I think it's safe to say we have an unhealthy and unusual obsession on this blog with high school and the romanticization of things that happened 10 years ago in general. But seriously, who cares. That's what you get for going to the best high school and being from the greatest city in America.
I felt it was long past time to name the best teachers on Seawright Drive. I could substantiate these rankings by listing academic reasons why each teacher deserves to be on here, but that would just sound really gay. Plus, different teachers are good for different reasons (Tvrdy, for example, makes this list for entirely different reasons than, say, Curley does).
1. Coach Yeckley
2. Mr. Graham
3. Fr. Jeff
4. Coach Curley
5. Mr. Tvrdy
Honorable mentions: LTC Owens, Coach Orsini.
What's your list? And please no negative stuff. While I'd like to think nobody reads what we say on here, history has shown that's not always the case.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Happy Birthday Phil
On this day back in 1951, Philip David Charles Collins, was born in Chiswick, London.
Phil comes from an era when pop stars actually wrote their own music, and it sounded good.
Here are lyrics from my personal favorite.
(Phil begins...)
Easy lover
She'll get a hold on you believe it
Like no other
Before you know it you'll be on your knees
She's an easy lover
She'll take your heart but you won't feel it
She's like no other
And I'm just trying to make you see
(Now for high pitched black guy, Philip Bailey...)
She's the kind of girl you dream of
Dream of keeping hold of You'd better forget it
You'll never get it
She will play around and leave you
Leave you and deceive you
Better forget it
Oh you'll regret it....
Awesome.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
It's Official
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid think they know how to spend $1 trillion better than 300 million private individuals do. Kudos to the House Republicans, all of whom opposed the measure.
The Stimulus Package Ruse
by Walter Williams.
Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: "Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money." A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse.
Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.
You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.
The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It's that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. Let's say that Congress taxes you $500 to put toward creating construction jobs building our infrastructure. The beneficiaries will be quite visible, namely men employed building a road. The victims of Congress are invisible and are only revealed by asking what you would have done with the $500 if it were not taxed away from you. Whatever you would have spent it on would have contributed to someone's employment. That person is invisible. Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight.
In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don't need that.
(Remember, government spending needs to be reduced in proportion with tax cuts... increased government spending is only a tax increase for future periods whether it be in the form of increased income tax rates, borrowing, or printing money.etc)
Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: "Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money." A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse.
Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.
You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.
The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It's that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. Let's say that Congress taxes you $500 to put toward creating construction jobs building our infrastructure. The beneficiaries will be quite visible, namely men employed building a road. The victims of Congress are invisible and are only revealed by asking what you would have done with the $500 if it were not taxed away from you. Whatever you would have spent it on would have contributed to someone's employment. That person is invisible. Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight.
In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don't need that.
(Remember, government spending needs to be reduced in proportion with tax cuts... increased government spending is only a tax increase for future periods whether it be in the form of increased income tax rates, borrowing, or printing money.etc)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Snuffy's Food For Thought
Have you ever noticed how time drags on when you're at work, but flies by when you are home, sick?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Logistics Question
This morning I was flossing with my little, dainty girl hands. No problems. Smooth operation. Then I wondered how T.C. flosses. Can you fit this big paws in there? Or do you have to use one of these?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Against the Stimulus in 45 Seconds
Also, I understood Mr. Obama to say that under his leadership, we will enter a new "Era of Responsibility." Can someone explain to me how spending over a $1 trillion we don't even have is "responsible"? I really need some of his supporters to help me out with this because I'm deeply confused.
Lie to Me
If you have watched Fox recently you have seen the commercials for a new show called "Lie to Me." It follows a team of people who can supposedly tell by a suspect's mannerisms and behavior whether or not they are lying. This is the worst premise for a show I've heard in a long time for one simple reason: it's actors acting like they are lying.
On the other hand, this would have made a decent reality show to air with Cops and America's Most Wanted. Showing actual suspects and their accounts of what happened, trying to determine for ourselves if they are telling the truth, and then at the end they reveal how the case was ruled. Obviously, we wouldn't know for sure if they were lying unless they ended up confessing, but it would be intriguing to see if justice was served based on what we are shown.
Well, at least it would have been more interesting than seeing actors shift their eyes, tap their feet nervously, or stutter. Jesus Christ, that is stupid.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
In Requiem: The Bush Presidency
I first heard of this man at the age of 16 during my junior year of high school. I knew I was conservative by that point, and I knew I certainly hated Bill Clinton and just about everything he stood for. His ambivalence; his double-speak; his slick but sleazy delivery; his gutless, triangulating, finger-in-the-air, let's-take-a-poll and-please-as-many-people-as-possible-without-really-doing-anything response to just about every major problem facing the country at home and abroad really aggravated me (does anyone remember those days now?).
America, it seemed, was long overdue for decisive action, for moral clarity, for strong leadership. It had been 12 long years since Ronald Wilson Reagan's conservatism had departed from Washington and many saw W. as his reincarnation. The Right salivated over this prospect at the dawn of a new millennium, with endless opportunities and a Republican Congress to boot. I was one of those people, 100%.
I also loved Governor Bush simply because his style was so unlike Clinton's. His conviction, his swagger, his cockiness, his simplicity, his don't-really-give-a-damn, shoot-from-the-hip, cut-taxes-and-everything-will-take-care-of-itself, even-though-I-constantly-stumble-over-words-I'm-still-right-and-better-than-you style of rhetoric really won me over because it reminded me of someone who graduated from BC (or maybe, subconsciously, my father). Clinton could eloquently prattle for hours on end without missing a beat, yet no one in his audience could grasp what he really meant or what his positions really were. By contrast, Bush could stumble over a few short, choppy sentences yet you still understood exactly where he was coming from every time. This resonated with a lot of folks, and while he didn't win the popular vote in 2000, it's the reason he did as well as he did at a time when Democrats were presiding over a surging Dow Jones and the longest peacetime expansion in history.
It soon became apparent, however, that aside from issues of style and the initial tax cuts he gets passed, Dubya wasn't like Reagan at all. It's kind of like when you first get to Georgia and notice how all the fraternity guys wear boat shoes, polo shirts, and khacki pants. "Wow, these guys look and dress normal like they could have gone to BC. I bet they're cool." But then, for various reasons, you soon realize these guys have very little, if anything, in common with you, and that they give people that do dress normal a really bad name.
In his first term alone, W. more than doubles federal funding for education, pledges trillions into new welfare and healthcare entitlements, pours billions more into foreign aid programs, oversees a dramatic expansion in farm subsidies and corporate handouts, and clings to a self-professed philosophy that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move." It is true that in foreign affairs, he deserves lots of credit for demonstrating ballsy resolve in the weeks and months following 9/11, something Al Gore probably wouldn't have shown. But that ballsyness goes too far in pursuing what now looks to be a war of choice in Iraq and years of nation-building and an over-extended military, things Bush railed against during the 2000 campaign.
By 2004 many of us were agitated, but were told to grin and bear it because the alternative was far worse and that these compromises were necessary to win a second term that would truly enable the administration to carry out its "real" goals: downsizing the federal government, implementing a flat tax, slashing spending, and privitizing Social Security. The first part of this was true: John Kerry's stances were far worse. But the second part never even came close to materializing. Instead, all we got was more of the same.
I don't think Bush deserves a whole lot of blame for this country's bellicosity in the wake of that fateful September day during his first year. We all felt something had to be done after nearly a decade of fruitless half-measures. The days of bombing an aspirin factory or lobbing a cruise missile into some tiny tent in the middle of the desert were over, and action had to be taken. We were undoubtedly right to go into Afghanistan I still think we made the right decision invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein given the intelligence reports and what we thought was true (the presence of WMD) at the time. Knowing what we know now, would it make sense? Of course not. Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives needn't be lost just so we can go around the world "spreading democracy" in places filled with irrational and ungrateful fanatics that will never get their act together.
Where Bush deserves tons of blame is on the domestic stuff, and what should have been achieved. Not since the 1920's has so much opportunity been wasted by a Republican president. Other than the supply-side tax cuts, which do deserve some credit for igniting a robust expansion between 2002-2007, he did not advance any semblance of a true conservative agenda on economic issues at a time when his own party controlled both houses of Congress. He was not able to effectively communicate a coherent message on what should have been key policy initiatives. He sat back and allowed the opposition and liberals in the media to dominate the discussion. He rarely exercised any form of restraint when spending other people's money, and never showed any skepticism toward government power. Alongside his colleagues in Congress, he instead abandoned much of what Republicans used to stand for.
How will history judge this man? I have no idea. More generously than right now? Probably. Almost certainly. But he's still the main reason why the party brand is in tatters and will remain that way for some time. Because of him, an entire generation of voters will predominately vote Democrat for decades to come. Because of him, many see the GOP as the party of big government, authoritarian federal mandates, corporate welfare, bailouts, foreign adventurism, and nanny-state socialism.
It's true that others will continue to see Bush and Republicans as evil "free-market," "far right," "trickle-down" ideologues. They blame capitalism, greed, and oil companies for our current troubles and see higher taxes and more labor unions as the way out (yay! let's create more GM's!). But these people have always been around, have always been wrong, and can never be reasoned with. They are the sorry folks that voted for Mondale in '84. They are the ignorant, partisan, Paul Krugman lackeys who remain firmly convinced that FDR somehow "got us out" of the Great Depression and that only through more bureaucracy, higher tax rates, and another trillion-dollar New Deal can the economy recover and can America become a "great" country again, and by "great" they mean more like France. Unfortunately, while a minority voice, their viewpoints constitute the false history now being written in the pages of Time, Newsweek, and even The Economist. They declare Bush's presidency the final demonstration that "small government" is bad and that the "free market" is dangerous and has miserably failed. Yet government has nearly doubled in size since Bush's arrival and our economy is in many areas substantially less free.
The bad news (or good news, if you're pulling for the Republicans), is that much of Obama's agenda promises even more of the same mistakes that Bush made on even a larger scale. Trillions in new spending. More entitlements. Additional bailouts. Maybe this will open voters' eyes a bit and help them realize that Democrats are just as bad, if not worse, and that we can't spend our way out of problems by creating make work projects or mailing out checks from the treasury. However, unlike Bush, Obama will have the media on his side and will always be seen as a compassionate figure with the best of intentions.
Has George W. Bush been the worst leader this country has ever seen? No, we've had far worse. But his 8 years illustrate the failures of a governing strategy that must never be repeated. With W. gone, we can hopefully redraw that line in the sand proclaiming Democrats and only Democrats to be the party of big government.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
New Merchandise
These new bumper stickers available at Cafepress recall the BC-Savannah High rivalry days.
And, if you're really old school, the same sticker is available in Cherry Red, which was BC's original color during the height of the rivalry in the 30s and 40s:
And, if you're really old school, the same sticker is available in Cherry Red, which was BC's original color during the height of the rivalry in the 30s and 40s:
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Two More Months!
For those of you in town this weekend, the monthly Club Seventeen meeting will take place at Kevin Barry's tonight. If you have not already started your alcohol tolerance preperation for St. Patrick's Day, I suggest you start tonight.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Dear Mr. Stastny
My letter to Anthony Stastny, sports editor for the Savannah Morning News.
This shit is getting ridiculous.
Mr. Stastny,
I noticed an inconsistency in the the basketball stats column this morning. Cody Padgett of Calvary is listed as the area's leading scorer with 371 points in 16 games for an average of 24.7 ppg. If those numbers are correct, his real ppg average should be 23.2, but that is besides the point (no pun intended). The second leading scorer is Jibri Bryan of Benedictine with 293 points in 11 games for an average of 26.6 ppg.
As I looked at the other statistical categories, I noticed that every other category was ranked by average per game, not by the raw total. So, why is Cody Padgett listed ahead of Jibri Bryan, when Bryan is averaging 3.4 ppg more than Padgett?
I will not hide the fact that I am a BC alumn and an avid fan of the Cadets. Adam VanBrimmer and I exchanged a few emails not too long ago after his column about Calvary gaining ground on the public schools. Calvary failed to live up to the hype by losing to Windsor Forest, again, by 17 points. Then, this morning, I noticed the discrepency in the stats and Rich McGowan's column about the "Calvary Crazies."
I am not sure why the Savannah Morning News has this love affair with a 9-7 Calvary team, when there are several more deserving teams in this area, including the Benedictine Cadets.
Snuffy P. Smith
This shit is getting ridiculous.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Fleet Foxes
My favorite new band from 2008, Fleet Foxes, will be playing SNL this Saturday. So, if you like a lot of harmony, Beach Boys, CSNY, that sort of thing, check them out. Hard to describe their sound properly. Here are a couple of their videos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)