The blog Fiat Lux has an interesting post up about the ROTC at Stanford University. He links to an anti ROTC Op Ed that argues the following:

So the question we must all consider is clear: should we permit the military to have an ROTC presence on campus? The answer will logically depend on what the effects of on-campus ROTC would be and, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be positive overall, whether Stanford’s resources could instead be allocated in ways that would have greater positive overall effects.

Fiat Lux answers these questions, a peek:

Mr. Windley’s next observation, that there exists some resource trade-off in allowing ROTC back, is true only to an insignificant extent. To my knowledge, the military would pay for the trainers, the gear, the development of a curriculum, etc. The real stumbling block to bringing ROTC back is more a question of whether students should receive academic credit, which does not really affect the University’s bottom line. In fact, one could contend that allowing ROTC back would actually be net-positive for the University in terms of resources because it would free up more money for financial aid (because ROTC participants have their tuition paid for by the U.S. government).

What I find most interesting is the last argument of the Op-Ed writer, namely that it would be more efficient for the military to train in a single location rather than at different campus. I find it fascinating. Basically the idea is We don’t want ROTC but if they can be trained elsewhere away from us wouldn’t that be OK?

Or to put it the way I would. As long as equal facilities are available you don’t need to be here. Separate but equal. Now where have I heard this kind of philosophy?

The bottom line is the university in the name of fighting discrimination that was imposed by congress (and not repealed by congress) is discriminating against those who wish to serve their country and have a different political philosophy. Same bigotry different target. I guess history does repeat itself the 2nd time as farce.

Investment

1. In finance, the purchase of a financial product or other item of value with an expectation of favorable future returns. In general terms, investment means the use money in the hope of making more money.

2. In business, the purchase by a producer of a physical good, such as durable equipment or inventory, in the hope of improving future business.

investing:

to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.

spending

to pay out, disburse, or expend; dispose of (money, wealth, resources, etc.): resisting the temptation to spend one’s money.

deficit spending

The amount by which a government, company, or individual’s spending exceeds its income over a particular period of time. also called deficit or called budget deficit.

I have had very little time to listen to Morning Joe lately as the Radio Show premiere is under 55 hours away and as the latest member of the 99 week club I have to be off selling ads or my mortgage will not get paid.

Today I had some time after dropping my son off at school and I had the displeasure of listening to John Kerry’s rant this morning.

In addition to boasting about the democrats win in Massachusetts (with a little help from their friends) John Kerry talked about how people have been decided by the republicans about taxes.

He repeatedly talked about government “investments” but then mentioned corporate “spending” on lobbyists to stop good things like carbon and energy taxes.

This is the height of liberal speak. So lets bluntly say aloud what needs to be said:

Government doesn’t produce anything. Every Dollar that Government has is collected in taxes or fees or fines from either the public or businesses. The only exception I can think of are leases of government (read the people’s) property.

Government doesn’t invest it SPENDS. It may spend on useful things , the Military, food inspections, the National Weather Service, but these are not investments it is spending.

Business however when it spends it does so for a return. That is a true investment. Even the use of lobbyists to effect a law is an actual investment with the expectation of a return.

I have one simple rule. If an official refers to spending as an investment, that tells me that they can’t justify it without wordplay.

Have some guts! If you think your spending is good and worthwhile and justifiable then call it what it is and defend it, but don’t’ insult my intelligence by calling it an “investment”.

Michelle Malkin talks a bit about the Wavers and what position the administration has put business:

One company official expressed concern to me that media coverage was demonizing businesses who applied for the waivers. I certainly don’t see these waiver applicants as villains. They were potential victims of top-down government mandates and they did what they needed to do to survive. As for the unions who all pushed hard to ram Obamacare down America’s throat and then rushed to the front of the line for tax and regulatory exemptions, thanks for proving what an ill-fated scheme the federal health care takeover was from the get-go.

But a lot of friends of the O have been taken care of too:

It’s all about control. If central planners can’t dictate what health benefits qualify as “good,” what plans qualify as “affordable” and how health care dollars are best spent, then nobody can. The ultimate goal, of course: precipitating a massive shift from private to government insurance.

McDonald’s, Olive Garden, Red Lobster and Jack in the Box are among the large, headline-garnering employers who received the temporary waivers. But perhaps the most politically noteworthy beneficiaries of the HHS waiver program: Big Labor.

The Service Employees Benefit Fund, which insures a total of 12,000 SEIU health care workers in upstate New York, secured its Obamacare exemption in October. The Local 25 SEIU Welfare Fund in Chicago also nabbed a waiver for 31,000 of its enrollees. SEIU, of course, was one of Obamacare’s loudest and biggest spending proponents. The waivers come on top of the massive sweetheart deal that SEIU and other unions cut with the Obama administration to exempt them from the health care mandate’s onerous “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health care plans until 2018.

This is simply foolish, if companies and unions have to escape Obamacare to survive then how much the small business and the avg guy?

It’s like a man named Walter once told me, You fish where you can catch them.

Winning the Central division without your closer and 1st baseman is a big accomplishment and Ron Gardenhire is not a bad choice for AL manager of the year.

But staying in the race with almost everyone injured I think is a bigger one. I really thought Terry Francona was going to win manager of the year.

the Bleacher report is angrier than me and gives a bit more detail:

By the end of the year, about two-thirds of the everyday starting lineup was made up of minor league journeymen, young kids, and fill ins. Names like Daniel Nava, Bill Hall, Ryan Kalish, and Darnell McDonald quickly became household names.

This, coupled with inconsistencies from the starting rotation (John Lackey, Josh Beckett, and Daisuke Matsuzaka never quite put it together), and one of the worst bullpens in baseball (4.24 ERA, 12th in the AL) might lead fans to think that they had a very poor season.

But they didn’t. They went 89-73 (.549)

To put this in perspective, the Sox won one less regular season game than the AL Champion Texas Rangers, and three less games than the NL Champion San Francisco Giants.

Injuries to key players + inconsistent pitching + a poor bullpen + playing the New York Yankees and Tampa Bay Rays eighteen or so times a year shouldn’t equal 89 wins. But it did. Terry Francona made it happen.

Well Yeah but you it’s not as if during his seven years and two world series wins he didn’t get consideration in the past, oh wait:

You might think that a manager with a resume like Francona might be a valid candidate for the AL Manager of the Year. Yet, this is not so. In his seven years with the team, Tito has never won the award, nor has he ever finished above fourth place.

In fact, he’s never even received a single, solitary first place vote.

The masses of Massachusetts choosing to inflict the democrats on the state again, that tragic, but Terry Francona never EVER getting a first place vote for manager of the year by a group of people that write about baseball for a living. That’s a TRAVESTY.