amazingly, Burns' shock that a football player would avail himself of his First Amendment rights is not the worst part of the letter. The worst part is this:<br />
<br />
"I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a national Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions."<br />
<br />
Delegate Burns is a minister by training, which likely explains why the text of the letter suggests an attempt to sound lawyerly by someone relying on a thesaurus and having once watched a few episodes of <i>Matlock</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It strikes me as wildly inappropriate for a public official to seek to prevent a private citizen from exercising his right to free speech. Using official stationery to do so compounds the offense by <a href="http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/07/maryland-legislator-calls-on-private-employer-to-order-employee-to-stop-talking-about-same-sex-marriage/">implying</a> the use or potential use of government power to discourage the exercise of free speech.<br />
<br />
In my view, anyone who would do such a thing is simply unfit to hold public office in the United States.<br />
<br />
That goes for office holders who favor gay marriage as well.<br />
<br />
Both Overlawyered and the Advice Goddess note the parallel with Boston Mayor Tom Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, and Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno who conspicously suggested that Chick Fil-A is unwelcome in their cities because of the owners' views on gay marriage.<br />
<br />
But they miss the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/312976/christine-quinn-goes-after-chick-fil-john-fund">much stronger parallel</a> with New York City Council Speaker - and prospective successor to Mayor Michael Bloomberg - Christine Quinn. Like Burns, Quinn was not content to merely grandstand in the media, and also used her official stationery for a letter to John Sexton (the President of New York University, on whose property resides New York's only Chick Fil-A franchise), seeking the eviction of the restaurant.<br />
<br />
For some reason Quinn's reaction seems to have flown under the radar outside New York, even though it arguably represented a more formal and concrete threat by a government official of, in this case, the landlord of a private citizen exercising his First Amendment rights. And New York University has much more reason to care about what Christine Quinn thinks than the Baltimore Ravens do about what Emmett Burns thinks.<br />
<br />
Burns and Quinn may differ in their views of gay marriage, but they stand united as Democrats who care more about silencing opposing viewpoints than about defending the First Amendment rights of private citizens.<br />
<br />
Both have brought discredit to themselves, the Democratic Party, and the causes they support.<br />
<br />
And both are equally unfit to hold public office.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-90372190937595003232012-09-09T00:15:00.000-04:002012-09-09T00:15:15.503-04:00Best. Political. Show. Ever. "The Thick Of It" Returns!<br />
Last night <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qgrd">BBC 2</a> aired the first new episode of <i>The Thick of It</i> in nearly three years. If you like politics, and if you're reading this blog you presumably do, then this is cause for rejoicing. If you've seen any of the previous series of <i>The Thick of It</i> then you already know this. If you haven't seen the show, stop reading and go watch it now.<br />
<br />
Seriously. You will thank me later.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it's not clear when the new series will air in the U.S. Far be it from me to endorse piracy, but if one were so inclined, new episodes of <i>The Thick of It</i> may be worth the extra time in Purgatory. <br />
<br />
I enjoyed creator Armando Iannucci's Americanized version, HBO's <i>Veep</i>, but not nearly as much as <i>The Thick of It</i>. I think what Veep lacked, and what makes <i>The Thick of It</i> so great, is Peter Capaldi's menacing, epically vulgar Malcolm Tucker character. I thought the final episode of Veep was the funniest by far, in no small part due to Dan Bakkedahl's Tucker-like Roger Furlong.<br />
<br />
When Todd Akin revealed his Captain Science alter-ego, it occurred to me that the GOP could really use a Malcolm Tucker, who really knows how to explain to somebody that they <i>are</i> resigning, right now:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/SYX2m-FWwF4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Even if you don't especially like politics, the sheer creativity of Capaldi's swearing is a wonder to behold. I just can't recommend this show strongly enough. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-74866788751380181332012-09-08T11:16:00.003-04:002012-09-22T00:28:31.172-04:00Rule 5 Post: Democratic Mistress Edition<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAdSISnQ4TiFJZrsYJ4_Oa17Z5GbiHXhcZ6JxJ_QztT92CtxrL_9vXIthPy-FsTtmjRdQCV-i78WJrJyhyI1SnAJB2wDIidOxUsGmjrJPAPOFNPR0vbvopg6JTocdKU3lQ07PxpFWV-Ic/s1600/Marilyn-Monroe_12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAdSISnQ4TiFJZrsYJ4_Oa17Z5GbiHXhcZ6JxJ_QztT92CtxrL_9vXIthPy-FsTtmjRdQCV-i78WJrJyhyI1SnAJB2wDIidOxUsGmjrJPAPOFNPR0vbvopg6JTocdKU3lQ07PxpFWV-Ic/s400/Marilyn-Monroe_12.jpg" width="318" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
UPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2012/09/10/rule-5-monday-12/">THE OTHER McCAIN</a>! THANKS STACY!<br />
UPDATE #2: LINKED BY <a href="http://the-classic-liberal.com/rule-5-gold/">CLASSIC LIBERAL</a>! THANKS! <br />
<br />
<u>Like what you see? <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">Follow me on Twitter</a>. </u><br />
<br />
<u> </u>After a DNC featuring Bill Clinton and chaired by Antonio Villaraigosa, what else were you expecting?<br />
<br />
This is actually another area where the Democratic Party shines. Democratic Presidents don't only produce far more <a href="http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/09/democratic-presidents-produce-more.html">jobs and dead U.S. servicemen</a> than their Republican counterparts, they also produce far more Presidential mistresses.<br />
<br />
Nixon? Ford? Reagan? The Bushes? Not a mistress among them. <br />
<br />
For Democratic Presidents, though, if you haven't got at least one bit on the side, you're not doing it right.<br />
<br />
More than Marilyn (and more <i>of</i> Marilyn) after the jump.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The modern champion of Presidential skirt chasing has to be JFK. He had all the aphrodisiac bases covered: very wealthy, as powerful as it gets, and good looking to boot. And he put them to good use with a long list of ladies, of whom we'll just focus on two:<br />
<br />
Most notable, of course, was Marilyn:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1wCZZ23dsPWfL936BiloPL57KvmAUTJr_P0gpR_e5-ZSbS6wazfIvoqkLpraSCsUbUzZd6PBZfxKENvULyYxopgS6PKeAbypiFZO8rnuK2zs6qOvjb_X-MBhAekcw233Bfdgbp2MkhQE/s1600/Marilyn-Monroe-photo2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1wCZZ23dsPWfL936BiloPL57KvmAUTJr_P0gpR_e5-ZSbS6wazfIvoqkLpraSCsUbUzZd6PBZfxKENvULyYxopgS6PKeAbypiFZO8rnuK2zs6qOvjb_X-MBhAekcw233Bfdgbp2MkhQE/s400/Marilyn-Monroe-photo2.jpg" width="291" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj17s7ExEN7QiiUrYXaiSDEpVrFt903ZM5magT9KlYvpqmMgJTbeAi92gMVF-KsGTGcFEshhbusBI4E_Ezz41Egvd5LIN4ZSDnGtkHMsmYh4L7qB4UIdxU3Cpaj-0a600QIJ5TVySKxo-g/s1600/marilyn-monroe-nude.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj17s7ExEN7QiiUrYXaiSDEpVrFt903ZM5magT9KlYvpqmMgJTbeAi92gMVF-KsGTGcFEshhbusBI4E_Ezz41Egvd5LIN4ZSDnGtkHMsmYh4L7qB4UIdxU3Cpaj-0a600QIJ5TVySKxo-g/s400/marilyn-monroe-nude.jpg" width="332" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
But as a Democrat, JFK wasn't just about nailing celebrities. A socialite like Mary Pinchot Meyer would do nicely as well:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGYHFFDKczDAIbATMpl84Dnojy9FJ2SHjQKqLYkLKLGRslPBWv-aWS3gHS2nHVsUqL2ESW2HATcsnTVbggF5kobXkNsrCIkaiyvx73IV591YmA6MGuE-2YZSck68Gd8DQwb3sb6ouOC6c/s1600/Mary-Pinchot-Meyer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGYHFFDKczDAIbATMpl84Dnojy9FJ2SHjQKqLYkLKLGRslPBWv-aWS3gHS2nHVsUqL2ESW2HATcsnTVbggF5kobXkNsrCIkaiyvx73IV591YmA6MGuE-2YZSck68Gd8DQwb3sb6ouOC6c/s400/Mary-Pinchot-Meyer.jpg" width="329" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Gary Hart desperately wanted to be JFK, to the point of conspicuously walking around with his hand in his suit jacket pocket in a bizarre homage. He may very well have made it to the White House had he not been caught out emulating JFK by carrying on with an attractive blonde to whom he was not married, Donna Rice:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJhooLMw7nQIO8hRb0Ce6UyA42Q_OHqs5ZSdA0V1pi00h4QBx5eq4LbO7Ryb93x0vXIeJZd9bQS6HdsEjsep-OC3mjdRChjUOpvdAgpnor7FGyIvqBezMcGODWMiBqS_2XSAfIuuTWjfY/s1600/Donna+Rice+%2528Gary+Hart%2529+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJhooLMw7nQIO8hRb0Ce6UyA42Q_OHqs5ZSdA0V1pi00h4QBx5eq4LbO7Ryb93x0vXIeJZd9bQS6HdsEjsep-OC3mjdRChjUOpvdAgpnor7FGyIvqBezMcGODWMiBqS_2XSAfIuuTWjfY/s400/Donna+Rice+%2528Gary+Hart%2529+2.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh7dYO8pK6NcHFyliA_fSjDlxEeRHQDCoSTVue54krjJp9EyW9W9sGvbNMm2EiiD5KcNxmHBPKPARwOYQCHlxw80uEjfQh2mtLjOKrGfDnM3KPc5I744nPsrT66CgDQlmWdP6f7vsQg1c/s1600/Donna+Rice+%2528Gary+Hart%2529+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhh7dYO8pK6NcHFyliA_fSjDlxEeRHQDCoSTVue54krjJp9EyW9W9sGvbNMm2EiiD5KcNxmHBPKPARwOYQCHlxw80uEjfQh2mtLjOKrGfDnM3KPc5I744nPsrT66CgDQlmWdP6f7vsQg1c/s400/Donna+Rice+%2528Gary+Hart%2529+1.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqFXApaLfm73xjeb4jN1tLw3MBtGFiN06gsh91WDZ_knIlU6VUQYK0DD-1ADZBUn03h1q4ytRW-9hmotY18_-WmADB9fUJP2erFGk0ajjaBbmcd4QABPprNBLtUq07Dtkk5UB2JWhMLiM/s1600/Donna+Rice+%2528Gary+Hart%2529+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqFXApaLfm73xjeb4jN1tLw3MBtGFiN06gsh91WDZ_knIlU6VUQYK0DD-1ADZBUn03h1q4ytRW-9hmotY18_-WmADB9fUJP2erFGk0ajjaBbmcd4QABPprNBLtUq07Dtkk5UB2JWhMLiM/s400/Donna+Rice+%2528Gary+Hart%2529+3.jpg" width="286" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bill Clinton also wanted desperately to be JFK, and succeeded in both becoming President, and in using the Oval Office as a platform for habitual infidelity to his wife. Since his wife is Hillary Clinton, I can't find it in me to condemn him, but whereas JFK was able to leverage the Presidency into trysts with Marilyn Monroe, Clinton seems to have just gone slumming. Monica Lewinsky is far from homely, but perhaps not really Presidential mistress material:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmV1ig-8X7FdMGloJBQBHR3SlkfN0Sgjv0pHUCCgMeQgs2Dla10w1hAhqjmOI0_dTCjU0L1C2HQwe8uDryQH5SGcvZKiIDp4FJ-cZ3vIAZU-963IoLm9DygBtN4jHWVUJ9Ar1Igti5W9c/s1600/monica-lewinsky-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmV1ig-8X7FdMGloJBQBHR3SlkfN0Sgjv0pHUCCgMeQgs2Dla10w1hAhqjmOI0_dTCjU0L1C2HQwe8uDryQH5SGcvZKiIDp4FJ-cZ3vIAZU-963IoLm9DygBtN4jHWVUJ9Ar1Igti5W9c/s400/monica-lewinsky-2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VQgRwyzXVtqNl62EySRvCQkGLJ8khU1bdiQRGraB5T6CtArnHUMboPjbZ3WvTVJcdVNFeB7p0LG1oL6eH2UeNxEE8ECxHkmoOnwaF0ov-qzPiapCsBcnVKx1ygaeKlywjPtR69P6b7o/s1600/Monica-Lewinsky.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VQgRwyzXVtqNl62EySRvCQkGLJ8khU1bdiQRGraB5T6CtArnHUMboPjbZ3WvTVJcdVNFeB7p0LG1oL6eH2UeNxEE8ECxHkmoOnwaF0ov-qzPiapCsBcnVKx1ygaeKlywjPtR69P6b7o/s400/Monica-Lewinsky.jpg" width="265" /></a></div>
<br />
Nobody in the media likes to talk about rumors of Barack Obama's infidelity. Presumably like all other criticism of Obama, it would be racist. Plus, there are just unsubstantiated rumors; they aren't the sort of thing that you go plastering on the front page of the New York Times. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?pagewanted=all">Wait, what? Nevermind</a>. In that case, I give you rumored Obama mistress Vera Baker:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixEYv8-BQU5qHBPaX7PBR9cUhrIGSZcK6j3amObpdJMVdeqyT0RZwpN7PGoc63qOtsz9zq7hcXeaj5FhViraohCJ5gS3uNg24uJoSS-BnAR38OkyLqWdiCl8kj9LXpDcYDzJRiRfkrKrw/s1600/Vera+Baker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixEYv8-BQU5qHBPaX7PBR9cUhrIGSZcK6j3amObpdJMVdeqyT0RZwpN7PGoc63qOtsz9zq7hcXeaj5FhViraohCJ5gS3uNg24uJoSS-BnAR38OkyLqWdiCl8kj9LXpDcYDzJRiRfkrKrw/s400/Vera+Baker.jpg" width="267" /></a></div>
<br />
Obama just formally accepted the 2012 nomination at the DNC, which was chaired by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. While best known now for perpetrating blatant <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09cEwnivdr0">vote fraud on the Democratic Party platform</a>, Villaraigosa also has a way with the ladies. For example, when he was married, Villaraigosa had his way with reporter Mirthala Salinas:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibCvMb_EK75AiQTbcoCaFi7ITLd30lHTlfBnNLrK8FrpWLSFHWK9Dy6Y8oxZtO1W2lbcg2gTACl5F27Jzpit6foemzvKggh86YeVu526OHnYp0e0b1WAfj0mOZUeY-g3VnSUKH9__6o5M/s1600/Mirthala+Salinas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibCvMb_EK75AiQTbcoCaFi7ITLd30lHTlfBnNLrK8FrpWLSFHWK9Dy6Y8oxZtO1W2lbcg2gTACl5F27Jzpit6foemzvKggh86YeVu526OHnYp0e0b1WAfj0mOZUeY-g3VnSUKH9__6o5M/s400/Mirthala+Salinas.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWGLz_pPJWGqZdk3gottJkj4mgRZberTK8vTMQio-9nQQ0S-RKKnSc7emoUN61mLSyat6sHoCrj4QV-wNilxKHap8_9csXq-KgzNua5_aSW5i5Ue8PMOCQiWdbuO2ebXvUDOkTtX02AHo/s1600/Mirthala-Salinas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWGLz_pPJWGqZdk3gottJkj4mgRZberTK8vTMQio-9nQQ0S-RKKnSc7emoUN61mLSyat6sHoCrj4QV-wNilxKHap8_9csXq-KgzNua5_aSW5i5Ue8PMOCQiWdbuO2ebXvUDOkTtX02AHo/s400/Mirthala-Salinas.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<br />
But the preceding are just garden-variety sleaze. For the industrial grade stuff, you want to look to someone who fathers a child with his mistress, amid the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign, while his wife is dying of cancer. John Edwards, take a bow. And let's have a look at Reille Hunter while we're at it:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnx_fl9AKIiAtftir_9LoSbW8KxDiaUCEh9LBlenrW5Iu2hZye1v8Yc_wj27p4GxokKWEJDgB0JxuW5cpqTtoa-tn4fgPxPc5OsKZELCkeblHPL3TTw1XlxUKAcU4SRJkACaL3cR6Wu9c/s1600/Rielle-Hunter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnx_fl9AKIiAtftir_9LoSbW8KxDiaUCEh9LBlenrW5Iu2hZye1v8Yc_wj27p4GxokKWEJDgB0JxuW5cpqTtoa-tn4fgPxPc5OsKZELCkeblHPL3TTw1XlxUKAcU4SRJkACaL3cR6Wu9c/s400/Rielle-Hunter.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8tF3774DBunCjy51xuUGimRgYgvAUJoJSoNsZm7rx8tJSiNx2eX61GCkllcBihJVk2VlHNHCeTS4a74qNpw8MZuI7N6xz-ekQDBFjBQp6_XKhThaNDbOvaIiMVWsnY7qBsWwOvh3XIhM/s1600/rielle+hunter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8tF3774DBunCjy51xuUGimRgYgvAUJoJSoNsZm7rx8tJSiNx2eX61GCkllcBihJVk2VlHNHCeTS4a74qNpw8MZuI7N6xz-ekQDBFjBQp6_XKhThaNDbOvaIiMVWsnY7qBsWwOvh3XIhM/s400/rielle+hunter.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9q0aWB7xgj32m596IK1tYOyf_Ji91Dix2su8Y-KK_sOnP-1eY613ahGt2wlqSdEAUyuSiV_RbRE3rLgNt3SGXkg7XzXuhrqrCTeDQc0j3h5VAyOjAZjIIWaf2KzmonlfyJBbvv8aOGkw/s1600/rielle2-450x600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
De gustibus non est disputandum, as they say.<br />
<br />
Former Virginia Governor and Senator Chuck Robb was often mooted as a plausible Presidential candidate, and may well have become one but for his indiscretions, such as those with Tai Collins: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC2hhgPAengwTLqeSFgVh6by2JhCw8AZcgBew9DV_4ujElGZ7eUtznh15F0HPsY3RnykTV0YQLd4Nc5KCbz-CNzKeHGxigjQm92T9CUrITJNWAi_6Ksqb2MT4vfpS1tkRJYZklgiAzaIM/s1600/Tai-Collins.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhC2hhgPAengwTLqeSFgVh6by2JhCw8AZcgBew9DV_4ujElGZ7eUtznh15F0HPsY3RnykTV0YQLd4Nc5KCbz-CNzKeHGxigjQm92T9CUrITJNWAi_6Ksqb2MT4vfpS1tkRJYZklgiAzaIM/s400/Tai-Collins.jpg" width="301" /></a></div>
<br />
We'll wrap things up with Client Number 9, even though the only way former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is getting in to the White House is if he buys a ticket for a public tour. Spitzer's wholesale scumbaggery is illustrated by the fact that even as a very wealthy Governor of New York, the only way he could become embroiled in a sex scandal was by paying the lady involved, Ashley Alexandra Dupre:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCHnQa_Bhp239xd-Oa8ghBkBlPZyH21uzyd5OEWCEjEivAxDkefXF04hZSCxLXDZeCXrm0dcYOW-_jHWjMn_gezP92kBESI7hiHs65QW3ALnWjuUMF8Xw_VRstetXWbDW_0cvMHs1gWI/s1600/Ashley-Alexandra-Dupre-300x268.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="357" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWCHnQa_Bhp239xd-Oa8ghBkBlPZyH21uzyd5OEWCEjEivAxDkefXF04hZSCxLXDZeCXrm0dcYOW-_jHWjMn_gezP92kBESI7hiHs65QW3ALnWjuUMF8Xw_VRstetXWbDW_0cvMHs1gWI/s400/Ashley-Alexandra-Dupre-300x268.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs9OfattxEpjTlVuifX4Y10oACTaMyGEojHARoI-F4Rs644sHgG3NNegqRRAtpRCBlMglh2xD2gu4ayRBF5i40lQEsne6cy99Rfzl4alRkfA-mIZTdonq1uSgkxKhyphenhyphenNCHpJyZ0sqgukqk/s1600/Ashley-Dupr%25C3%25A9-Feet-121257.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs9OfattxEpjTlVuifX4Y10oACTaMyGEojHARoI-F4Rs644sHgG3NNegqRRAtpRCBlMglh2xD2gu4ayRBF5i40lQEsne6cy99Rfzl4alRkfA-mIZTdonq1uSgkxKhyphenhyphenNCHpJyZ0sqgukqk/s400/Ashley-Dupr%25C3%25A9-Feet-121257.jpg" width="206" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAND00xQUFGh0odqFKkwGWXmmyvRV7cSns1iPnFoxO3ALtUww39bL5e2f-nc3RbXwFSrsKsRgUyHrdvr_bmRcZDNLmGsNBMm5qma-KYbLab-ext5D6HSKVy_ev5VyJYBhfgly4-D0zDSQ/s1600/Ashley-Dupr%C3%A9-Feet-121258.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAND00xQUFGh0odqFKkwGWXmmyvRV7cSns1iPnFoxO3ALtUww39bL5e2f-nc3RbXwFSrsKsRgUyHrdvr_bmRcZDNLmGsNBMm5qma-KYbLab-ext5D6HSKVy_ev5VyJYBhfgly4-D0zDSQ/s400/Ashley-Dupr%C3%A9-Feet-121258.jpg" width="235" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo1_KiopPfQmhmJs9qLqWFYVN2OcQ8UH8VlBn0WtYcuH3XtPLIWjLH6dwfDseN5RV2uP_QavWGe5MzZ77G3eYSQm7NTTXVqvA_Ms5lfDd9ufYduTWKlV0PR8alN_ylSrcy5RetrTYMS-0/s1600/ashley061047--300x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo1_KiopPfQmhmJs9qLqWFYVN2OcQ8UH8VlBn0WtYcuH3XtPLIWjLH6dwfDseN5RV2uP_QavWGe5MzZ77G3eYSQm7NTTXVqvA_Ms5lfDd9ufYduTWKlV0PR8alN_ylSrcy5RetrTYMS-0/s400/ashley061047--300x300.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1208562378103695522.post-53428324415786781232012-09-08T09:41:00.001-04:002012-09-15T18:49:27.457-04:00Democratic Presidents Produce More Combat Deaths, TooUPDATE: LINKED BY <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/">POWER LINE</a>! THANKS, GUYS!<br />
UPDATE #2: <a href="http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150361/">INSTALANCHE</a>! THANKS GLENN!<br />
UPDATE #3: LINKED BY <a href="http://theincendiaryinsight.blogspot.com/2012/09/war-deaths-republican-vs-democrat.html">INCENDIARY INSIGHT</a>! THANKS, DW!<br />
UPDATE #4: LINKED BY <a href="http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2012/09/whats-the-ratio-of-dead-servicemen.html">BRUTALLY HONEST</a>! THANKS!<br />
UPDATE #5: LINKED BY <a href="http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/2012/09/democratic-presidents-produce-more.html">ILIOCENTRISM</a>! THANKS! <br />
<br />
<u>Like what you see? <a href="https://twitter.com/USSenBlutarsky">Follow me on Twitter</a>. </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
<u><br /></u>
Former President Bill Clinton's speech to the DNC this week was notable for several reasons.<br />
<br />
It was notable for being such a lengthy catalog of lies and half truths, even after one considers the source. <br />
<br />
It was notable for the skillful, earnest delivery of those lies, reminiscent of the way a younger Bill Clinton assured the American people that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. For those who want to believe him, he makes it easy.<br />
<br />
It was perhaps most notable, though, for Clinton's observation that “Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the
White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our private
economy has produced 66 million private- sector jobs. So what's the job
score? Republicans: twenty-four million. Democrats: forty-two.”<br />
<br />
This actually is not a lie, or even a half-truth. It is true that there have been many more jobs created under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents, even though it is something Bill Clinton said. That's a bit like walking out into your backyard and finding a unicorn, so take a moment to savor it.<br />
<br />
The <strike>meta-propagandists</strike> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/politics/fact-check-clinton-jobs/index.html">fact checkers at CNN</a> quibble that the correct figures are actually 44.7 million for Democratic Presidents and 23.3 million for Republican Presidents, but presumably every sentient listener knew that there might be a thumb on the scale, or even 21.3 million of them.<br />
<br />
I'm sure it was an honest mistake on Clinton's part. Maybe he just accidentally double-counted the half-million American jobs that President Johnson created in South Vietnam. Forty three times. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Whether Democratic Presidents outpaced Republican Presidents in job creation by a factor of 2.8 or merely 1.9 isn't really the big problem. Either way, the basic point is true. It is just deeply misleading. As skilled as he is at it, Bill Clinton really only has one trick.<br />
<br />
Ben Shapiro <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/06/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Clinton-Lies">notes one problem</a> with the methodology, namely the counting job creation from inauguration to inauguration. It assumes that Presidents take full control of the economy on the day they take office. Aside from not being true, this assumption is, as Shapiro notes, deeply damaging to Obama's claim to a second term. If everything that happened in the first quarter of 2009 is fully attributable to Barack Obama, re-election should not even be a possibility. Banishment would be a more appropriate outcome.<br />
<br />
But the real problem with Clinton's sure-to-become-ubiquitous talking point is that it imputes to the President a level of power that he just doesn't have. Presidents don't get to wipe the slate clean and start the economy over from scratch; they must play the cards they are dealt. President Obama inherited a very bad hand indeed, with the bursting of the mortgage bubble. But he is far from alone in inheriting a bad hand.<br />
<br />
His immediate predecessor, George W. Bush, inherited the bursting of the tech bubble that had helped make the late Clinton years seem so prosperous. George H.W. Bush inherited what was, at the time, the worst banking crisis since the Depression, courtesy of a real estate bubble that had left the country dotted with see-through office buildings that had been built on spec and never leased.<br />
<br />
Ronald Reagan inherited stagflation from Jimmy Carter. Had Reagan been fixated on maximizing job creation in his first term, he never would have given political support to Paul Volcker's aggressive interest rate increases at the Federal Reserve, which succeeded in choking off inflation but at the cost of what was, at the time, the worst recession since the Depression.<br />
<br />
Similarly, Richard Nixon inherited the inflation and various other distortions created by LBJ's guns-and-butter policies. Moreover, his elimination of those half million American jobs LBJ had created in South Vietnam was fairly popular, particularly among the men being displaced. <br />
<br />
Actually, it makes sense that Clinton would ignore this, as the President who enjoyed probably the richest economic inheritance of the period in question. Our first Baby Boomer President inherited a remarkably robust economy, rode it as far as it would take him, and bequeathed Enron and Nortel to his successor. It's almost like some sort of metaphor.<br />
<br />
Anyway, nobody in the MSM seems prepared to offer any such qualifications for Clinton's jobs factoid, so I will just offer a factoid of my own based on assumptions that are in no way more flawed than Clinton's:<br />
<br />
In the past 100 years, 630,000 Americans were killed in foreign wars. So what's the body count? Republicans: 30,000. Democrats: 600,000.<br />
<br />
A less charitable observer than myself might even argue
that the grief of those 600,000 bereft mothers constitutes some sort of
"war on women."<br />
<br />
I'm rounding off the figures as Clinton did, but tweak them as you will, the ratio of dead servicemen produced by Democrats to those produced by Republicans will stay around 20:1. And even if you back out the two World Wars and use the time period Clinton used, the ratio is still 2.4:1. Even in Afghanistan, President Obama has presided over more than twice as many combat deaths as President Bush, in half the time.<br />
<br />
Personally, I reject both factoids due to their shared reliance on an assumption of Presidential omnipotence. But I would challenge anyone accepting the jobs claim to offer logical grounds on which to reject the casualty claim. <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02265763278409137263noreply@blogger.com3