In the past week, I’ve had conversations with people who voiced the following myths. Read and learn, lest you embarrass yourself in the same way.
Myth #1: Federal debt has been increasing under all presidents since World War II.
Reality: Federal debt steadily declined from the mid-1940s to the early 1980s, then it increased dramatically (with a brief hiatus in the mid-to-late 1990s). Ronald Reagan reversed four and a half decades of safe, responsible fiscal policy, and every successor except Bill Clinton followed his lead. See for yourself: Continue reading “5 Ways to Sound Stupid When Discussing the Debt Ceiling”
If you’ve been reading this blog over the last couple days, you have a good idea what Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman stand for. We hope to continue that series throughout the campaign, if only because most Americans go to the polls without the faintest clue of where the candidates stand on the issues. You now know, for instance, that Bachmann is a delusional bigot with little interest in public policy other than to turn America into a quasi-theocracy. You might think she’s the one you should be afraid of. You’d be wrong.
Bachmann is too extreme to be elected president. Even if the Republican primary voters completely lost their minds and nominated her, she’d lose the general election by a landslide, even in her home state of Minnesota.
Huntsman, on the other hand, is a very good match for President Obama. He’s moderate, handsome, polished, and well-spoken. His positions on Afghanistan, Libya, climate change, gun rights, the national debt, and gay marriage line up directly with the public’s opinions. (It’s almost as if he’s just saying what the public wants to hear. Naw, politicians don’t do that…) If he can overcome the powerful extremists in his party, you might consider voting for him.
That’s what makes him dangerous. Continue reading “Why Jon Huntsman Is More Dangerous Than You Think”
by Norman Horowitz
As a television executive, I have realized the value of selling things with more or less “catchy” or previously used titles. There were programs called “Poltergeist: The Series,” “The New Sea Hunt,” and “American Werewolf in London: The Series.” Words used to describe movies and television content matter, and they matter a lot.
I was on a cable panel about 30 years ago when I suggested that the television series “Happy Days” lived in the consciousness of the American public and that everyone who watched television at that time knew what it was. Names of things mattered then as they do today. Television people and politicians have long understood this.
I just loved it when the White House apologized for the President’s description of the campaign against terrorism as a “crusade.” For an encore, they renamed the campaign “Operation Infinite Justice,” a name that seemed to some Muslims to promise what only Allah could deliver. Continue reading “A Rose by Any Other Name”
President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican of the early 1990s.
— Ezra Klein (Washington Post)
Sorry, still no pictures. My fault, not Norman’s. — AWO
by Norman Horowitz
“Staff” — a group of persons, as employees, charged with carrying out the work of an establishment or executing some undertaking; a group of assistants to a manager, superintendent, or executive.
“Operating” — used or engaged in performing operations.
Mrs. Goldfarb is examined by a new gynecologist. Following his exam, the doc asks her why, although she’s married, she’s still a virgin. Mrs. Goldfarb begins sobbing uncontrollably as she blurts out that Mr. Goldfarb is interested in sex but all he wants to do is “talk about it,” even though he has never participated in it.
Mr. Goldfarb is a “staff” person.
My corporate overseers were always “staff” people. The hallmark of a present-day staff executive is to schedule and attend meetings. (Of course, there’s more to it, but this will do for the moment.) Continue reading “Unrealistic Expecations”