Month: January 2003

This
gives you every reason to dislike SUVs save one: because of their
massive weight, they chew up roads far faster than regular cars do,
thereby leading to potholes that damage your car, and massive roadwork
to fix them which wastes your time with traffic congestion and costs
you tax money to fix.
Thanks to this and the dismantling of rail systems, roads that were
built to last 100 years are now falling apart after 70 years or less.

From the State Of The Union Address:
“Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein.”

In other words, Saddam had nothing to do with September 11th. So why are we going after him again?

For more textual analysis, try Kinsley’s take here.
I’m going to go for numerical analysis shortly.

After seeing last night’s 24
on Fox, I must say that I’m truly unimpressed with the guy they got to
replace Dennis Haysbert. This guy barely seems smarter than Kim Bauer,
and yet he’s the President of the US? You have to be kidding.
On the other hand, you did get the feeling that he was truly
overwhelmed by the demands of the office and the possible terrorist
actions. He dissembled, he evaded, he juggled by talking instead about
countries that had nothing to do with the terror threats we’re
currently facing. It’s a bold storytelling choice, putting someone in
charge who truly doesn’t seem to belong there. But jeez, couldn’t they
at least have gotten someone who didn’t look like he was reading
everything off of cue cards, somebody with some personal warmth? The
guy they had couldn’t possibly have won a Presidential election.
Here’s hoping they focus more on Jack Bauer next week.

More nuanced stuff to come, but in the meantime, via Teresa Nielsen Hayden:

The State of the Union Drinking Game! (2003 Edition)
This year’s address will be divided into two parts: “The War On and
Around Terrorism” and “The Economy, Stupid.” The rules vary depending
on the subject Bush is tackling, so pay attention:
1) The War: Whenever the President says “evil,” everyone must
raise their glass and take a drink. It’s good form to make a brief
toast of sorts, something like “Down with evil!” or “Evil is bad!”
“Evil” should be pronounced with a soft “i” [“Evihl”].
Whenever the President utters the phrase “weapons of mass destruction,”
everyone drinks. Before downing the drink, however, everyone must
affect a cartoony Evil Arab voice and say things like “Quick, hide the
weapons!” and “They’ll never find ’em here!”
If the President says “inspectors,” think fast! The first person to say
“That’s me!” becomes “the Blix.” The Blix then points out anyone else
in the game (“the Saddam”), who must then prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt that he/she is not hiding a nuclear warhead somewhere within a
twenty mile radius. At any point (preferably after a few seconds)
anyone can yell “time’s up!” at which point the Saddam is obliged to
finish whatever’s left of his or her drink. It’s good form for the
Saddam to mutter something like “And I would’ve gotten away with it,
too…” before drinking.
2) The Economy: Whenever the President says “tax cuts” or “cut
taxes,” everyone must raise their glasses and exclaim “Tax this!” Each
person is then expected to consume whatever they think is a fair
percentage of their drink.
During the Domestic portion of the speech, keep your eyes peeled. At
any time, anyone can choose to silently extend their hand forward, palm
up, to receive a Corporate Handout (though it’s good form to wait until
the President mentions some sort of economic incentive). When you see
someone do this, you must do so as well (thus becoming one of “The
Rich”). The last person to extend their hand becomes “The Bottom 90%”
and must drink, while everyone else yells things like “Who let him
in?!” and “Get a job!” and “You’d be pulling your own weight if you
didn’t drink so much!”
Special note: If, after the speech, a pollster calls your
house, immediately hand the phone to the soberest person in the room.
That person should say nothing but extremely positive things about
George W. Bush. Research indicates that anything less than a 10 point
bump in the President’s approval rating will result in immediate war.
Remember, the Fate of the Union is in your hands.

Dave Barry has a new blog at http://worldcrossing.com/WebX?expandAll@178.bvSweXYDXsU.0@.1ddbc3b5

OBLIGATORY: “Barry’s Blog” would be a great name for a rock band.

UPDATE: He’s moved to the big leagues (if blogspot can be called that) at http://davebarry.blogspot.com/.

The Bush Administration has admitted that the package they’re currently touting will bring less than $60 billion in 2003.

Now, let’s compare this with eBay.
For the fiscal year ended 12/31/02, revenues increased 62% to $1.21
billion. To generate these revenues, eBay moved a bit more than $14
billion of gross merchandise. Following eBay’s growth pattern, it’s a
fair bet to say that eBay will move about $20 billion in 2003.
In other words, the big stimulus plan from GWB does less than three
eBays. And if you can start your own eBay… hey, there’s an idea…

Going from 74 degrees in Orlando to 9 degrees and a wind chill of -3 in
the parking lot at Newark Airport. And why precisely did I come back?
Oh, right– too many crying children at Disney World, combined with a
sudden drop below freezing for the denizens of Orange County, Florida.
Suffer. Consider it payback for electing Katherine Harris.

Due to extreme overcommitment of time, I won’t be posting for a day or
three, unless I have access from the road. Have fun. I don’t expect to
see my comments despoiled again when I get back.

Say no more.

Everybody’s talking about the Bush plan to cut taxes on dividends and
how this is a giveback to the rich. While it does appear to be that,
I’m not sure it’s the main reason– after all, we’ve seen that GWB has
no problem finding other ways to give money to rich folks– so let’s
examine some other motives.
I think Bush is trying, in a ham-fisted way, to help promote something
resembling corporate responsibility. Earnings and profit numbers, as
we’ve all seen, can be faked or falsified– but dividends can’t. If
ABCDEFGHInc. has to pony up cash every so often, it acts as a pretty
quick check on the company’s viability. If a company doesn’t pay a
dividend, it’s a speculation.
Another possibility– Bush could be trying to promote huge comapnies
giving up large hunks of their cash hoards, and using that to help give
a goose to the economy, without having to take money out of the Federal
till (or by raising taxes and redistributing it. Heresy!) After all,
Microsoft, Cisco, Qualcomm, and Electronic Arts are all companies with
cash reserves in excess of $800 million and no long-term debt. They
probably should be paying dividends. And if it helps control rampant
CEO salaries, I’m all for it.
Bush’s plan, however, does kneecap a lot of companies that don’t pay
dividends– to wit, start up, high tech, and growth companies– in
favor of serious old money corporations that are not exactly what we’d
call nimble. (According to CNN quoting
Multex Investor, only 17.5 percent of technology companies with a
market value of at least $500 million pay a dividend. But more than
half (52.6 percent) of all other companies of a similar size pay one.
Which means that a lot of people will sell off stocks in the kids and
start buying the blue chips– which means that their stock prices will
get a sudden boost. How many of Bush’s friends stand to benefit from
that? (And how many of Bush’s enemies does it hurt?)
I’d love for somebody with a stronger economics background to take a
whack at this. JBrad? Max? Arnold? D-Squared? Anybody?

UPDATE: Silly me. I forgot to include Dreck and Dwight Meredith.