Well, it's the end of an era. Fredmentum has ended. Now as anyone with a science or math background knows, momentum (P) is the product of the mass (m) and velocity (V) of an object, P=m*v. Therefore it follows that Fredmentum (F) is the product of Fred's appeal (a) and his polling level (p), F=a*p. Now, due to the conservation of momentum, in a closed system total momentum can not change. Fredmentum changed. Therefore there are only two possibilities:
1) Fredmentum was transferred to another body (McCainmentum, Mittmentum, Huckamentum, or Rudymentum) within the closed system and the total momentum of the system is unchanged. Or...
2) This is not a closed system and an outside force acted upon the Fredmentum thus lowering it's absolute value.
Let us first look at the first option. Within the closed system, a transfer of momentum from Fredmentum to one of the other parties would require a change in the absolute value of Fredmentum. To wit: either Fred's appeal (a) or polling level (p) would need to decrease. Since it is clear that Fred's appeal has only increased with time, it would be safe to say that the decrease in Fredmentum came about due to a decrease in his polling level. This is possible only if one of the other parties' appeal was sufficiently greater than Fred's. That is clearly not the case, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not to be trusted or believed.
The second option, however, is very intriguing. I personally believe that an outside force acted upon Fred. Some might say it was the Mainstream Media. Other's will blame the current big-government "compassionate" conservatives that are currently leading the GOP. Some others yet will claim that it was a cabal of pro-illegal immigration big business owners. There are other possibilities I'm sure, and I will leave it to you to make up your own mind. I report, you decide. I, of course, blame the Joooooos.
It is too painful at this juncture to contemplate the next step, but it is a step that must be taken nonetheless. This weekend I shall due some deep soul searching (by going to the movies to see that movie about the computer hacker guy that's following that chick. "Mommy, why is a video of our house on the computer?" That movie looks wicked cool!) and report back to you my dear reader(s). We obviously can not and must not simply concede this race to the Stalinists of the Democratic Party.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Megan McCardle has an interesting piece on the coming wave of Baby Boomer retirees at TheAtlantic.com. [via Herr Professor] It's worth a read in it's entirety, but I've excerpted a few choice nuggets for you. First is the scope of the imminent deluge (all emphasis mine):
For the past two decades, the United States has been in a remarkable sweet spot as far as labor is concerned. The number of annual births was well below the mid-century peak, and the number of elderly was limited by the low birthrates from decades long gone—those of the Great Depression and World War II. As a result, the share of the nation’s population in its working years was exceptionally high. The workforce was swollen further—massively so—by the movement of women into paid work, and the accelerating influx of immigrants. But the percentage of women in the workforce seems to be leveling off, and future immigration rates, given the growing political backlash against immigrants, are anyone’s guess.
Now come the Boomers, 80 million strong, merrily planning their retirements. Watching their generation move from childhood through adulthood and into old age on demographic charts is like watching a pig move through a python. Thanks to the Boomers’ retirement, by 2020, even if immigration continues at roughly its current pace, the workforce looks likely to be only a little bigger than it is today. If immigration rates were to decline precipitously, all else being equal, the labor force would be roughly 1 million people smaller than it is now.
All these Boomers are certainly going to put some strain on our economy, and will force us to make some tough decisions. What is the outlook of the Boomers themselves, you ask?
These sunny views [Baby Boomer optimism-ed] are reflected and amplified by the AARP, whose Web site paints a rosy picture of early retirement. And by some media outlets, including the newly launched Retirement Living TV channel (motto: “Inspiring your freedom years”), which features programs such as Retired & Wired, Living Live! with Florence Henderson, and Another Chance for Romance, which is billed as “the first dating show focusing solely on Baby Boomers.” (You must give the Boomers credit: their uncanny ability to focus solely on themselves, approvingly, appears undiminished by age.)
Bwahahahaaa! Those crazy Boomers. Although really, it's somewhat heartening to see their pure unbridled optimism, as the bus careens towards the cliff. What is my take on the situation? Demographically speaking, what kind of footing am I going to find myself standing on in the coming years?
...in 1945, the year before the Baby Boomers began entering the world, each retiree in America was supported by 42 workers. Now each retiree is supported by three. When the Boomers are fully retired, each of them will be supported by just two.
What happens when currently optimistic Boomers finally face the hard realities of their savings accounts? Will they ask for more from the government? At a bare minimum, seniors already struggling with their finances are not apt to look kindly on benefit cuts. Yet the cost of the benefits we’ve already promised them will weigh heavily on the workers expected to support a half-Boomer apiece.
Yikes! There goes my unbridled optimism, right out the window! All kidding aside, the thrust of Megan's article is that while a great change is already under way, and about to be even more severe, the great forces of American ingenuity and hard work will clear a path for all of us through the briar patch. Either that or it's the end of the world. You'll have to read the whole article for yourself to see. Read it now!