Israel and Hamas...here we go again

I will not pretend to be an expert on the history or conflict in the Mideast, where it concerns Israel and the surrounding (and, some would say, displaced) Arab peoples. In fact, I won't do a lick of research for this post; I'll go on instinct. Instinct has, of course, more often than I'd like to admit, gotten me into trouble before. But I'm not stubborn enough to fight when I know I don't hold a club or argue when I don't know all the facts. I'd rather learn and shape my opinions further, so that I might come back another day, more informed.

Here is my instinctive reaction to the most recent round of hot conflict between Israel and one of the many Palestinian-rooted organizations hell-bent on destroying it, Hamas. Supporters of Hamas, indeed political heads of the group, and even non-participatory nations and political parties, have spoken out against the Israeli response to Hamas' firing of rockets into the Jewish state. They say that Israel's response has been disproportionately harsh. They point to the hundreds of "Palestinians" (quotes used because there is no formal state of "Palestine") that have been killed or wounded and compare it to the dozens of Israelis. They compare the tempo and fierceness of Israeli airstrikes against targets within the Gaza Strip to the onesy-twosy single rocket lobs of Hamas fighters into Israeli civilian areas. They try to compare apples to apples and argue that Israel is being a big bully and only making the situation worse.

Excuse me, but how did this all get off the ground anyway? Who fired the first shot? Wasn't it Hamas? Who is intentionally targeting civialians? Who is firing from positions within civilian centers? After this latest breach of cease-fire by Hamas, Israel has declared all-out war against the terrorist group. In all-out war, there is no apples-to-apples; there is no tit-for-tat; there is no concept of disproportionality. Each side does their absolute best (or worst, in the case of war) to destroy the other.

I agree that Hamas is to blame for any civilian casualities that the people of the Gaza Strip endure. Those deaths would not have occurred if Hamas did not instigate with their first rocket attack. Arab anger should be levelled at Hamas. The blood is on their hands.

I also believe that this is the first test for incoming American president, Barack Obama. Hamas wants to see where his sympathies lie. Is it with the Jews, whose vote he pandered for during his historic campaign? Or is it with the Arabs, as many speculate, based solely on his middle name (which shall not be uttered here!)?

We will find out in a few months. The Mideast conflict will not be settled soon (if ever, if you believe the Biblical take on it). Hamas is pretty much sticking to their modus operandi of aggression, taking "disproportionate" casualties, drawing sympathy from the international community, bringing Israel back to the treaty table, and buying some time to rebuild and regroup. Hamas and their like will never accept a Jewish state in their midst, no matter what platitudes they speak. And so Israel should never accept a functional Hamaz organization, and should continue to do whatever it takes to destroy them.

Chicago factory sit-in: Ire at Bank of America is misdirected

A settlement has been reached between the workers at Republic Windows and Doors, a smallish manufacturer in Chicago, and the management.

If you're not up on all the details, the story began a little over a week ago when Bank of America, the main creditor for Republic, pulled its client's line of credit as it became clear that business was way down and the prospects that the company would be able to repay its debt became doubtful.

No credit, no money to pay the workers. Layoffs ensued as the factory was shut down.

The workers did not take this unfortunate development in stride; they staged a week-long sit-in at the factory, refusing to leave until they were paid their due severance and accrued time off.

Now I don't know the legality of their sit-in, or their demands. I don't know what Federal laws the workers claim were violated when their lay off came with only 3 days' notice. That's not what this is about.

What I do know is that the bulk of the workers' anger, and that of their surrogates (Jesse Jackson, Governor "Hot" Rod Blagojevich, and President-Elect Barack Obama among them) has been directed at Bank of America for cutting off the credit.

The instinctive sentiment is this: Bank of America is part of the banking community that just received a collective total of $350 billion in "bailout" money as part of the government's TARP program. How dare they freeze the credit on this business. Bad big business. Evil corporation. Greedy bankers.

While these emotions are certainly understandable (we are all human, after all), they are not justified. If all those railing against BoA stopped being driven by base instinct and gave some logical thought to the problem, they would understand that it is Republic, the employer, who is at fault here, not BoA.

So let's think this through:

(1) Why did BoA pull the credit? Because in its own business analysis of risk versus return, it determined that keeping the line of credit open did not make good business sense. Weren't banks just reamed by Congress for making thousands of bad loans over the past several years?

(2) If business at Republic was so bad that BoA felt compelled to close off the credit, the management at Republic must have had some sense of impending doom. Why did they not plan for paying the workers? Why did they not use the remaining cash on hand to fulfill any obligations for severance pay or other due compensation? It seems that it was a mismanagement of available cash that is the real culprit here.

(3) As of several hours ago, a settlement was reached and a collective loan of $1.75 million will be made by BoA and JP Morgan chase to pay the severance costs of the unemployed workers. Hello! The factory is shut down. No product is being manufactured; no sales are being made. What is the chance that this loan will be repaid?

Once again, government has stepped in and pressured banks to make loans with very little chance of being honored. Sound familiar? Congratulations. You, the taxpayer, have just paid the severance for these unfortunate workers. Another step closer...

Road trip! GM CEO drives himself to Washington

A couple weeks ago, America was in a twitter over the gall the Big 3 automaker executives had in taking private jets from Detroit to Washington D.C. to ask for funds to save their faltering companies.

Yesterday, they were back in D.C. to re-state their cases for taxpayer loans. This time, though, they didn't risk more patronizing at the hands of the media or Congress; this time, they drove.

The fracas raised by the media and Congress was aimed at the populist trends in today's America; the same populist trends that helped make Obama the president-elect. These trends pattern themselves in the vogue disdain for big and successful corporations, resentment of successful individuals, or pretty much any entity that has raised itself to a position of financial prominence.

One columnist talks about "plain, hard-working Americans who will never even see the inside of a private jet" as she lambasts the three CEOs for their crime of flying in such a reliable...er, I mean...private manner.

But, really, let's ignore all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth for a moment and look at this from a logical perspective. (Can we? Is that possible?)

I think Time scribe Bill Saporito brings such a healthy view to this matter in his article "Why the Big Three Should Fly Corporate Jets."

Consider just what a pain in the ass it is for you to go to fly home to see your relatives. If you are flying commercial nowadays, most airports will advise you to arrive at the airport 60-90 minutes ahead of your scheduled departure time. That's not beam-me-up-Scotty-then-plop-down-and-do-some-work time. That's driving there, mastering airport traffic, finding parking or getting dropped off, checking in, standing in the security line, standing in the security line, more standing in the security line, taking off your shoes, removing your laptop from your bag, taking off your jacket, putting your loose change and/or metallic items in the little composite bowl, getting the random pat-down, gathering your phone/keys/change, putting the laptop back in the bag, putting your shoes back on, leaving security, checking the departures list only to see your flight is 25 minutes late because there was a storm 1500 miles away in Texas, walking the mile-plus to your gate, boarding, boarding, boarding, (did I mention boarding?), taxiing, waiting in the long line of other poor souls for the blessing of the control tower so that you can finally take off and be on your way to your destination.

Time is money. I heard a successful businessman say that he doesn't mow his own lawn anymore. Why? Because then he'd become a $15/hour laborer for the time that he's mowing his lawn.

Are the Big Three CEOs successful businessmen? Well, some would argue no, but they are at least successful to the point that they have worked their ways up to become the heads of multi-billion-dollar companies that have managed, somehow, to stay afloat over the past decades even while being consumed from within by their own labor force and working against uneven trade policies. They have managed to work themselves into these positions where they are paid millions each year for their wisdom, experience and business acumen.

How much is their time worth? How much does it cost GM while Wagoner is taking off his shoes for the TSA to inspect for explosives?

Worse, how much does it cost GM when their head honcho takes 10 hours to drive a car instead of flying (just being in the car, let alone driving himself)?

And all this flak coming from the same Congressmen and women who have been operating their own business at a net loss for the past several decades.

Talk about disgraceful.

(Tax) Holiday anyone?

Consider these statistics:

• If you are an average American, you will work roughly 4 months in 2009 just to meet your federal, state and local taxation obligations for this next year. If you work a 9-to-5 job, it will be noonish before you start putting money in your pocket for today's work.
• The federal government has already guaranteed $8.4 trillion in support to prevent major American companies and institutions (and the economy) from collapsing. That's $8,400,000,000,000. That's over $27,000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
• The $8.4 trillion already guaranteed does not include the stimulus package that Obama is rumored to be concocting, along with (now-)fellow Congressmen and women. Estimates put this stimulus package in the neighborhood of $500-700 billion.
• It is likely that the federal deficit will approach $1 trillion in fiscal 2009, nearly doubling its current levels.

Add that all together, and that's a lot of outlay in the next 12-16 months from the government. Prior to this current crisis, the federal debt stood at about $10.4 trillion. Add the current guarantees, the stimulus plan, and 2009's deficit to that, and $20 trillion flies by as if it were standing still. Compare that with the roughly $5.5 trillion mark that the debt stood at when Bush took office. A quadrupling in ten years.

So what does any of this have to do with holidays? Beside making one feel like taking a long and sunny one, free from the cares of the world, it refers to a unique idea put forth by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Mr. Gohmert has proposed a two-month income tax holiday for American families.

Gohmert has noticed, as have many others that, while $350 billion of the original $700 billion economic stimulus package (Troubled Asset Relief Program--TARP) has already been doled out to ailing financial institutions, the original problem is still present.

The TARP legislation was supposed to free up credit and get the stuck wheels of our debt-based economy moving again by taking bad loans off the books of large banks. With no more bad debt weighing down their balance sheets, these banks could feel better about making loans to needy businesses again.

Unfortunately, that has not happened. Credit is not flowing. Banks that have received support have either held onto it to mend their own fiscal situations, or used it to purchase other banks either to position themselves to benefit in an upturn or to hedge against their ailing portfolios.

So here we are with $350 billion left, having already spent the same with little to show for it in terms of an economic quickening. Should we stay the course and send the remaining billions to the financial institutions? It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result.

Why not try something new? We've pumped $350 billion into these private, for-profit institutions. Why not pump the rest directly back into the economy, via the American taxpayer?

Would you not welcome a two month holiday from paying income taxes? For the average taxpayer, that would equate to about $2000 in their pockets over the January-February timeframe. Could you use $2000, tax free?

What would it cost the government? $350 billion is a drop in the bucket compared with what they've spent already. Plus, it's already been appropriated.

What would the gains be? Legion. Two months without having to pay income taxes would, among other things:

• Alleviate much of the paycheck-to-paycheck burden for those families that are feeling a pinch right now.
• Convince people to open up their wallets for this holiday spending season (if the promise of such a move is communicated quickly enough).
  
• Allow people who are on the borderline to catch up on a few of those delinquent bills and get the collectors off their backs.
• Allow people that are on more solid ground to commit to that big-ticket purchase, or return to dining out, or continue whatever spending habits they have put on hold.
• Allow people to put some money into savings, which will help to steady the teetering banks who desperately need something in the asset column.
• Allow people to put money into the stock market and position themselves for a long-term gain (despite what anti-free marketeers are trying to scare you with, the stock market will return to higher ground, as it always has).

Private business and banks have received well enough of their due when it comes to handouts from the federal government. It's high time Congress put this recovery in the hands of the people.

If you like the idea of a tax holiday for yourself, I encourage you to contact your Congressman or Congresswoman and ask them to take a considerate look at Mr. Gohmert's idea.

My Review of Moose Creek Thermal Sweatshirt - Hooded (For Men)

Originally submitted at Sierra Trading Post

Closeouts . From Moose Creek, this hooded thermal sweatshirt gives extra warmth for whatever you're doing in cold weather. Waffle weave lining holds body heat. Handwarmer pockets Full front zip Drawstring hood Length: 27" 65% cotton, 35% polyester Lining is 65% cotton, 35% polyester...

Moose Creek Thermal Sweatshirt - Hooded (For Men)

Great winter sweatshirt for the money

By Scott from Raleigh, NC on 11/30/2008

 

5out of 5

Chest Size: Feels true to size

Length: Feels true to length

Sleeve Length: Feels true to length

Pros: Warm, Comfortable, High Quality

Best Uses: Everyday, Office

Describe Yourself: Comfort-oriented, Practical

Even before opening the package, you know this sweatshirt is quality; it is HEAVY, and that is a good thing. This is hands-down the best sweatshirt I have owned. The lining keeps me warm whether I'm hanging around my house, at work, or running a few quick errands in the 50-degree outdoors. The weight helps it drape well and not bunch up around my waist. The cuffs on the sleeves are nice and snug, keeping the wind from creeping in. The only less-than-perfect thing about this sweatshirt is the mediocre zipper. A nice YKK would be better, as this one requires a bit of finesse to close it up without a minor jam. Would order another of these in a heartbeat.

(legalese)

Post-Election 2008: Some thoughts

I have not posted since the election. Up until that point, it seemed like one every 2-3 days (probably just seemed like it though). It's not easy putting this together. One of the reasons I'm doing this is so that I can become more practiced at expressing myself coherently and concisely. (I can already express myself, but it's usually just a long string of grunts and other sounds...neither coherent nor concise.)

I felt like I put a good amount of effort into my last several posts. As D-Day grew nearer, I found that my passions became more clear and the need to get them down was more compulsive. Alas, it didn't go my way. But I will press on...Unless President Obama surprises the hell out of me and ends up being the polar opposite of who I think he is, I will continue to fight the good fight and defend my country and her constitution in the way that I best know how.

But that is for later. First, some thoughts on the election:

(1) America elected a black man as president for the first time in its history. This cannot be minimized; this is a truly monumental occasion, and should be celebrated. I was not even born when the Civil Rights movement was in full swing and MLK Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech or wrote his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," both of which I have read numerous times. But that was still only about 40 odd years ago. Blacks went from simply winning the right to vote to seating an American president in two short generations. Amazing.

(2) As amazing as it is, though, now that Obama is in office, the media should abandon its love affair with him and get on about treating him like any other president. Signs of that happening are scant, though. Chris Matthews of "Hardball" declared that he views it as his job to "do everything I can to make this [presidency] work...to make it succeed." Yes, the same Chris Matthews who "felt this thrill going up [his] leg" when Obama spoke.

Also you can read of MSNBC is producing a commemorative DVD called "Yes We Can! The Barack Obama Story." And, not to be outsold, ABC news is hawking their own "America Speaks: The Historic 2008 Election" book and DVD set, with Barack Obama livin' large on the cover.

(3) The rest of America should abandon their love affair with Obama, or at least suspend it until the guy actually takes office and does something! I mean, for the love of Pete, look at what is going on out there, a full 2 months before Inauguration Day:

• In Long Island, NY, a student-led movement has succeeded in renaming Ludlum Elementary to Barack Obama Elementary.
• Washington D.C.'s subway system is producing Barack Obama rider passes for the thousands of thousands expected to be on hand for Inauguration Day.
• And Obama himself has just approved the plans for his own Presidential Library, for which they will be breaking ground late next year.

OK, so that last one was made up (I think, maybe I should check?) but get real people. If you can't even entertain the possibility that Obama could be a wild screw up, and look at him with a modicum of critical thinking, then we really are doomed.

(4) For whatever reason, those who voted for Obama feel the need to implore everyone else who didn't vote for Obama to now come together in unified support for our 44th president. Unified support? I guess like the unified support that they gave our 43rd president? Yeah right. Kumbaya.

(5) As I said in the beginning, I will wait and see what my president does. As someone who believes in the genius and strength of our minimalist Constitution, reserving true power for the people in order to keep the elected (and temporary) powers in check, it troubles me when Obama calls the Constitution "lacking" or suggests that it needs to change in order to meet the needs of our modern society. I will give him a chance, and I hope that I am surprised. But if he goes after my basic rights as an American, I will speak out against him, just as his supporters spoke out against Bush when he tried to weaken that document. Hopefully, I can move one or two of you to my side as well.

Election 2008: My Final Comments

With the election a mere 3 days away, I honestly find myself a bit torn on which way to go. Obviously I have three choices:

Bob Barr (Libertarian): This is how I would vote if it would matter. I agree with the Libertarian platform on just about everything except the legalization of drugs. Of course, if you leave the door open to government control over that, then the door is opened wide again for everything else. But that's a different topic. While Barr is certainly a possibility for me, I won't spend any more space on him here.

John McCain (Republican): I've voted Republican all my life. My parents were both Republicans, so I've pretty much followed suit. I believe I broke rank in 1996 (or was it '92?) and voted for Ross Perot, actually. What's good about McCain?

1. While the "maverick" moniker has become a bit overused, it is an accurate portrayal of the guy. He has broken suit with his party on a number of things, notably campaign finance reform and immigration reform. I mean, any Republican who can join forces with Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is bound to upset his colleagues on the Right. Yet he did it anyway.
   
2. He most surely has the foreign policy credentials to keep the hostile parts of the world, those who wouldn't mind seeing harm coming to America, on their toes and trigger shy. I think one of the reasons we haven't seen more anti-America attacks in the past 7 years, nor more wars or regional conflicts in which we're involved, is because other leaders think Bush is a wee bit loco. He doesn't listed to the U.N. He doesn't take as gospel the advice coming out of the E.U. nations. He's not afraid to stretch the limits of his Constitutional power to go to war without support from Congress. Other heads of state may see McCain as just as volatile, which may keep them second-guessing any notion they might have to rattle his cage.
3. McCain believes, in most cases (see below), in the strength of the Constitution in its current, and intended form. He understands the role of judges. He understands why the Second Amendment is there. He understands that, fundamentally, large government is to be avoided.

What's not to like about McCain?

1. Though he is a "maverick" and breaks from his party on a number of issues, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency to his support, or underlying set of principles that guides his decisions on what to support and what not to support. Take campaign finance reform. To many Conservatives, who believe that the First Amendment allows for the public to exercise their right to speech by proxy through financial support to a given candidate, setting such limits is an abridgement of this free speech. Is he a Constitutionalist or not?
2. Sort of an extension of (1), above, McCain seems to fly by the seat of his pants (or following the perceived will of the voters), when it comes to certain ideas. He says he wants smaller government, but he proposed a $300 billion plan for government to "buy out" the underwater mortgages from strained homeowners. There is nothing "small government" about that. If it's difficult to identify a distinct undercurrent that guides someone's beliefs, based on the past, then it'll be difficult to predict what they'll actually do in a given situation.

Barack Obama (Democrat): Believe it or not, I do have some good things to say about Obama. My mother taught me to look for the good in everyone (or was that a TV show?). It's not that hard to find it in Obama. The good:

1. Obama is not a career politician. He is not someone who has been in the seat of power for decades. He spent all of three terms in the Illinois State Senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He is still very much a Washington outsider and someone who can potentially bring a lot of fresh ideas to the game. I suppose this is the basis of his "Change" slogan.
2. The guy is obviously intelligent and quite articulate. This is a pretty good contrast to Bush, who does come across as a bit of a moron at times. Then again, that contributes greatly to Bush's strength. For being a complete idiot, as many on the Left would conclude, Bush has done a pretty impressive job of thwarting the majority Democratic Congress over the past 2 years. Appearing dumb is disarming, and sets the expectations low. Barack does not appear dumb in any way. Sure, he has his gaffes, just like anyone who speaks publicly every day of the year, but his language and manner is a refreshing change.
3. Back to change. Obama recognizes a need for it. He's not the only one, but he sure seems to be sincere about his intentions to bring it about. The current system sucks. It's a good ol' boys club with the people in power looking to do anything they can to stay in power, with money doing all the talking, and where the voice of the true owners of government (you and I) is being ignored more and more every day. Change is needed, and desperately, Obama gets that I think.

Now the bad...the reasons below are some that I've given before. They all are based on one underlying opinion of mind: Obama is not the change we need. The change that Obama wants to bring about, his "complete" change, is most frightening.

1. Obama does not believe in limited government. When talking about the $700 billion "bailout" package, and his support of it, he said something to the tune of "of course I don't like giving $700 billion away to these financial institutions. Think of all the things that could be done with $700 billion: better funding for public schools, fixing our national infrastructure, etc." Notice he didn't mention not spending it at all; leaving it in the hands of you and me, the real owners of that money. Asked numerous times in the second two debates which of his proposals he would cut in order to help keep the national debt (and the size of government) in check, he balked; he did not give an answer. That's because he wouldn't cut any of his proposals. He believes that the "rich" in this country (currently that level is defined by him as those making more than $250K/year) can spare enough to support his proposals. He's wrong, especially when the shock of the decreasing tax revenues we can expect in the coming years are coupled with increasing debt service. "Rich" will be a floating term, and will quickly expand to include the middle class.
2. Obama has very little real experience in governing. While he is not a career politician, he certainly appears to be a career campaigner. He began his Illinois Senate first term in 1996. He was re-elected to that seat until he moved up to the U.S. Senate in 2005. During this 8 years he spent in the state legislature, Obama ran for the U.S. House of Representatives (2000, he lost) and for the U.S. Senate (2004, he won). Assuming each campaign/election cycle lasts 2 years, Obama spent half his time in the state legislature running for a higher office. He began his bid for President in 1996, less than 2 years after serving in the U.S. Senate. So out of 12 years in office, he will have spent 6-7 years campaigning for a higher office. Ambition or hunger for power? Either way, he has equal experience campaigning as he does actually serving.
3. While Obama did not declare that any of his proposed programs would get the axe (or the scalpal, as he likes to say), he did declare his intent to cut spending on the military. Providing for a national defense is the first and foremost responsibility of government. His intention, combined with his lack of foreigh policy experience, would almost certainly invite a challenge to America's power and influence, and threaten our security. Biden was right when he predicted a major challenge to the new Democratic president within the first 6 months of his administration. It happened to Kennedy and it will likely happen to Obama. He does not have the experience to deter such a challenge in the first place, nor does he have the experience to deal with it should it occur.
4. A hint of the "fundamental change" that Obama would bring to the country can be gleaned from his ideas on the function of judges on the Supreme Court. During the third debate, when asked who he would appoint to the Supreme Court bench, he said that it would, in essence, be someone who "has compassion for the daily struggles of the common man." That is not the function of the courts, especially at that level. Their function is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative Branch and weigh them against the allowances of the Constitution. "Compassion" in the courts for a particular class of people is essentially removing the blindfold off of Justice and making decisions based on elements that should not be considered. Further, Obama has stated that he would have liked to see the Warren Court, which presided during the Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century, be able to do more to affect distributional change. Again, not a function of the courts. If Obama had his vision, he would effectively deconstruct the Constitution in this regard.
5. The company he keeps. Obama and his campaign have been as dismissive as possible about his questionable associations throughout his career. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, etc...These are all people that Obama has associated with to a greater or lesser degree as he rose through the ranks of politics and during his formative years. These associations are important. The press certainly thought so, when Obama was campaigning against Hillary. Now that he's the nominated candidate, they are pretty much giving him a free pass on these matters. I happen to believe there's enough evidence to prove that his associations with these people are more than passing and that he needs to answer some very tough questions about them.

Come Tuesday, it is quite likely that I will vote for either McCain or Barr. Obama's vision of change for America is not one that interests me (and frankly, it should not interest you either). Voting for either of the other two would be a vote against Obama, in my book. Voting for McCain is unpalatable, but that may be what's needed to keep Obama out of office. It's unfortunate that there is no perfect candidate (again). For those of you who think Obama is it, you're in for a huge shock.

The threat of journalistic impotence

Last week I gave an example of the unevenness of coverage in the press towards Sarah Palin. I used this example simply to raise awareness of the role of the Free Press in our nation and the perils that would accompany a decline in this journalistic freedom.

I'll say it again, though, the Free Press is one of the many checks on the power of government. Without the Free Press, government can run rampant while the people sit idly by, unknowing. And, when government thrives, individual freedom cannot survive.

I happened to pick that example of Sarah Palin because it was so egregious. The interviewer flat out lied and purposefully misquoted another source in order to put her on the spot and make her look like an idiot. Now, whether or not she is an idiot is irrelevant. (But, for the record, you don't get to be the governor without some level of smarts; calling her an idiot is just useless hyperbole.)

If Obama or Biden or some other Democrat had been treated the same way, I could have used that as an example as well. (It is tougher to find such examples, though, so I took what I could get.)

The point is, our freedoms are being threatened, presently. And that threat is coming from a press that is giving up their freedom to put themselves in the tank for either Obama (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC) or for McCain (Fox). There are still objective journalists out there, but they are few and far between. Gone is the day, it seems, when you could open up your paper and find an in-depth, exhaustively researched piece on every element of a controversy involving any of the candidates, with that same level of scrutiny applied equally to all candidates.

This is the time to get very worried. When your Free Press starts letting you down, there is almost nothing left to stand between you and a government who would just love to feed you the information they want you to hear.

I highly recommend the following two commentaries. Both reinforce what I'm talking about here and speak of the dangers an impotent press poses to our freedoms and our Republic.

"Why the Press is in the Tank for Obama" by Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail

"Media's Presidential Bias and Decline" by Michael Malone of ABC News

The downsides of all-access early voting

PajamasMedia has recently posted this piece that rails against universal access, no excuses early voting allowances that are more and more available.

Some of the points that are made could be argued away by saying that it is the responsibility of the individual voter to gather as much information as possible about the candidates in order to make a more informed decision, and that pretty much demands waiting until Election Day.

But this practice certainly opens up opportunities for any candidate or party to game the system to their advantage. Our democratic elections are too sacred and valuable to mess with. I agree with the author: Early voting has to go.

Aren't government rebates the same as tax cuts?

I'll keep this post short. I was reading the other day about what some folks in Congress see as a need for another stimulus package to help pull the economy out of the current stall.

The last stimulus package cost the government $130 billion. I got my $1800 cut of that (or whatever it was). This time, they're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $300+ billion.

Now, I'm all in favor of a stimulus package. That is to say, I'm in favor of getting back some of the money I forfeited in taxes (I'm not really in favor of that in the form of stimulus packages). But I have to wonder why the very lawmakers who are in favor of raising taxes see a potential economic benefit in a tax rebate?

If taxes were kept lower in the first place, wouldn't the impact be the same? Wouldn't the economy be healthier in the long term?

If I had to speculate as why (and I suppose I do have to as this is my blog) this logic escapes our elected officials, I would say it is essentially two-fold: (1) It is much harder to measure the impact of something like low taxes in the long term, and attribute long-term economic growth to that in particular. It is easier to show a definite cause and effect with a stimulus package and what happens in the economy 3-6 months later. (2) Stimulus packages give lawmakers the ability to "save the day" with their legislation crafted for the good of the people. Of course, if this is the case, it's really all for the good of those in power, isn't it?

Do you have a 401(k)? Not for long. Read this...

The House of Representatives, on October 7, heard testimony that called for the elimination of the 401(k) program, in favor of government-run retirement accounts. If this doesn't scare the living shit out of you, I'm not sure what will.

30 years ago, when my dad was working "in the system," he worked towards a retirement from his employer. It was common for one person to stay employed with the same company for an entire 40-year career. At the end of that career, that person would have earned themselves a nice, monthly retirement income, paid out of the pension plan that their employer had built up for them over the course of several decades.

With the amending of Section 401(k) to the Internal Revenue Code, in 1978, it became very attractive for people to start putting money into this account due to certain fringe flexibilities that it offered over the IRA. It also became very attractive to companies who were paying large administrative costs to maintain their own defined benefit plans (pension plans). Companies saw the 401(k) as an opportunity to shift the burden of retirement to the employee, and over the past 30 years that's just what they've been doing. It is very difficult to find, outside of government, a defined benefit retirement plan offered by an employer; most employers now expect their employees to be responsible for their own retirement.

(One interesting tidbit...The very names of the plans hints at the true reason for this shift. Defined benefit plans imply that some entity (the employer) is responsible for providing a benefit (retirement pay). Defined contribution plans imply that the worker is responsible for the contributions towards retirement. A shift of burden.)

Wall Street also loved the idea of a new account type that the masses would flood to, that they could charge administrative fees for.

Chances are you have a 401(k) currently, and chances are that you have a few thousand dollars in it already. Chances are, also, that you are using your 401(k), and the pre-tax benefits it provides, as your primary vehicle to help build your nest egg for retirement.

Well, now, there are people in your government that might like to see your 401(k) plan go away. On October 7, in a session of the House Education and Labor Committee, one Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research proposed the elimination of all current tax incentives for defined contribution plans. She also called for the replacement of 401(k)s with a universal government program providing a fixed per-capita government contribution. As part of this, she said, the government would allow all current 401(k) balances to be moved to the government for placement in newly issued bonds to assure the safety of retirement income streams.

She also offered this reassurance:

"[A] guaranteed income from [the retiree's] former 401(k) removes a source of financial anxiety – and this is not trivial – it ends fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.

"I propose you treat 401(k) asset accounts like the banks, and take some of those toxic assets away from workers and give them a vehicle so they know they can get a guaranteed retirement on top of social security.

"401(k)s are too risky and it's not good policy to have workers run their own their own retirement plan. They want government help and they also want to be responsible."

How did your elected Representatives respond to this? Surely, they were livid at the idea of a government-run retirement program! (Or should I say another?) Surely, in this land of opportunity and self-reliance, the Representatives of the people would fight against the government takeover of your private pension plans!

Well, maybe some, but not all. Read on to see the comments of one particular elected official:

Denis Kucinich (D-OH): "What do we say to all Americans who are the threshold of retirement, about what the government can do? What should we be doing to try and salvage the retirement position of American workers? What kind of legislative action should we be taking now?"

Teresa Ghilarducci (Panelist): "I propose that you offer up to 401(k) asset holders now a 'swap-out' of their toxic assets for a government guarantee. So you do for them what you've done for the banks."

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "I'm ready with the legislation, Mr. Chairman."

Kucinich and others are ready with a hair trigger to legislate to "protect" the American people from the downside of investing. This may be one of several threats to the upside potential that we now take for granted in owning our own investments. When lawmakers whip out that pen and the dollars, be afraid.

Is Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, or all of the above?

Watch the video for yourself. In an interview with Drew Griffin on CNN, Palin was asked the following:

GRIFFIN: Governor, you've been mocked in the press, the press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well. The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.

PALIN: Who wrote that one? Who wrote it.

GRIFFIN: That was in the National Review. I don't have the author.

Palin was obviously blindsided at being thrown under the proverbial bus by the conservative press. But was this accurately portrayed? Or another case of media bias?

Who was the author? It was Byron York, and he confessed to it too. But read for yourselves his "confession." Read for yourselves the context in which he wrote that. It was obviously not meant as direct criticism towards Palin, but, rather, a reflection of the unbalanced criticism she's been facing, both personally and politically, at the hands of the media in this campaign.

CNN, by the way, has declined to make a retraction or correction here, or even to clarify what was obviously taken far out of context.

Folks, I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. When you see this example of journalistic incompetence coming out of your Free Press, you should be outraged. If we can't get unbiased reporting, free of propaganda and focused on the truth, we're dead as a nation. The Free Press is one of the checks on government power. When you can't trust it, government thrives. When government thrives, freedom dies.

Obama and those "preconditions"...what is the truth?

In each of the three presidential debates, McCain attacked Obama for claiming that he'd meet with leaders of hostile nations "without precondition." Obama maintains he didn't say that. I'm not about to take either of these guy's words for truth, so I finally did some digging. I had to know if Obama really said that. Here is what I found. (I'll do my best to preserve context, but of course, for the full context, click through to the transcripts.)

First, McCain's accusations, and Obama's responses (or lack of sometimes)...

September 26, 2008:

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition.

OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition.

There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you [Henry Kissinger] would not -- he would not say that presidential top level [talks should take place].

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.

October 2, 2008: (Veep debate)

PALIN: [T]hose who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do.

BIDEN: That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.

October 7, 2008:

MCCAIN: Now, Senator Obama without precondition wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions. That's what he stated, again, a matter of record.

OBAMA: [Did not respond directly.] Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.

October 15, 2008:

MCCAIN: Senator Obama...wants to sit down across the table without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.

OBAMA: [No direct response.]

So what's the truth here? Let's investigate some of Obama's own words, on the record at various points in his campaign.

The controversy begins when Obama is asked a question during the CNN/YouTube debate, in July 2007. I've managed to find the transcript of that debate.

QUESTIONER: [W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

September 2007: (Press conference)

QUESTION: Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad. Would you still meet with him today?

OBAMA: Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries.

Then, October 15, 2007, in an interview with CBS' Harry Smith, Obama reiterated his intent:

HARRY SMITH: You said, "I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc."

OBAMA: Exactly, and without preconditions.

February 4, 2008: (CNN Situation Room)

OBAMA: There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.

Even Obama's own website says (or at least used to) "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."

Clearly, Obama meant what he said and he said what he meant. He would engage, at a presidential level, with the leaders of those nations who are right now enemies to the United States, and without precondition. To say he meant something different is just his engaging in typical politician doublespeak.

That about settles it for me.

(One more good link for you...A blog post from The Atlantic.)

Oh crap, am I a racist?

In this post a few days ago, I labeled Obama as a socialist. I had no idea that "Socialist" is really a code word for "black." I guess this word is on the no-no list, like "community organizer," which, at least to one person, is a code word for "black." But I guess that only counts when Republicans use it, because it is a "Republican code word." Does that mean that my calling him a socialist is only racist because I'm a Republican? Oh wait, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian, mainly, and somewhat of a Constitutionalist...but actually more of a Conservative than a Republican. Does this mean I'm not a racist? Maybe I'm only, like, 10% (which is still unacceptable).

Or is it just because I'm anti-Obama? There are Obama supporters out ther in the blogosphere who say, directly, that because I'm a middle-class white person who's not for Obama, then I must be a racist. But if I were a middle-class black person who was against Obama (they're out there), would I be a racist? Can one be racist against his or her own race? I'm confused...

Who sets these rules? Is there a guidebook? I certainly don't want to be a racist, but I didn't realize I actually might be. Dammit! If there's a guidebook, I can find out what I can say against Obama without being seen as a racist. Is there anything?

I wish Martin Luther King Jr. were still around to bring a higher level of class and sensibility instead of this crap. Bloody hell, I'm white, can I invoke MLK?

When government intervenes, your opportunity is lost

Below is a link to an absolutely terrific interview of economist Russel Roberts. Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is the interviewer.

Roberts describes himself as a "classical liberal" in terms of economic position. That is he believes in "limited government and personal responsibility." The whole theme of the interview is that government has caused this current financial crisis through its micromanagement of the housing market, and is further screwing it up through its taxpayer-financed "solutions."

Of particular note, when Steigerwald asks him who will end up having to pay for this, Roberts replies:

"Your children and mine. Not in the form of debt, which is the standard answer, although they'll pay for that too. But the real cost is, to me, that we will lose the goose that lays the golden eggs -- which is our unbelievably flexible and powerful financial system."

How will it be lost? Through increased centralized control of the markets.

This reminds me of the comment of a young man that I heard on the radio the other day. He said "I'd like to see the government do more to stabilize the stock market."

Folks, when the government comes in and starts eliminating risk, your opportunity is also eliminated. Be very careful how much you look to government for long-term solutions to your acute financial problems.

Read on and learn...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_593861.html

Obama, you had them at "Change"

The final scene in the movie "Jerry McGuire" puts a repentant Tom Cruise in his living room with his on-screen wife, Rene Zellweger, explaining why he was wrong to leave her and why they should be together. He starts off by saying "Hello," and proceeds to give his observations of love and the world and how they tie together. She tells him to shut up, then says "You had me at 'Hello.'" They kiss and all is well with the McGuires.

It would have really sucked, though, if she didn't have the sense to actually listen to what he said after "Hello" and he had actually said something like "...I forgot my toothbrush." She would have felt pretty stupid trying to kiss him as he made a beeline for the bathroom.

It seems to me that many of Barack Obama's supporters are like Rene Z and have stopped listening to Obama ever since he uttered the "Change" mantra.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for change, and believe that it's long overdue in the halls of our government. Members of both parties have shown evidence of being corrupted absolutely by their absolute power. It seems that all politicians these days really have one goal: To win the next election. To that end, they don't...nay...can't have the best interests of their constituents in mind as they legislate. They gerrymander to minimize competition. They fear truth-telling because they know that it could provide fodder for a competitor's campaign ads in the next race. They change their positions for political expediency.

While I, too, feel the need for change, Obama is not the candidate to deliver it, and maybe 2008 is not the year for it to be delivered.

Why is Obama not the one? His ideas of change cut into the core of what this country has been about for the past 200+ years; they are downright dangerous to our Republic and your freedom. I'm not talking about his ideas on equal rights, or other discrete issues. I'm talking about his ideas on the size and role of government, his ideas on personal liberty, his ideas on the individual and society.

When it comes down to it, Obama feels that individual ambitions should be subservient to the collective needs of society. He feels that government should play a key role in directing the human resources of the country to address the needs of the society at large.

Obviously, he doesn't come right out and say this, and to be honest, I'm not sure if he even realizes exactly where the path he wants to take us on ends. When I listen to him speak, I really believe that he has the best interests of the American people at heart, and I believe that is what motivates him. I'm sure he thinks he has the solution to our woes.

I'm not going to spend a whole lot of keystrokes demonstrating to you that Obamas ideas boil down to simple socialism; there are plenty of other writers out there who have done that. (In fact, many of his supporters will even admit that it is socialism that he is after. I have seen many apologetic comments made by them, saying "hey, socialism isn't communism," as if to say "nothing to fear here.")

Rather, I want to try to convince you, in a few short paragraphs, why socialism isn't where this country ought to go.

Our Constitution is rather unique in all of the governments in history. It is succinct, and based around two basic concepts:

1. There are certain freedoms (rights) that all people are given. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given not by government, but by their Creator (that is to say, they are just there). These basic rights provide for everything needed for a person to live and succeed in their life. These rights are, at their core, passionately individualistic.
2. Government is inherently corrupt and will try, however possible, to gain more power. Our forefathers were very distrustful of a powerful central government, and that is why the bulk of the Constitution was written in an effort to limit the ability of government to become more powerful. That is why there are three distinct branches of government and why those each of these branches are established so as to keep the others in check.

Healthcare is not a right. Education is not a right. A wage-paing job is not a right. A comfortable retirement is not a right.

Do you know why they are not rights given to us by our forefathers? Because our forefathers understood that whoever gives the right has control over how that right is exercised. Government control of this much of a person's life would be in direct conflict with the tone of individualism that frames our Constitution.

Take health care. Obama wants to establish a national health care system whereby the care is financed by the government. This is just fine until you consider that a health care plan offered by the government cannot possibly provide the breadth of options that an open marketplace of private insurers can. What does this mean for you? You're stuck with the options they give you. Your freedom to choose has now been curtailed. Of course, this is all being done for the benefit of the society as a whole. So where you sacrifice, others gain. You say you'd like an MRI for some shoulder pain you've been having? Sorry, the state doesn't think you really need that. Oh, and if you try to go and pay for it yourself, you'll be penalized for consuming resources that need to be used for the other, more needy members of society, as determined by the beauracracy.

Again, Obama won't tell you that this will be the eventual result. But such micromanagement and intrusiveness is the only possible result of a government that is trying to decide how limited resources (health care, in this case) can be used to serve society as a whole.

You want to go to medical school and be a neurosurgeon? Sorry, the government already has enough of those. But, you can be a pediatrician or an optomitrist, there aren't enough of those to fill the needs of society in the coming years.

There is no exception: More government is always harmful to the people. This may not be immediately obvious, but socialism is at the bottom of a very slippery slope. Under socialism, you can kiss your individual rights and ambitions goodbye. Your life becomes part of the collective and your choices are limited by the needs of the collective.

You don't get much more un-American than that. But that is the story that comes with an Obama presidency. Are you still listening? Or did he have you at "Change?"

Sir Barack of Loxley

Everyone knows that Robin Hood "steals from the rich to give to the poor." This notion is quite heroic at the surface, if you're not one of the "rich." The heroism, or morality, of this particular form of "redistribution of wealth" only survives a deeper inspection, though, when examined in the proper context.

The basic story is this: Robin Hood was a loyal subject of King Richard the Lionheart, who ran a just and equitable kingdom. When King Richard went off to fight in the Crusades, he left his despotic brother, Prince John, in power. John oppressed, repressed, and depressed the people of Nottinghamshire ruthlessly, taxing the bloody hell out of them to finance his own excesses. Well, Robin Hood wouldn't stand for such injustice, so he began his own crusade, to take from the cronies of Prince John and give back to the robbed poor.

Noble indeed, especially given the conditions in Nottinghamshire at the time. But what about the modern-day Robin Hood? No, I'm not talking about the Dukes of Hazzard. I'm talking about Barack Obama.

There has been much ado, lately, on the Right regarding Obama's comment that he thinks "spread[ing] the wealth around [is] good for everybody." This prompted a comparison to Robin Hood that I heard on the radio today. Unfortunately, the suggested morality of the comparison, if such was the intent, is unfounded.

It's pretty clear, from Obama's populist theme, that he is all for a legislated wealth redistribution. Obama would finally punish those evil Big Oil companies who dare make a profit (how dare they!) while providing the goods and services that the public demands. He'd raise their taxes (by eliminating some of the exploration incentives that exist today) and impose a "windfall profits tax" on them, if they made money above some obscure threshold. Nevermind that they already pay multiples of their profit in the form of taxes today. (While Exxon Mobil, for example, made over $11 billion in profits in their second quarter 2008, they paid over $32 billion in taxes in the same quarter.)

Obama would eliminate the tax breaks that the highest income bracket enjoys today, and have been enjoying since Bush passed his tax reform following the dot-com bust. In fact, Obama states that he would reduce taxes for 95% of the population...increasing them for only the top 5% of wage earners. Well, the bottom 20% of wage earners don't even pay any tax to begin with, so they would actually be getting a check from the government every single year.

Further, Obama has highlighted that he would like to see a regulation of executive pay in private enterprise. The idea, obviously, is that if CEOs and other execs are making less, that's more available to the worker bee.

Barack Obama wants to take from Peter to pay Paul. If this were 12th century England, and Prince John was in power, this might be dignified. Peter would be some wealthy bastard of a noble who was living large off of Paul's toil and labor. But this is not 12th century England. This is the United States of America, where Peter has raised himself to his position of wealth through his own ingenuity, toil and labor. Peter has stolen from no one. So why should Paul get his money? The freedoms and liberties granted in America to succeed (of fail) at one's own choosing do not provide even a hint of the context necessary to justify what Obama would like to do to the men and women who support this country through their hard work and sacrifice.

Barack Obama is no modern day Robin Hood.

No, John! NO!

There was only one thing scarier in last night's presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama than Obama's assertion that "healthcare is a right." That scarier thing was McCain's proposal that the federal government should bail out homeowners stuck with "bad mortgages."

McCain must have been really itching to get this idea out there, because he wasted no time waiting. Of course, the first question from the town hall audience pretty much set him up for it.

The question, coming from one Alan Schaffer, typified the "what can my government do for me" attitude that is plaguing the American citizenry of today. He asked: "With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?"

First of all, the government should have no responsibility whatsoever to bail people out of their economic hardships, but that is a topic for another post.

McCain's response is what I really want to talk about here. With a totally straight face, McCain uttered the following two sentences in the same answer:

"As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."

"We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today."

What is this guy smoking? The McCain camp, today, issued more details on his masterful plan which includes the price tag of $300,000,000,000 (that's 11 zeroes). Sure, compared with the recent $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, $300B is pretty affordable. But when you think about it, the costs are outstanding.

Unlike the $700B "bailout" package, which would allow for the eventual sale of toxic securities in order to reduce the final cost of the legislation, McCain's plan is pretty much taking taxpayer money and throwing it away. Imagine you live in greater San Jose, CA. You outbid 14 other potential buyers for the right to buy your 1500 square foot house for $950,000. Two years later, you find yourself with a $950,000 mortgage on a house that's only worth $800,000 today. You are 150 Gs in the hole, and feeling down. Wait! Here comes Uncle Sam to get you a new mortgage for $800,000, essentially paying you $150,000 with the funds provided by your fellow Americans' taxes. Taxpayers will never see that money again, but you'll feel "secure" and be able to keep living the Dream.

Further, this would require the national debt ceiling to be raised once again. As part of EESA2008, that ceiling was raised to $11.4 Trillion. This would mean it would go up to $11.7T. And, despite what McCain says about raising taxes being the absolute worst thing a government could do in a down economy (and he's right), there would be no choice but to raise taxes.

So what was he thinking? With under 30 days left until E-Day, and Obama still ahead in the polls by 3-5%, McCain seems to be getting a little desperate. I think he's hoping that he can pander to the American public who are hungry for a Big Brother rescue and steal some votes from Obama, who has had a pretty good lock on the Take From Peter To Pay Paul story.

While he may have taken some of the Independent or Undecided votes with this plan, he's sure to have sacrificed many more of the Conservative votes, including mine. Congratulations John, you just lost the election.

Whose American Dream?

"...and that way, Americans...can realize the American Dream and stay in their home."

Thus spake John McCain, Republican presidential nominee, during the second presidential debate. Since when did the American Dream become owning a home? McCain and Republicans aren't the only ones who make this equivalence; Democrats do it too. Actually, ask anyone out there what the American Dream is, and they'll probably tell you that it is home ownership.

It's not my dream. I've got a home, but my dreams aren't fulfilled. If you own your home, you may feel the same.

What is my dream? The same thing it's been since I was in grade school. I'd build a big house with a padded bounce room and a bedroom with a slide from the window to the pool.

What is your dream? Probably not that...

The point is, the American Dream is as personal and unique as the individual who holds it. When politicians decree that the Dream is homeownership, they put it upon themselves to help everyone they can get a home. That's the mentality that created the Community Reinvestment Act which has contributed greatly to the current mortgage default crisis.

"...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." That is the American Dream, and it is rooted in the principles and merits of individual achievement. It is not defined, nor is it provided by the government. It is not. And it never, ever should be.

The economic errors of short-term thinking

I had to sigh when I read Kay Hagan's dig on Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) regarding the privatization of Social Security. Hagan is the Democrat running against Dole in this fall's North Carolina Senate race.

Citing the performance of the stock market over the past several weeks, particularly this past Monday, she asked "Where would we be in the last two weeks if Social Security had been privatized?"

It is this type of short-term thinking that got us in the mess we're in. The obvious question that Dole should reply with is "Where would we be if Social Security had been privatized from the start?"

Since 1937, when the first payroll taxes were deducted for Social Security, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from roughly 150 to the 10,000+ level it is at today. Put another way, $1000 invested in the Dow 70 years ago would be $66,000 today, a compound annual growth rate of over 6%.

Has the government done that well with Social Security funds in the past 70 years?

The more than perfect storm

The Dow dropped over 750 points this afternoon, after it became clear that the House of Representatives would not pass the much-needed $700 billion bailout bill. The bill is meant to restore some confidence in America's financial systems by removing some of the so-called "toxic" debt from the ledgers of flailing banks and other financial institutions.

The situation we're in is a perfect storm in more ways than one might think. There are the obvious factors that have contributed: The greed on Wall Street, the Community Reinvestment Act (which may be the single root, if there was one), the enormous national debt (have you ever seen $11 trillion written out? $11,000,000,000,000...now you have), and the large amount of credit which is the shaky foundation of our strong economy of the past several years.

The one that might not be so obvious is the one that has been staring us in the face, every day for the past several months: We are now about 50 days from electing our next president, as is evidenced by the major posturing on both sides of the aisle. The bailout plan failed to go through today, and whoever has a finger is wagging it, placing blame.

The Dems are blaming the Republicans for failing to deliver a rescue plan to the American people, although 95 of their own Blue voted against it themselves. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't help the bipartisan effort at all when she railed against the Bush administration and the Republicans just prior to the vote. No doubt that turned a few GOPers off. I'm not alone in speculating that what she did was purposeful and calculated. She knew that she'd piss them off enough to where they'd vote Nay out of spite. She could then turn around and place the blame on the Republicans for the failure of the package. After all, she's had a full two weeks to state her opinion...why give it right before the vote?

As for the Republicans, other than a demonstration of opposition to Pelosi, why would they have voted No to the deal? Several of them stated that they were just reflecting the will of the voters back home. Indeed, the vast majority of voters are furious about the costly bailout and the perception of reward for the Wall Street Fat Cats who got us in this mess. Indeed, there is much in this legislation that flies in the face of free market sensibilities and capitalism. Indeed, it is the job of the Representative to bring this sentiment to the floor of the House.

Sometimes (in rare circumstance), however, it must fall on the Representative to depart from the will of his or her constituency and vote, instead, for the choice of wisdom. That time is now. The people have been heard, the dead bill is proof. But the people do not realize just how dire the situation is.

Hope of the bailout is all that has been propping up the market, for 2 weeks now. The only reason we haven't seen the Dow drop below 10,000 is because hope was on the way. That hope was delayed today, perhaps for good reason. Now that the point has been made, though, it's time for politics to take a backseat, and for Republicans and Democrats to do what is right, come together, and pass this relief package, for the good of the nation and for the good of the furious public.

McCain Suspends Reality

What is John McCain thinking? He was hoping to project a noble air when he suspended his campaign for president yesterday, but I think he went a bit too far.

The reasoning he gave for his surprise announcement was that the current economic crisis is too important for the future of the country for him to have any of his focus on his campaign. But is it too important for his campaign staff to maintain any focus on his campaign? What are they going to be doing while John is in Washington leading the charge to find a solution to the crisis? Are they all going to be meditating and focusing their energies on boosting his mental capacity to a point that he can have an "Aha!" moment?

Dave Letterman, with whom McCain cancelled a scheduled appearance yesterday, pretty much roasted McCain for this drastic move. Dave's no professional pundit or analyst, but he's no dope either. His observation that Palin should be keeping the "Straight Talk Express" moving forward is spot on.

What McCain did removed all doubt that this is a political move, to increase his capital with the American public, who are now sure to see him as a candidate who really is committed to putting "country first." He could have stopped short of complete suspension of all campaign activities (ads, fundraising, printing signs...EVERYTHING) and asked for a postponement of the debate which is scheduled for Friday. This would have shown his dedication to his full-time job as a U.S. Senator in this time of need and also allowed the also-important task of informing the American public about their main choices for the next presidency.

Well, one might say, he doesn't want the American public distracted from this crisis by the presidential race. Similarly, what is the public going to do? Channel their energies into their representatives in Congress? No, all they can do is pretty much play a waiting game while the same folks who created the mess try to fix it (but I digress).

Barack Obama's reaction to McCain's overture to suspend his own campaign as well was a bit overstepping and inaccurate. He stated that a president should be able to do two things at once. No one can do two things at once, and expect them to be done as well as if those two things received focused attention separately. Besides, what's Obama been doing the past couple days anyway? He's been holed up in his hotel practicing for the debate (getting used to the idea of being without teleprompters), popping out every now and again to feed the press a few more soundbites.

I don't care what other Congressmen or Congresswomen say, both Obama and McCain should be in Washington trying to first understand the economic mess that we're in (yeah, good luck with that) and trying to formulate solutions. If no solution is found come Friday, the debate should be suspended. But there's absolutely no reason, short of political posturing, to suspend either of the campaigns.

Honey Bunches of Metallica

I find myself constantly having to remind my oldest daughter that she can't just have the good stuff in life, she has to learn to do the things she doesn't enjoy either. This comes up a lot, from cleaning up her toys...

"Time to clean up your toys Elena."
"Awww man! I don't like cleaning up. You do it Daddy."

...to picking out only the oat clusters in the box of Honey Bunches of Oats...

"Elena, what about the flakes?"
"I don't like the flakes."
"You can just eat the oats. You have to eat the junk if you want the good stuff."

(The cereal thing really gets to me. If she just eats the oats, I'll have to put the flakes back in the box, since my father's compulsion to not waste food lives in me as well. That would just increase the flakes-to-oats ratio which means that people who play by the rules, like Daddy, have to eat even more junk. And that's just not fair.)

So anyway, what does this have to do with the new Metallica album, "Death Magnetic?" Well, it makes me feel like I'm eating a bowl of Honey Bunches of Oats. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but I have to suffer the junk to get there.

I almost didn't buy the album. In fact, I can't remember why I did. But I'm glad I did. The good and bad is balanced about 50/50. In my iTunes database, I've given 4 of the 10 songs a 5-star rating, and one a 4-star rating.

And it's not just certain songs that I would consider to be the junk, it's portions of the songs too. This is what makes the cereal analogy all the more fitting. You don't really have a choice. If you want to get to the good, thrashing, old-style-Metallica riffs, you have to suffer through some of the lesser material.

For instance, on the track "The Day That Never Comes," which is also their first single I think, it takes a good 3-4 minutes to get through the ballad portion (which is not all that bad) to get to the really catchy and energized speed metal. And even then, I am forced to wince as the lyrics finish off with a cheesy repetition of "Love is a four-letter word." I mean, guys, come on...

Well, at least they're not saying "Yeah, yeah, yeah" anymore.

Really, though, all in all, it's a good album, and I find myself listening to it a lot (at least those 4 songs). As many online reviews have opined, it's pretty much right there between "...And Justice for All" and the black album. It's worth a listen if you call yourself a pre-black Metallica fan.

Sarah Palin and Modern Feminism

For those of you who don't know, or could not have guessed from my name, I am not a woman. Nor do I have any great depth of expertise on the subject of what it is like to be a woman in the modern United States. So while I am by no means qualified to offer an in-depth analysis on the issue of modern feminism, surely I'm allowed to offer an opinion.

Unless you live under a rock, you know that Republican presidential nominee John McCain threw the 2008 political race into a tizzy when he nominated Sarah Palin as his running-mate. While she differs significantly from Hillary Clinton on an ideological level (as Gloria Steinem notes, the only thing she shares with Clinton is a chromosome), she is still a woman who has been given the nod to become next in line for the most powerful position in the world. I figured that surely women all over the country would at least be proud of her for that. It seems I was wrong, and that is the basis of this entry.

Maybe it is my understanding of the feminism movement that is outdated, or even completely ignorant. I had always thought (assumed?) that feminism was about getting women equal rights and treatment, de jure and de facto. The right to vote. The right to serve in the military. The right to a promotion. The right to succeed or fail just like any man living under our Constitution. If you believe in those rights, do you qualify as a feminist? Would you be accepted into their fold?

Apparently not. In the same commentary, Gloria Steinam suggests that Palin is out of touch with the needs and wants of the modern American woman. It seems she is saying that in order to be considered a feminist, or a woman worthy of representing the advancement of other women, Palin needs to also adhere to a specific set of beliefs, that also happen to be the same beliefs shared by the Democratic Party platform. If a woman doesn't believe in the unfettered access of all women to an abortion, or if a woman doesn't believe that men should be stepping up around the house and carry their fair load of common domestic chores, there's no way she can be considered a feminist.

There seems to be no place, in Steinam's feminism, for an ambitious and achieving woman who is also pro-life, who is for an abstinence-only sex-ed curriculum, who dares to suggest the inclusion of creation theory in the classroom. It seems that the feminist movement has, at worst, been hijacked by the liberal movement. At best, it has evolved to become more restrictive and intolerant of lifestyles and family choices that deviate from some standard.

But what is that standard? Again, it appears that Steinam has outlined it, fairly clearly. In her piece, she states that Palin "opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality" then goes on to list these issues:

• Creationism vs evolution
• Global warming
• Gun control
• Reproductive rights
  
• Sex education
• Hunting
• Education reform
• Fair pay for women
• Energy subsidies
• Oil drilling
• Fossil fuel use

I see, in that list, two subjects (reproductive rights and fair pay) that I would consider to be issues to be championed, one way or another, by the women's rights movement, or feminism. All the rest seem to be typical issues that provide as the basis of policy contention between the Democrats and Republicans, the Left and the Right.

So is Steinem, who has long been a pioneering voice in the women's rights arena and whose opinions on the matter would likely reflect the current state of the movement, saying that these myriad issues should be considered when evaluating a woman's worthiness of being an icon of progress? Is she saying that Palin, indisputably an accomplished and successful woman, is actually a detriment to feminism because she doesn't toe the line on each of these issues?

I think that is the message here.

But don't take it just from me. As I said right up front, I'm a fairly typical white American male who may be so out-of-touch with women's issues as to be completely unqualified to construct such observations.

So, instead, take it from Camille Paglia, who put together this terrifically balanced piece on Salon.com (registration may be required).

Paglia, who calls herself a "dissident feminist" (I'll have to read more to know what she means by that), contends that "Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership." She insinuates that Steinem, and other modern feminists, have promoted a "shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades [that] has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be."

It seems as though feminism has evolved from what I assumed it to be, to seem more of an extension of the current Democratic platform. When Palin is criticized by modern feminists such as Steinem, it seems obvious that there is more that a woman has to do to be praised as a pioneer than simply breaking through the traditional barriers to achieve.

Why do all the trees lean toward Cleveland?

When my wife and I decided to take the kids to Ohio this month to see her parents, I figured I might as well see where the Steelers would be and maybe attend my first game ever (I know, hard to believe). Since we'd be heading down to the 'burgh (that'd be Pittsburgh for all y'all who don't know) for our first weekend, I was hoping they'd be playing at home. Unfortunately they were playing away on this Sunday. Fortunately, that away game was in Cleveland, a short 30 minute drive from my in-laws.

What luck! What could be better that watching the Steelers play the loathesome Browns in Cleveland, on Sunday Night Football? (Well, obviously, watching the same matchup in Pittsburgh on Monday Night Football, but I'll take it.)

After days of searching the internet ticket brokers for just the right seats at the right price, I settled on a pair (for my father-in-law and me) on the 50 yard line, 9 rows behind the Steelers bench. I was stoked! I packed my Steelers t-shirt (my only team garb outside of my Terrible Towel...I'm a bit stingy when it comes to buying clothes) and off we went.

On the Friday night before the game, big Hurricane Ike made landfall at Galviston, TX. On Saturday before the game, I checked the track of the now broken hurricane and saw that the center would be smack dab over Cleveland at 9pm on Sunday night. This was great! Football, beer, and natural disaster all rolled into one! This was getting better every day.

On game day Sunday, the storm started to hit. The winds started picking up around 1pm and eventually maxed out with gusts of about 40 MPH, though the rains would come until that night at the game. The trees in my in-laws huge backyard were bending over but holding, thanks to the plentiful rainfall several days before.

6pm: Time to leave. This would put us at Browns Stadium about 45 min to an hour before the 8:15 kickoff, plenty of time to take in the sights and sounds. We hit the East 9th Street traffic at about 6:30 and spent the next 1/2 hour going 2 miles to a parking garage. Quick 15 minute walk put us at the door of Browns Stadium where scalpers gathered.

(If ever there was a model of a broken market, it is the ticket scalpers standing right next to a guy wearing a sign reading "I NEED TICKETS." Still can't figure that one out.)

At the gate was a guy handing out Cleveland's pathetic answer to the Terrible Towel: a little Browns flag attached to a stick by a single grommet. I tried to refuse the refuse, but he insisted, so I grudgingly took one, thinking I could use it for toilet paper or fire (or both) if the need ever arose. I handed it off to Gary quickly. By the time we got through the pat down (I think I got extra love because I was wearing a Steelers shirt) and to our seats, it was 7:20.

One hour to game time and what to do? Warm ups were pretty dull, though it was cool to see the players so close up. There was Jeff Reed practicing kicks, Sepulveda practicing punts, Big Ben and Byron Leftwich warming up their throwing arms. We decided to head up to the upper seats to see what the view was like.

Like most stadiums, Cleveland Browns Stadium has a series of switchback ramps for getting up to the upper seats. Of course there were throngs of people heading up. Occasionally one would notice my Steelers shirt and bark in my face "Woof! Woof!" At times I'd try to pause and decipher this strange Clevelandese language, assuming these were the sounds they had been taught to make in school. I eventually gave up, concluding that it was basically unintelligible.

(At some point, my father-in-law, Gary, realized why all these people were singling me out to vent their enthusiasm. Up until then, he didn't realize I had worn my Steelers shirt. Once he did, though, he stayed a good 5 feet behind me the rest of the evening. In telling his friends about the game, he says he still hasn't decided if I was stupid or brave.)

About halfway up the ramp to the top, we both realized that we'd have to go down, against the flow of maddened Brownies. I was not looking forward to this. At the top, we stepped out towards the upper-level seats and were greeted by a huge gust of Ike's wind from the back that I was sure would strip me of my clothing and toss me right out onto the field where I'd be promptly arrested for streaking (now that would have been a story for the grandkids!). We quickly stepped to the side, in front of a wall that would shield us from the wind.

We stood up there for about 15 minutes, taking in the whole energy of the stadium, until it was about 20 minutes until game time. Part of me didn't want to go back down, knowing the abuse I was in for. But I stood tall, put on my Dirty Harry "Go ahead, make my day" look and started the descent.

As I said, Gary had wised up by now and would not walk beside me any more; he stayed a good 5-10 feet behind me the whole way down. I'd slow down for him to catch up, but he'd slow down too, refusing to be associated with this Steelers nutcase who had the nerve to come to the Dawg Pound in a Steelers shirt.

The Cleveland fans were surprisingly tame on the way down, compared with what I had been expecting. I was bracing to be spit on, shoved, or have beer "accidentally" spilled on me. Instead, all I got was a few people in my face screaming "F--- you!", a few chants of "Ass-hole!", and a whole lot of barking. There were other Steelers fans, of course, who mostly had jerseys (meaning that they were much more willing to spend money on team apparel). Many of them would exchange high-fives with me and join in chants of "Here we go!" Many of them, I could tell, were worn down by the taunting and seemed resolved to just look straight ahead and get to their seats as fast as possible. From those who were in the spirit, though, it was nice to have the intermittent moments of comraderie.
.
By the time we made it back to our seats, it was a whole lot more crowded. We waited the 15 minutes until game time. There was a tribute to Ernie Davis, the first black football player to win the Heisman, playing for Syracuse. The legendary Jim Brown was there to dedicate the placard for Davis. Also there for the tribute and the coin toss was Dennis Quaid, who plays Davis' coach in the upcoming movie about Davis' breakthrough contributions to football. Even though he was just a blur from 100 yards away, I can now say I saw Dennis Quaid.

The Browns won the toss and the Steelers kicked off the game. The game was what it was, and I won't offer a play-by-play. Needless to say the Steelers won, 10-6, sending the Browns to an 0-and-2 start to their season, and the Steelers to 2-and-0. It was neat being right there and being able to look down at the sidelines and see Mike Tomlin standing always wise and resolute, a stark contrast to the energized, animated, always-pacing Bill Cowher. It was neat the see Big Ben debriefing with Leftwich or his receivers after an offensive flameout. To see Troy Palomalu's hair constantly getting in his way. To see the unflappable smile on Hines Ward's face, up close.

There was some guy two rows ahead of us and a few seats to the right who chanted "Washington...You suck Washington!" whenever the offense was on the sideline, until it made him hoarse. The funny thing was, I don't think there was any way, with the din of the crowd and the distance between them, that Nate Washington could have heard him.

It was easier to walk out of the stadium at the end of the game...I had an easy comeback for the hecklers who persisted in their teases and taunts: "Check the scoreboard, pal!" This was the 10th straight win by the Steelers over the Brownies. With every win, it's easier to understand why all the trees lean toward Cleveland...Cleveland sucks. Just check the scoreboard.

Another chip out of free markets

Those opposed to the war in Iraq oft decry the hundreds of billions of dollars that they see as being ill-spent in support of that conflict. Surely there are better things to spend that money on, they say. While this may be true, there are worse things as well. Witness the pledged bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by our own federal government, to the tune of up to $200,000,000,000.

What characteristics does a company need to possess that allows it to be classified as "critical to the economy?" If anyone knows, please let me know. If I build a large company one day, I want to make sure I build it towards these characteristics.

Bear Stearns apparently possesses these characteristics, as the Federal Reserve deemed it "too important" an institution to allow to fail. This set up the Fed to arrange the dime-on-the-dollar purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMC.

I'm not an economist, nor do I pretend to be, on TV or in real life, so I won't even attempt to take on the myriad variables and considerations that have underpinned this move by the Fed. I am, however, a believer in free markets, who sees this form of life support for a failed company as being hazardous in the long term.

In the short term, the buyout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may actually produce real benefits for the economy as well as for the consumer. It will return some level of confidence to the credit market and make money more freely available to borrowers.

In the long term, though, we may just be pumping artificial life into an already defunct carcass. And we all know what happens to dead things when we try to bring them back to life. Free markets are marked by the ups and downs that they produce. Companies and even whole industries die, which may produce temporary and sometimes deep ebbs in the economy. But then new ones are born which again send the economy marching upwards.

It's kind of like the first steps of sea turtles. I had the luck to witness this one night many years ago on Topsail Island, here in North Carolina. Dozens and dozens of these little hatchlings dug their way out of the sand and started flip-flopping towards the ocean. They'd get to the edge of the surf only to be sent backwards by an incoming wave. But they'd get up and go at it again. Two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back. Eventually they'd make it out into the deeper and calmer waters, where most of them would be eaten by predators...but that's for another analogy.

The economy's long-term progression is like those sea turtles (without the probable eventuality of being eaten by something bigger). It's progressive expansion occurs through repeated cycles of contraction and expansion. Sometimes the contractions are big and painful. By putting these companies on life support, we are not eliminating the painful large contraction that would result from years of unsound investments by these large banks, we are merely delaying it. As I heard Ron Paul say yesterday, we are just letting the bubble continue to grow. When it does pop, and it will (it has to), it will be much larger and more painful than if the government had not meddled.

Ain't no black hole swallowing me today!

I'm awake (and, thus, alive) this morning, which means that the Large Hadron Collider, near Geneva, Switzerland, which came online at 1:30am EST did not produce strangelets which could have turned the Earth into a lifeless, cosmic lump of goo. Nor did it produce the feared black hole that could have instantly swallowed us all.

I have to admit that even though the reassurances were made, I did feel a sense of dread as I went to sleep last night. It's hard not to, when something like that is totally out of your control. But I'm alive and well (at least subjectively) and glad to be off to Ohio today.

Biden's Fiscal Capacity

I wonder if anyone else is asking this question: How does one serve for 30+ years as a United States Senator, including at least 2 decades with a six-figure income, and only have $150,000 net worth to show for it? That's Joe Biden, Obama's choice for Veep should he win the presidency.

Perhaps I'm being too petty in my judgements here. Perhaps there's a perfectly good explanation for why Biden appears to be so lousy at personal finance. After all, with the Senate's generous pension and health care plans, maybe there's no need to save for the future like the vast majority of Americans. Maybe he can afford to throw the budget out the window and just redirect all that money towards his club memberships, school for his kids, the mortgage on his family compound (if there is one), and his nice cars.

Now I sound bitter and jealous...not the case at all. I hope that I, too, have the disposable income one day to be able to support such a lifestyle. But that comes after my primary responsibilities, the first of which is delaying gratification for the future, so that I have a sound future. That's how most Americans should approach it as well. If Biden cannot lead by example here, does that mean he's out of touch with the rest of us? Perhaps his fiscal habits are just a microcosm of the government's own...spend all that you have without regard for the obligations of the future.