Going John Galt?

PJTV has the "Insta-wife" Doctor Helen talk with Bill Whittle and Roger Simon talk about what it means to "Go John Galt".

Basically, the idea is to keep your labor and income down to reduce the amount of money that goes into a "Redistributive" Tax system.

Dr Helen summarizes it: "Why work more if you're going to be punished for it?"

The problem with taking wealth from the productive and giving it to those that are not is that it removes the incentives to innovate and produce.

"There's no reason to be the best. No reason to live the American Dream. Unless the American dream turns into making 56,000 dollars a year and getting some Universal Healthcare."

Misc Links

From Glen Reynolds: Mass Media Depression

Gannett will cut 10%. Time, Inc, announces job cuts and major restructuring. And Newsweek is hemorrhaging revenue: "Newsweek net income results for the first half of the year went from $133.2 million in 2007 to $36.5 million, which isn't so much a 'moderately weakened' business, so much as a 'holy sh*t, time to fire everyone' business." Reader Michael Albrecht emails: "Wow! It's like people don't want the product anymore. Or, more likely, people are not buying what they are selling."
Yeah, I really think this is why they've been so willing to squander their remaining credibility in support of Obama. They figure they won't be around to swing an election in four years, so it's now or never. Of course, by doing so they accelerate the trend.

Rand Simberg points out something that Campbell Brownh notes.

One year ago, [Obama] made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.
Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.
He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

On a related note. Mark Steyn and his readers apply the dark arts of Math to Obama's "Grass Roots" support

Victor Davis Hanson looks at the ends, the means, and the justification.

The messianic style—the cosmic tug to "change history", or stop the seas from rising or the planet from heating, juxtaposed with the creepy faux-Greek columns, Michelle's "deign to enter" politics snippet, the fainting at rallies, the Victory Column mass address, the vero possumus presidential seal, and the 'we are the change we've been waiting for' mantra—reflects the omnipresent narcissism: the exalted ends of electing a prophet always justify the often crude and all too mortal means.
If this is considered 'right', I'd rather be wrong with McCain.

Bob Krumm notes an odd correlation in the polls.


And from the Campaign Spot: If You're Going To Worry, Worry About the Right Things

Just how much Change does he want?

Obama's latest rallying cry: "One week until we change America."
Mona Charen finds it creepy; she's not alone.

Other politicians have talked of changing Washington, or hoping to "get this country moving again" or even promising to "come home America." Voters who think they're just being asked to change the party affiliation of one administration should take his words to heart.

There's a chance Obama is merely playing to the messiah themes his campaign has used. That would have him being a very cynical hack. The worse interpretation is that he actually believes this, and given past interviews, Obama just might.


And here's yet another 'Redistribution' Statement from Obama.

Maybe this is the kind of change he wants?

Hold the line?

Jim Geraghty wonders if Obama will keep his campaign (that is late campaign, in the primaries he was proposing much higher taxes) promises about lowering certain tax rates. Especially when compared to the "tax happy" nature of Congressional leadership.

A President McCain, for whatever flaws he has, would hold the line — on this, on cutting defense spending 25 percent (another Frank proposal), on eliminating the tax benefits on 401(k)s.

Elect Obama, and the only thing that can stop these very bad ideas is the new president's willingness to risk a bloody, knock-down fight with his own party, precisely the kind of fight he has never fought in his career. Maybe Obama's a guy with the stomach to veto legislation that a majority of his party has backed and that is backed every interest group on his side of the aisle. If he does, you'll hear some unexpected applause from this corner. But talk about an unlikely scenario...

Emphasis his.

This is one of the more laughable aspects of many Obama supporters. Their trust in him to do something that he has yet to ever actually... do.

But what do you expect from a candidate that prefers voters remain ignorant of his past, record, and accomplishments.

Sampling Errors versus Non-sampling Errors.

Iowahawk uses the power of math! to look at how the pollsters get their "poll errors."

He then looks at the errors they don't account for.

If one or more of the above statements are true, then the formula for margin of error simplifies to: Margin of Error = Who the hell knows?

Because, in this case, so-called scientific "sampling error" is completely meaningless, because it is utterly overwhelmed by unmeasurable non-sampling error. Under these circumstances "margin of error" is a fantasy, a numeric fiction masquerading as a pseudo-scientific fact. If a poll reports it -- even if it's collected "scientifically" -- the pollster is guilty of aggravated bullshit in the first degree.

Political Polls are not scientific. Errors beyond the relatively straightforward sampling ones (IE Pull n balls out of an urn containing N where N>>n) can overwhelm the sampling error.

The worst part is that only the polls near the election itself can have their accuracy measured, and that's because there's the election votes to check.

For polls well before the day of voting... there is no way to validate them.

Using one poll to "validate" the results of another poll is like using one computer model to verify another. Unless you have some experimental data to measure against you're only comparing models.

Spread Spread Spread

In 2001 Obama gave an interview with a Chicago radio station.

Guess what he talked about?

Jennifer Rubin

Remember, this isn’t ancient history. Obama was sharing Socialism 101 with radio listeners just seven years ago. At the same time, he was sitting on the board of the Woods Fund, going to Trinity United Church, and a enjoying a robust professional relationship with Bill Ayers. Has he given all that up? We don’t know, because no one in the media has taken seriously Obama’s intellectual and professional development. No one has asked him basic questions about the past (e.g. Did he share the ideological vision of the Woods Fund grant recipients? Did he agree with Ayers’ radical educational theory?) or even his current economic philosophy. Doesn’t he still believe in spreading the wealth? He certainly did seven years ago.

Transcript of obama's latest redistribution thing
Plus this.

Especially when bookended with his recent "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the Plumber, Obama's statements reveal a man who:
Looks at the Constitution as a real impediment to "justice." Oh if we could just "break free" from those gosh-darned "essential constraints."
By characterizing them as "more basic," proves that he sees "political and economic justice" as more important than the fundamental human rights built into the Constitution. I wonder who gets to define "justice," or who gets to decide what "necessary compromises" to basic rights have to be made to achieve that "justice"? Is ACORN's election cheating justified because the so-called "justice" it is working to achieve is more important than playing by the rules?
Who is obsessed with "redistributive change."

Obama's instincts.

We may hear a variation of the "Ayers defense" deployed in dismissing these comments by Barack Obama in a 2001 interview with a Chicago radio station, talking about "redistribution of wealth" — it was a long time ago, Obama's changed, etc. Of course, the point is not that Obama had these views in the past; it's that, when pressed by an Ohio plumber about his tax proposal, he went right back to these same instincts.

Bill Whittle's article: "This time, Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off."McCain hits Obama on it.

Damn Tricksy Math!

Greg Mankiw uses the dark arts of Math to see which candidate's tax plan would encourage him to work more.

Go to the link to see the guts and calculations.

And remember, one of the best ways to check to see how good something is whether it's a pol's proposal or a news story... is math.

Running a few simple calculations is a great way to cut through the BS.

Via Glen Reynolds.