I started running "for fun" and team sports in the EARLY 70's.  Over the course of the 70's and 80's I probably racked up well over 10k miles, much of it in the country or small towns.  In those two decades (I probably had folks stop to offer me a ride twice and one of those was in the middle of a driving rain storm.

Today I was doing my 3 mile loop.  Had a problem with my ipod.  Stopped to fix it, bent over and gasping.  It took longer that I though but within about 90 seconds one of my "neighbors" came out of his garage, sauntered over to where i had stopped, and asked if I needed any help.

I have NO idea what that says about changing times, or my old community, or my new one.  But I feel a little better about living here now.

US Debt vs GDP (BBC)

THIS woman makes my mouth water!

Knowledge and power can be SUCH an aphrodesiac

COKIE ROBERTS: This group of people in New York [Standard and Poor’s] is actually talking about more government rather than less government, Congressman. In fact, the reason they like France and Great Britain is because they’re parliamentary systems where the majority gets what it wants no matter what.

And the problem that we have here is the Constitution of the United States of America which actually does require people to come together from different perspectives whether it's divided government or not.

Yikes.  And it gives us that youcky "Freedom of the Press" thing too.   Here's a little factoid I threw at my ANG class last week:  William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the past 50 years, "government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government."

That bears repeating: "[I]n the past 50 years, 'government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.'"

As such, if your real goal is reduced spending, the divided government Roberts so despises is actually the answer.

This might become an ongoing feature as one of the most dreadful bits of legislation ever passes snakes its way into our culture.

This week we discovered that, effective August 1, 2011, according to the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services “Under the Affordable Care Act, women’s preventive health care – such as mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, prenatal care, and other services – is covered with no cost sharing for new health plans.”  The list of services that are to be covered with no co-payare; well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, human papillomavirus testing, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, screening and counseling for human immune-deficiency virus, contraceptive methods and counseling, breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling, and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.  This will surely drive up the cost of health insurance premiums and cause more employers to opt out of providing coverage for their employees and pay the fines instead.  The administration will vilify these corporations, calling them greedy, corporate jet-flying, profit-making millionaires and billionaires.  It has structured the laws in such a way that in the long run it will be cheaper and involve less bureaucracy for corporations to opt out.  Nationalized health care was the goal of this president and despite all of the opposition it is what we now have.  Most Americans do not realize this yet, because of the extended timeline for the rollout of the various aspects of this bill.

The donks wanna raise taxes, suck money out of an ailing economy, and spend it on Keynsian silliness.  Sorry but that's the way I see it.

But Krugman sees it differently.  In his Monday piece, the Nobel laureate wrote, "[T]hose demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them".

Really?  Cutting spending (ie not further depleting the patient) is now depleting the patient.  Noel Sheppard takes the article one sentance at a time:

Slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much.

Exactly what arithmetic was this Nobel laureate in economics taught? If you're spending more than you're earning each month, every dollar less of outlays improves your budget situation. To claim otherwise is either a lie or the height of ineptitude.

On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs.

That is indeed true - for now. But interest rates are at historic lows. They can't stay here forever, and when they eventually rise, the added cost to our budget will be catastrophic. It is therefore incumbent upon our government to begin reducing our deficits immediately.

On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue.

There is absolutely no evidence that cutting federal spending at this time will be economically harmful. Consider first that despite a 41 percent rise in annual outlays since 2007, the unemployment rate has risen from 4.4 percent to 9.2 percent.

Beyond this, an almost 50 percent cut in spending during the 1920's produced the strongest economy this nation ever enjoyed.

But there's potentially a bigger issue here: a looming credit rating downgrade. Notice that nowhere in Krugman's piece was this even mentioned.

One of the largest crises for America would be to have our bond rating dropped. The major credit rating agencies have warned that if we don't get our spending under control, they're going to cut us from AAA.

While folks like Krugman consider budget cuts akin to "medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them," they conveniently ignore Moody's and S&P wielding battle axes to pounce on any bad budget decisions we make.

Since both of these agencies have made it clear that in order for them to keep their AAA rating on us they want to see serious budget deficit reductions, it is the spending-obsessed Krugman that is actually proposing leeches for the ailing patient.

Win the biggame.  Run off the field.  Yell that into the camera.  Pocket a big check. 

Obama gets good news.  Runs to the press room.  Delivers news.  Yell's mantra into camera.  Pocket's big ups from the MSM.

Obama’s Pivot To Jobs — The Deja Vu Reel.
 

Bill Clinton had charisma.  So did JFK.  (so did Hitler but I am SO not going there)  Obama has glamour.  It's not enough.  Virginia Postrel has some observations:

Obama Glamour Can’t Fix His Charisma Deficit. “One thing is clear in the aftermath of the debt-limit debate: U.S. President Barack Obama has lost his glamour. The alluring icon of hope and change has become just another pol, derided by his supporters as well as his opponents. . . . Most striking was how irrelevant the president seemed to the entire debate. Obama didn’t present his own alternative to the various congressional plans or make a case for a particular policy. When he tried to address the public, he came off as condescending, self-interested and detached. His pulpit proved anything but bully. . . . A well-established sales tool, glamour is a tremendous asset if you’re running for office. But once you have to govern, it’s a problem. Although charisma can continue to inspire, glamour is guaranteed to disillusion. The only thing surprising about Obama’s predicament is how few people expected it.”

I'm 53 and I'm becoming that chariacture of a cranky old man.  And I don't want to leave my house.  Oh I'll make a short trp to the store if I get hungry enough, and I'm able to attend to my lectures without a problem.  An occasional dinner out with the wife is OK.  Barely. 

Today was "Alumni Day" of the AOSFYC.  My 36th.  My "gang" used to make a day of it.  We'd arrive at 10 or 11am, do some of the group activities, see the far, sing a few concerts, depart around 6 or 7, go out for dinner and drinks.  A full day.  But today my group was there by 9.  I arrived at noon - a little late.  And they were gone.  Retired to the airconditioned comfort of their hotelroom.  I live nearby while many of them are from 1-2 hours away.  They wanted me to join them.  Instead, I cam back home after seeing the fair.  My disposable income is limited and sitting in the a/c drinking it up didn't seem like an optimum opportunity.  

Part of it is the political climate.  My friends and I all know where we each stand so that's not an issue.  But did you ever notice that Leftists always assume everybody in any group always thinks like they do?  And sadly we don't usually have the time to engage in the necissary discussion to "clear the air."  Rather than wanting to discuss where or why we might disagree I've recently been met, on more than one occassion, with the observation that people who  think like I do should have a bullet through their brain.  Not exactly civil discourse, but with leaders of the Democrat party seemingly makng voting against them an act of terrorism I guess anything goes.  And did I mention the bands of roving thugs rioting at the Wisconssin State Fair?  It SHOULD be safe - after all, it's a gun free zone!

And so I'll stay at home.  Until it becomes safe.  2012 can't come soon enough.