SONICFROG DOT NET

“Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on Economy”

Commentary by Bruce Bartlett. He suggests that we look at the items in those tax packages, keep the ones that can be shown to have had an effect, and jettison the rest. Sound like sound policy implementation to me. The Palinite / Tea Party conservatives will trash this idea and dismiss Bartlett as a traitor to the cause, because, well, they are ideologues. Bartlett recounts this exchange with a senior White House economist:

One morning in 2001, one of President Bush’s most senior economic advisers walked into the Oval Office for a meeting with the president. The day before, the adviser had learned that the president had decided to send out tax-rebate checks to stimulate the faltering economy. Concerned about deficits and the dubious stimulatory effect of such rebates, he had called the president’s chief of staff, Andy Card, to ask for the audience, and the meeting had been set.

As the man took his seat in the wing chair next to the president’s desk, he began to explain his problem with the president’s decision. The fact of the matter was that in this area of policy, this adviser was one of the experts, really top-drawer, and had been instrumental in devising some of the very language now used to discuss these concepts. He was convinced, he told Bush, that the president’s position would soon enough be seen as “bad policy.”

This, it seems, was the wrong thing to say to the president.

According to senior administration officials who learned of the encounter soon after it happened, President Bush looked at the man. “I don’t ever want to hear you use those words in my presence again,” he said.

“What words, Mr. President?”

“Bad policy,” President Bush said. “If I decide to do it, by definition it’s good policy. I thought you got that.”

The adviser was dismissed. The meeting was over.

The mantra you hear over and over again among conservatives is “all or nothing” concerning the extension of the tax cuts. House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said if he had to, he would vote for only a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts, and was promptly eviscerated by the talk radio set. There is no middle ground to even discuss what would work best. They don’t realize it, but the Tea Party has become a collective version of George W Bush.

Quote Of The Week

Well, this should end the “masturbation” debate. From commernter YoungHeglian at Althouse:

Even if O’Donnell stands fast against the evil tide of masturbation, the Republic will never have to worry that there will ever be a shortage of jerk-offs in the Senate!

Perfect!

Facebook – A Historical Retrospective.

The Starfish And The Terrorist

This video by Johnathan Rauch is making the rounds.

I think the “starfish” analogy works equally well for the structure of Islamic extremist organizations. That is one of the reasons why it’s seemingly impossible to nail down exactly what a victory in the GWOT would look like. If you kill Bin Ladrn, it not only goes on, but his martyrdom will surly inspire new groups to emerge. As we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, if you eradicate a stronghold, they simply slide (slither?) to a new one. Sure, you could poison the whole sea, but that would just be killing ourselves, as we also swim in it.

Proof of God!

From an Amazon book reviewer,

“…mathematics has demonstrated that infinite numbers exist in theory. So how can one account for infinite numbers if one solely relies on a finite epistemic foundation (finite cosmos interpreted by finite human minds)? Can ascribing theism as one’s epistemic source be the solution? Can presupposing an infinite transcendent God justify infinite numbers? For one can count: 1, 2, 3, 4,… and go on infinitely. One can count backwards: -1, -2, -3, -4,… and go on infinitely in that direction. Yet our universe is finite. Without an infinite God, one cannot account for infinite numbers.”

Oh, I guess I’m converted now.

“Without an infinite God, one cannot account for infinite numbers.”

Good Lord. No wonder I’m agnostic.

THE MARK LEVIN CONTROVERSY: I WEIGH IN

I first came across this bit of conservative controversy via Sully’s site. I haven’t had time to read everything on it. But, even though me and Patterico had a dust-up earlier this year, I’m on his side on this. It continues to amaze me that, as knowledgeable as Levin is about politics and government, he goes out of his way to ALWAYS take the low road. I can’t listen to the guy. Anyone who calls his show with a dissenting opinion, even though they might have an interesting point to discuss, gets the “Get Of The Phone You Big Dope!” There is no way for any person to even try and put up a challenge to Levin. He won’t allow it. Of course the calls are screened to produce this result. As a rule, only the dumb talking point callers are allowed through anyway, the better to decry how stupid all liberals are. Whatever substance there is on Levin’s show, the over-the-top in-your-face-style is more important than actually trying to convince a stray liberal or moderate that he has valid point. No, moderates are ninnies, and liberals are scumbags. End of story.

John Hinderacker at Powerline summed it up this way:

Traditionally, an out-party doesn’t start fighting over the spoils until it is actually in. Divisive attacks like the one Mark Levin launched against us cause me to think that some conservatives, at least, are counting their chickens prematurely. Conservatives are more numerous than liberals, but remain a minority. We need to stick together; not on every tactical decision, about which judgments will inevitably vary, but in support of our movement against its real enemies, who are statists.

Paul Mirengoff adds:

What seems to have set Levin off is this statement with which I concluded my comparative analysis of competing election strategies: “It’s disconcerting to realize that many of our activists aren’t even as astute as the likes of Markos Moulitsas.” Levin responded, “Markos Moulitsas is a reprehensible menace. Mirengoff knows it.”

But one can be a reprehensible menace and still have formulated a more astute political strategy than folks who are not reprehensible menaces; in fact the more astute an adversary is, the more menacing (see Saul Alinsky). So instead of flailing about and misstating fact after fact (many of which pertain only to me, not the issue at hand), Levin would have better served by taking a serious look at the left’s successful approach to gaining political power when it was in a situation similar to the one conservatives now confront.

Unfortunately, ranting, not serious analysis, seems to Levin’s thing.

So close to the target. What matters most to Levin? Selling the Mark Levin product. Compare Levin’s product to, say the Michael Medved radio show. Medved, even if you disagree with him, lets even the most rabid liberal caller have his say, and tries to engage in thoughtful dialog. Medved will even acknowledge when the caller has a valid point. As of September, Levin’s is the fourth highest rated radio show on the air. Medved? Not even in the top ten. He is seventh when the field is narrowed down to talk radio, and pulls in a good 3.7 million listeners. But look at Levin’s numbers; they are at 8.5 million And he is tied in fourth place with Michael Savage, another radio yelling head. In fact, all the top rated shows are nothing but yelling head shows, where absolutely no dissent is permitted; only boot licking is allowed. The last quote should read:

Unfortunately, ratings, not serious analysis, seems to Levin’s thing.

Headline Of The Year Nominee

Mysterious form of epilepsy triggered by Hannah Montana

And yes, this instantly goes to the (un)Altered News web site.

From The “Isn’t politics just another form of masturbation?” Dept.

I don’t know if that’s a real quote, but it’s accurate.

This will go over well with the Disney / Johnas Bro’s crowd. Regular adults?… meh, not so much. And am I wrong, but doesn’t her “lust in your heart is committing adultery” bit at about 1:06 minutes in eerily reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s famous “I had lust in my heart” Playboy interview for which he was heavily ridiculed by conservatives?

Anyway, political propaganda wise, the nomination of O’Donnell s a Delaware Democrat’s wet dream come true! I’m sure this is just the tip of the tragic iceberg as far as campaign ad fodder goes. The Tea Party has nominated Messianic Sharron Angle, and now the uber-religious O’Donnell. Is the Tea Party now the new Moral Majority? Stay tuned.

Truck Commercial

Joe Izusu, per request by Cliffie. Remember when you could buy a new truck for $6500?????   I Do!   God, that makes me feel old!

Hey, The Kid Was Right…

Obama IS a prick!…..

Knock, Knock…

Uh Oh….