Chait actually makes two distinct claims about Obama: that he has a superior intellect and that he is a superior “communicator.” The first claim could be true, although it is far from indisputable. But the second claim is so absurd as to be delusional.

Obama has spent the past year trying to sell Americans on ObamaCare. He has failed utterly, as Podhoretz notes. Now, maybe Chait is right that opposition to ObamaCare is a product of stupidity. Maybe ObamaCare would be popular if a majority of Americans were as brilliant as Jonathan Chait. But in a democratic republic, elections are not limited to the elect. Shockingly, half of all Americans have below-average IQs. They vote too.

By no imaginable standard can a politician be considered a great “communicator,” or even an adequate one, if he is unable to persuade voters of average-or-below intelligence to back his policies.

Indeed.

Via Tom Maquire

From Newsweek: “Washington is working just fine. It’s us that’s broken.“

Given that we live in a constitutional republic, one has to wonder if they get just how fucked up and insanely ironic [not to mention arrogant] this headline is.

Nah. I doubt they do.

Quotable bits :::

Unions vs. Liberalism, Part XXIIII: If you are a liberal who believes in public education, do not let the teachers’ unions do to your school system what the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) has done to the L.A. Unified School District–make it so hard to fire a bad teacher that most school principals don’t even try. According to an L.A. Weeklyinvestigation, the school district itself seems to have given up:

In the past decade, LAUSD officials spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district’s 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance — andonly four were fired, during legal struggles that wore on, on average, for five years each. Two of the three others were paid large settlements, and one was reinstated. The average cost of each battle is $500,000.

[W]e also discovered that 32 underperforming teachers were initially recommended for firing, but then secretly paid $50,000 by the district, on average, to leave without a fight. Moreover, 66 unnamed teachers are being continually recycled through a costly mentoring and retraining program but failing to improve, and another 400 anonymous teachers have been ordered to attend the retraining. [E.A.]

That’s less than one attempted firing a year. Why? Mainly because firings–and the bad performance evaluations that precede them–are almost invariably contested by the union. Firings must go through an expensive and protracted hearing and appeals process: “Documents show only one instance in the past 10 years in which an LAUSD teacher accepted his firing and left without a fight or big payment.” [E.A.]

Go read the rest on your own.

Speaking of Unions and other insane use of public funds that fly in the face of common sense. This is a bit old now, but in case you missed it ::: Willie Brown can talk common sense ‘cuz he is no longer in office.

What happens when you live on credit, pay your creditors with more credit, then run out of funds? Witness the downfall of the American Republic.

Funny, he has been predicting this financial collapse for the last 2 years – it was the central platform on which he ran for president in 2007! (closing our overseas operations to reduce the costs was a means to avoid it from happening). Yet, he is virtually unused by the media. He is a Churchill that will not be voted into power because 1) the threat cannot be coalesced into a iconic enemy to fight like the Nazi’s were, and 2) because his rhetoric can’t begin to compete with Obama. Sad. History will look back on him and the unsuccessful grassroots swell of his 2007-8 campaign as the symptom of American collapse.

How much evidence will it take for people to question the idea that the government can “steer/direct/grow” our economy and realize that the government unbalances it and creates the challenges it then “needs” to solve?  What has it EVER done right in this sphere?

The talking heads on television, who admittedly do not understand _basic_ economics (supply/demand curves, marginal utility, credit vs. capital, or the relationship between money supply and inflation and its consequence), “inform” an uneducated public (who also don’t understand basic economics) about the politicians promises and the pundits positions as if they were reality – then take polls that the politicians and pundits use as evidence that they are right.

The only part missing from the equation we see/hear in the media is the one that actually matters – the REALITY of market forces, which, like water, eventually go around, overflow, or bust wide open the various obstacles the government puts it its way, causing black markets (organized crime) and destructive collapse, leading the government to “reposition/reform” the obstacles, to ratchet up the process problem one more time, until it can’t and the whole thing collapses. Result? The depression, the meltdown of the 1970′s, and now the meltdown of the 2000′s – which we have been inflating to the point of popping for the last 8 years. Now what? More of the same?  You bet.

The greatest political accomplishment in human history – the codification of individual human rights as the foundation of a government – destroyed because of the politicians desire for power (personal and ideological – the road to hell is paved with good intentions) and rhetorical skill to manipulate the gullible American people through an ironic combination of riches (entitlement) and righteousness (envy). The government that robs Peter (the future, the rich), to pay Paul (the present and the so-called poor), will always have the support of Paul, until it collapses into chaos – then government becomes warlords, and the process repeats itself – UNTIL people stop the cycle and put freedom (and the consequent self-responsibility) first – i.e., the American Revolution. It is Paul who needs to step up, and he is too lazy, stupid (by choice), and immature to do so.

End Rant.

I tried to keep an open mind going in. I have a good friend who is working hard to pass Proposition A — the $450 Million Public School Repair/Upgrade Bond. A lot of his work brings him into and around the San Francisco Public School system. He urged me to support Prop A., even invited me to work on, and donate to, the campaign.

But I just can’t. Not when our school system is so rife with waste, mismanagement, shenanigans, and cronyism. And I don’t see that changing any time soon, unless perhaps if we stop shoveling money into the dysfunctional system (and it’s worth noting that San Francisco passed a $300 Million School Repair and Upgrade bond just 3 years ago. Where does it stop?)

I said to my friend, “we have to stop feeding the beast.” And he tried his best, but he couldn’t bring me over to his point of view. And the School Bond is perhaps he most compelling item on the ballot. The other stuff is just economic poison or political grandstanding — or both, in many cases. Force all employers to provide paid sick leave (Prop. F)? Say Buh-bye to jobs for San Franciscans (ahhh.. who needs ‘em, anyway?) Or how about Prop. H, which would force all landlords to increase the current $1,000 per tenant “relocation charge” for Owner Move-In or repair evictions to $4,500 per tenant (up to $22,500 per unit)? And people wonder why apartments are being converted into condos at a breakneck clip and nobody wants to build apartments here. Great for the few tenants who receive these exorbitant, extorted payments, very very bad for everybody else (including any tenants who are looking for a new place to rent.)

And on and on it goes.

In a way, the horrible crop of ballot propsitions will make it very easy to vote on November 7th. Just mark “NO” next to every San Francisco measure. Simple!

Below are the San Francisco Taxpayers Union ballot arguments. The SF Taxpayers Union is a worthy organization dedicated to injecting some restraint and some much-needed economic sanity into our turbulent and often screwy economic and political climate, so go here to sign up for their updates and information. They boldly assert: “San Franciscans pay enough to live and work in San Francisco without having our pockets picked every Election Day.”

Indeed. Here’s the SF Taxpayers Union:

Taxpayers Beware!

There they go again! Here are some good reasons to vote against everything and save your money:

Prop A – Another School Bond . . . . No

$450 million with no guarantee how it will be spent? We know they spent part of the 2003 bond on schools that were later closed and that most of this one will be spent on a disabilities lawsuit settlement, Until responsible people come up with a long-range spending plan, there are better uses for property taxes.

Prop. B – Supervisors Stay Home . . . . No

Taxpayers deserve the opportunity to confront the people who take and spend their money. Make them go to work like everyone else.

Prop C. – Politicians Get a Big Raise . . . . No

The Sheriff gets $55,000 more and the Mayor gets $40,000 more if this passes, plus all of the trickle down raises to staffers whose salaries are tied to elected officials – labor costs will skyrocket. There are no incentives for performance – they can do a lousy job and still get a raise.

Prop D. – Privacy Protection . . . . No

It’s one thing for the city to be uncooperative with the Federal Government, but it’s quite another to force city contractors to do the same. Another attack on business.

Prop E. – Higher Parking Taxes . . . . No

This 25% parking tax increase and 35% valet parking increase is not even going to MUNI – it’s going into the General Fund for the Mayor and Supes to spend as they will. Driving a car is already too expensive – save your money for gas.

Prop F. – Mandatory Paid Time Off . . . . No

Forcing small businesses to provide benefits without regard to whether doing so will drive them, their customers, or the taxes they generate to other cities is foolish..

Prop G. – Anti Formula Retail . . . . No

This will require a Planning Commission hearing for every new formula retail store (like Starbucks), and enable the Supes to ban them outright in more commercial districts. Just another anti-business and anti-taxpayer move.

Prop H. – Renter Relocation Benefits . . . . No

Property owners would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to renters [up to $22,500 per unit] for temporary relocation, even if they are repairing/improving their buildings for the renters’ benefit!

Prop I. – Fun and Games at City Hall . . . . No

While we agree it would be fun to watch the Mayor try to answer questions from the Board of Supervisors every month nonsense such as this belongs in a comedy routine, not on a ballot.

Prop J. – Impeach Bush/Cheney . . . . No

The Board of Supervisors needs to stay out of national and international debates. Ballot clutter like this costs tens of thousands of dollars for each proposition, money better spent on police officers and gardeners.

Prop K. – Feel Good Housing Policy . . . . No

A policy debate that belongs in Board chambers, not on the ballot.

As I have watched the press and media around the global warming issue, it reminds me heavily of this “McCarthyism” style of debate. I am watching every climatologist I am aware of who questions Gore’s (and the IPCC) data or agenda being written off as spurious or even malicious. This time, instead of “communism” these previously well-respected climatologists are smeared with “corporatism.” They lose funding, get their articles rejected without review, and become fodder for the “conspiracy” theorists in the global warming camp.

Gore regularly smears (meaning asserts without proof or context) the more prominent anti-global warming climatologists with “ties to oil interests” and “their work has been discredited.” This public comment gets reprinted thousands of times. Meanwhile, the scientists themselves question how and where their work has been discredited. They offer systematic defense of their work which are not published by the journals that publish their status as discredited.

What about the funding that these people get, and the political power and fame? Are those, perhaps, motivations that equal the supposed “oil” ties of anti-global warming hysteria?Alvin Gouldner pointed out that in Marx’s system of capitalists, workers, and landlords, he left out the intellectuals. By leaving them out of the equation (he happened to be one, go figure), Marx’s system leaves room for them to dominate the system, which they did and have. When we add them back into the equation, we see that the leaders of the communist revolutions have all been intellectuals, and those in power after the revolution as well.

In the same way, I question whether we might want to add “alarmists” to the political/scientific equation around global warming. Why is it that people are so quick to jump on Gore’s bandwagon? Why do they so easily write off those scientists who claim that the data does not lead to a preponderance of evidence for HUMAN impact on global warming? Why do they listen intently to scientists whose speciality is not climate but ignore the climatologists that dare to question Gore’s Claims? Why are they so easily led by those who use clearly ambiguous scientific reports to mean certain “proof” of their position?

And what are the source documents that the politicians and pundits use to “prove” their case? Upon what basis do they claim “scientific consensus?”Several critics point out the variation between the substance of major reports and the “summary findings” that end up in the conclusions, showing that the DATA suggests major uncertainty, but the summaries suggest that the issue is decided. Here are a couple examples cited by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.  http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597