A construction sign on my way to work seems oxymoronic to me:
I always wonder: "Is my caution extreme enough this morning? Maybe I should slow down to 10 MPH?"
Awhile back, I posted President Obama's Two-Point Plan for the economy:
- Say and do anything to get re-elected.
- There is no point two.
Megan McArdle notes that Obama's "jobs plan" fits that model precisely:You can say that Obama has no choice, because the GOP is just so damn obstructive that they won't pass anything anyway. As it happens, I disagree--I don't think that he could have gotten the whole thing through, but the GOP would probably have given him a few pieces to avoid looking like total jerks, and while that might not have done too much for Obama's re-election chances, it probably would have meant a lot to the schmoes trying to make their mortgage payments in a tough economy.
But say it's true. If it is, I really wish that Obama hadn't wasted my Thursday evening, and that of 31 million other Americans, listening to a jobs plan that was only designed to produce one job--a second term for Barack Obama. I mean, I don't blame him, exactly. But I get a little pang when I realize that I could just as well have spent that time bleaching the grout in the master bath.
Language Log has irrefutable
proof that the Chinese, as a people, are more likely than any other
have their feelings hurt, even more than the Kiwis.
Spokespersons for the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) often complain that the words or actions of individuals or groups from other nations "hurt the feelings of the Chinese people". This is true even when those individuals or groups are speaking or acting on behalf of some segment of the Chinese population (e.g., political prisoners, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Falun Gong adherents, people whose houses have been forcibly demolished, farmers, and so forth). A typical cause for invoking the "hurt(s) the feelings of the Chinese people" circumlocution would be for the head of state of a country to meet with the Dalai Lama or Rebiya Kadeer. A good example is Mexican President Calderon's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama, which the PRC government denounced in extremely harsh terms. The vitriolic rebuke led one commentator to refer to the PRC denunciation of the Mexican President as a kind of "bullying".
I suggest the Kramer response: "What about my feelings? Don't my feelings count for anything? Oh, only the poor monkey's important. Everything has to be done for the monkey!"
If nothing else, it might confuse 'em for a bit.
At Cato, Daniel
J. Mitchell is more than a little irritated with Mitt Romney and
Michele Bachmann for their demagoguery on Social Security.
Here’s what’s so frustrating. Romney and Bachmann almost certainly understand that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt. And they probably realize that personal retirement accounts are the only long-run answer.
But they’re letting political ambition lure them into saying things that they know are not true. Why? Because they think Perry will lose votes and they can improve their respective chances of getting the GOP nomination.
Politics aside: as a practical matter, Mitt and Michele should realize that you can't out-demagogue the Democrats on Social Security.