(Un)screened (&) (A)musing(s)

"Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"

2011-08-31T15:55:00.017-05:00

Mark Twain popularized the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics" explaining that these were the three kinds of lies people told. The media has become notorious for using the them all to try to create the narrative they want instead of reporting news as it is.

As if the hype building up to Hurricane Irene wasn't enough, the storm is now being hyped after the fact. The NY Times says the damage could rank in the top 10 catastrophes in terms of costliness. I wonder...is that really true? [Hilarious video here of in-storm reporting - it reminds me of the videos people make to look like their climbing (you know where the turn the camera 90 degrees so it looks like they're scaling a sheer rock face when in fact their crawling on the ground) and then a dog or little kid or something runs in and totally ruins the whole thing.]

If the top ten in this list are adjusted to the actual dollar value of their respective years, they break down this way(This list does not include anything beyond March 2011):

Hurricane Katrina (2005) - $108 B, (p. 9)
Heat Wave/Drought (1988) - ~$60B
Heat Wave/Drought (1980) - ~$20B
Hurricane Andrew (1992) - $26.5B
Midwest Flooding (1993) - $15B
Hurricane Ike (2008) - $29.5B
Hurricane Rita (2005) - $12B
Hurricane Wilma (2005) - $21B
Hurricane Charley (2004) - $15B
Hurricane Ivan (2004) - $19B

These numbers adjusted to 2011 dollars would be as follows:

Hurricane Katrina - $124B
Heat Wave/Drought (1988) - $114B
Heat Wave/Drought (1980) - $54B
Hurricane Andrew - $42B
Midwest Flooding (2003) - $23B
Hurricane Ike - $31B
Hurricane Rita - $13B
Hurricane Wilma - $24B
Hurricane Charley - $17B
Hurricane Ivan - $22B

Early estimates of Irene's damage are somewhere around the $7 to $10B mark, obviously in 2011 dollars, which is below any in the above list and would likely rank it somewhere in the top 20 but not the top 10.

Now, don't get me wrong. The damage from Irene is devastating. The flooding from the heavy rain is awful. I have friends in North Carolina (which has only been a footnote to the situation in the Northeast) who had damage to their homes with fallen trees. I certainly don't want to belittle the fact that people are suffering as a result of Irene, but it needs to be kept in perspective. From 25-28 April of 2011, a major outbreak of tornadoes hit the US, particularly Mississippi to Virginia. The damage estimate for that outbreak is roughly $10B, about the same as Irene (not to mention the 350 lives lost in that outbreak - about 7 times the number from Irene). While certainly a costly (and deadly) storm outbreak, I've found no article calling the tornado outbreak "one of the 10 costliest catastrophes in the nation’s history." Why is that, considering they both the tornado outbreak and Irene carry roughly the same preliminary estimates for damage?

Thomas Jefferson's Canons of Conduct

2010-08-10T09:16:00.003-05:00

WWTJD? (What would Thomas Jefferson do?)

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.
Never trouble another with what you can do yourself.
Never spend your money before you have it.
Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap.
Pride costs us more than hunger, thirst and cold.
We never repent of having eaten too little.
Nothing is troublesome that we do willingly.
How much pain have cost us the evils which have never happened.
Take things always by their smooth handle.
When angry, count ten before you speak; if very angry, a hundred.

Lemmings and Sheeple Are Still Unpatriotic

2010-07-04T13:27:00.010-05:00

A combination of my previous two Independence Day blogs can be summed up in the statement, "Dissent is the sincerest form of patriotism."

It's a Screwed Up World...

2010-05-04T11:25:00.004-05:00

Eh, it's been a little over two weeks since I last posted. I have a few thoughts and then might do a little catching up before this is all done.

First, the flooding in Nashville is really sad. It's amazing that so much damage can be done with "just rain" and no hurricane or other tropical system. When a strong hurricane comes on shore, it's expected that there will be a good deal of damage, particularly flooding with storm surge and heavy rains. It's doubtful than anyone predicted the enormity of the flooding that inundated Nashville.

While it may not be on par with the damage left behind from hurricane Katrina, Nashville is still a large city reeling from the devastating effects of Mother Nature. New Orleans at least had a chance to mobilize and prepare for Katrina. I very seriously doubt the people of Nashville could have been prepared for this past weekend.

Speaking of Katrina, it's interesting how the federal government (personified in George Bush) received so much blame for the problems that plagued New Orleans as a result of Katrina, particularly in dealing with people who didn't evacuate before the storm, but also I find it equally interesting that very few (and no one in the MSM) are hinting that the federal government is at fault for the severity of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the New York Times today, the question was raised as to just how bad the spill will eventually be. Some are wringing their hands over the specter of one of the worst environmental disasters ever, although at this point, the spill is not near the size and scope of the worst spills ever. President Obama has said the spill is "a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster." No matter how you slice it, it ain't good.

The federal government has also been quick to point the finger at British Petroleum (BP) as the point of blame and also to stress that BP will finance the cleanup and compensatory claims. However, what the federal government (including the White House) is not saying is that the federal government has actually had a plan in place to contain such spills, a plan that dates back to 1994. Unfortunately, the federal government did not have any of the necessary tools in place along the gulf to put the plan into effect. By the time the USCG acted on the plan, the spill had been growing for eight days. In a flash of incompetency reminiscent of FEMA's Michael Brown during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, "USCG Mary Landry said the government had all the assets it needed." Right. Except the one that the plan for containing an oil spill in the Gulf actually called for!

Bottom line: The geographical devastation of Katrina probably could not have been averted, however, the human suffering could have possible been ameliorated...but not by the federal government. The immediate blame for the human element of devastation in New Orleans lies primarily in three places: first, the people who could have evacuated but refused; second, for those who were unable to evacuate on their own, the city of New Orleans made no provision whatsoever to evacuate its residents; third, Governor Kathleen Blanco waited until the last minute to activate the National Guard, making it almost impossible for them to mobilize to adequately assist those who remained behind for whatever reason. Had these three been done correctly in the first place, the pressure on the federal government would have been lessened and likely done more efficiently (although that's doubtful, after all, it is the government we're talking about).

While BP should certainly be held accountable for their shortcomings, the federal government, under the leadership of President Obama, as commander in chief, and the USCG, whose responsibility it should have been to contain the spill by putting into effect the plan to do so developed over 15 years ago, should also be held responsible for allowing the spill to grow to its current size. Of course, with offshore drilling such an issue these days, we can't expect the federal government to "let a good crisis go to waste," huh?

In the midst of the environmental disaster looming because of the ineptitude of the federal government, we should remember the families of those 11 workers who died as a result of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. The loss of their lives has been turned into a political football much like the deaths of the 29 miners in West Virginia.

In other news, the FBI captured the suspected "mastermind" behind an attempt to explode a car bomb in crowded Times Square on Saturday night. By the way, for those keeping score at home, the suspect, 30 year old Faisal Shahzad, is a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan. Odd, that, considering New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg's early description of the perpetrator invoked images of Timothy McVeigh, or a militia group (or maybe a Tea Party group?), saying the suspect was probably "home-grown...somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the healthcare bill..." Seriously? Threats came from all over the place after Comedy Central aired an episode of South Park "depicting" Mohammed, and the immigration bill in Arizona has created quite a stir. Really? The healthcare bill?

Finally, how about some local flair. A principal at a local K-8 school (in a not so great neighborhood to say the least) was given leave without pay for shaving off half of a kid's eyebrow. Apparently, shaving slits in one's eyebrow is some kind of gang sign so she'd told the kids not to do it anymore. One did so she got a razor and shaved half of it off so it wouldn't show the slit. Like one person I heard comment on the situation said, if she had slept with the kid, she'd still be getting paid while on leave.

Forced Generosity and Charitable Taxation...

2010-04-15T12:53:00.007-05:00

Much ado has been made about how taxes are used to do good that private agencies could not do because they would lack the funding if they had to rely solely on private donations. If this is indeed the case (which I won't concede but will still entertain for the time being), the following numbers may give a little insight (slight though it may be) into why it may be the case.

This year, President Obama's household federal tax liability was $1.8 million out of $5.5 million (approximately 33% of their adjusted gross income). (The president's $1.4 million Nobel prize money was not included because he gave it all to charities. Frankly, to be consistent, he should have been taxed on the amount then left to give the rest to charity, but that's beside the point.) Anyway, out of a $5.5 million income, their charitable giving was $329,000 spread out to 40 different charities. That's roughly 6% of their income. Only 6%.

For the vice president, the numbers are even more telling. The Biden household paid $71,000 in federal income taxes on an income of $333,000 (roughly 21% of their adjusted gross income). The Bidens' charitable deductions for the year were $4,800, a whopping 1.5% of their adjusted gross income.

With generosity like this, who would imagine private charities being able to do what government does with the forced donations (i.e. taxes) is receives? Joe Biden once said that it was "patriotic" to pay taxes. Being the devout Catholic that he is, one would think he would know that it's the Christian thing to do to be generous if one has been blessed financially. One would think.

In any case, I'm not one of those people who thinks you have to tithe or "God'll getcha". You have to give within your means to give. All I'm saying is that personal charity and generosity should be more important that forced appropriation (taxes). Bottom line...governments can only hurt charity in the long haul.

Good Friday...2010...

2010-04-02T14:33:00.006-05:00

Today is Good Friday. Two years ago (not to the day, duh), I wrote a blog about it. (It's linked there, but I'm going to put a lot of it in this blog entry, too.) Anyway, so much has changed in two years...some good, some...well...not so good. C'est la vie, I suppose. Some want to call today a "spring holiday." Whatever. I understand not everyone shares my understanding of the significance of the day. I don't share the understanding of winter solstice or Ramadan or Yom Kippur. Not a problem.

So if you share my understanding and belief about Good Friday as the day on which Jesus, the Christ, of Nazareth was crucified, the story linked below is the story of Easter told over Pink Floyd's "Time." It's about 15 1/2 minutes long...just so you know. If you don't share my understanding and belief, not a problem. If nothing else you can here a probably familiar story told in a new way. Either way, go here to hear it.

I always think about the following description of crucifixion from a medical perspective when Easter comes around. I guess I should think of it more often really.

What is crucifixion? A medical doctor provides a physical description: the cross is placed on the ground and the exhausted man is quickly thrown backwards with his shoulders against the wood. The legionnaire feels for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drives a heavy, square wrought iron nail through the wrist deep into the wood. Quickly he moves to the other side and repeats the action, being careful not to pull the arms too tightly, but to allow some flex and movement. The cross is then lifted into place. The left foot is pressed backward against the right foot, and with both feet extended, toes down, a nail is driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees flexed. The victim is now crucified. As he slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists, excruciating fiery pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain--the nails in the wrists are putting pressure on the median nerves. As he pushes himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, he places the full weight on the nail through his feet. Again he feels the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the bones of his feet. As the arms fatigue, cramps sweep through his muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless and throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push himself upward to breathe. Air can be drawn into the lungs but not exhaled. He fights to raise himself in order to get even one small breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream, and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push imself upward to exhale and bring in life-giving oxygen. Hours of limitless pain, cycles of twisting, joint-renting cramps, intermittent partial asphyxiation, searing pain as tissue is torn from his lacerated back as he moves up and down against rough timber. Then another agony beghins: a deep crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with cerium and begins to compress the heart. It is now almost over. The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level. The comrpessed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissues. The tortured lungs are making frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. He can feel the chill of death creeping through his tissues. Finally, he allows his body to die.

All this, the Bible records with the simple words "and they crucified him." (Mark 15.24)

["Corpus Hypercubus" by Salvador Dali]

Don't Take My Word For It...

2009-07-27T21:02:00.004-05:00

Some follow-up links to "My Prejudiced President..." They are all linked from the same main site because it's easier to do it that way. Many of them have also been published elsewhere...

Racism is a History Lesson, Not Current Events

Impersonating a Victim

Who Will President Obama Drum Up Hate Against Next?

The Truth About Cops and Race

A Teachable Moment Indeed

The Distinguished Gentleman and Scholar

[update--just added 27 July]

No Apology for Sargent Crowley

Bill Cosby 'Shocked" at Obama's Statement on Harvard Prof's Arrest

My Prejudiced President...

2009-07-24T15:15:00.008-05:00

It's been a while since I've blogged. Honestly, there's just too much to try to take the time to get into writing. Between the debacle of foreign affairs with Iran, Honduras, India, North Korea and other gaffes by the current administration and horrible domestic policies, including (but not limited to) "cap and tax" and ObamaCare, there just aren't enough hours in the day to really succinctly put those thoughts down. Little wonder Obama's approval ratings have slipped into the 50's in some polls and below 50% in at least one and show no sign of slowing (See here and here).

Another issue that got a lot of news attention and air time was the circus surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. How far we've fallen when that becomes such a major news item. Rather than add to the din that his death created, I'll just say that I'm sorry for the loss his family is experiencing. It's a painful experience. However, the time and money that was spent to cover that event, including the memorial service, as well as the grandstanding of people like Al Sharpton, were beyond ridiculous when you consider how they elevated Jackson nearly to the point of sainthood. This for a man who was a drug addicted, child molesting freak. Mourn him...don't worship him.

I digress. This post is supposed to be about my prejudiced President. I didn't vote for him but he did win the election so he is my President. I'm not going to review the entire soap opera that has surrounded the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. You've either heard it or read it by now...or you live under a rock. Anyway, during the televised ObamaCare informercial the other night, Obama said that the Cambridge, Mass., police "acted stupidly" for arresting Gates. If this was all there was to the story, there would be nothing to blog about, to be honest...but I am blogging, so there's more. Let's get his whole quote for context...

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case]. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

This is laid out nice and neat...three points. First, "any of us would be pretty angry." Well, no. If I came home and was having trouble getting in and my neighbor called the cops (not knowing it was me since it's dark out) thinking it was someone breaking in, I'd be thanking my neighbor for watching out for my house and I'd be thanking the cops who came to check out the situation. Why, for the love of God, should "any of us" be angry about that?! Second, "Cambridge police acted stupidly." I'll come back to this one. Third, "a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." Regarding that, a) history doesn't change overnight but is has been moving in the right direction for at least the last 40 years, b) the very fact that so many municipal leaders, including mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, city council members, etc. should give pause to any right thinking person about this statement, and c) Obama has once again played the race card.

But back to that second point, that "Cambridge police acted stupidly." The American Heritage Dictionary defines prejudice as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." Obama began his statement saying he didn't know what role race played because he had not been there and had not seen all the facts. Nevertheless, sans teleprompter, his true colors show and we find that he prejudicially calls the Cambridge police actions stupid. By his own admission without all the facts, Obama sides against the police as oppressors and racists.

There are many questions to be answered and I think most of them will be in due time. The charges against Gates were, rightfully, dropped. Exactly what will happen with the Cambridge police officer is also undetermined, with the possibility of filing suit against Gates a possibility as well. Obama has been back peddling today, defending his decision to butt in where he didn't belong while trying to distance himself from Gates in the situation. We've learned that Obama is not a post-racial president. He may become that, but he's not right now. At the moment, he's nothing more than a community organizer with the ultimate bully pulpit. The story will stay alive for a while, but probably not as long as the Michael Jackson circus.

[Image of Obama, Gates and Crowley from ABCNews.com]

Lemmings and Sheeple Are Unpatriotic...

2009-07-04T16:16:00.010-05:00

Last year I wrote a blog on Independence Day, so today I went back and reread it. As Congress continues to expand (or attempts to expand) the role of the federal government, I can't help but wonder what our founding fathers would think about such expansion. I'm afraid Jefferson, Madison and others would hardly recognize the "republic" they helped create, and only Alexander Hamilton would be very excited about the difference from then to now.

In spite the encroachment (and impending encroachment) into our daily lives, the freedom we enjoy is still something we shouldn't dare take for granted. The very fact that I can sit at a computer and publicly publish my dissatisfaction with the direction our government has been heading for the past several years is testament to the country in which we live. I can go to church tomorrow without having to worry about government officials coming in and breaking up the service. Groups can freely gather to protest, even though I'm not 100% clear on the correlation of the tea parties to the original tea party of over 230 years ago and I'm not really sure of the point of some of the left wing demonstrations that we occasionally see.

This nation was born out of dissent and disagreement. Anyone selling the "purple country" myth just doesn't know anything about U.S. history. We've always disagreed and had varying ideas about how this country should be run. I hope that that spirit never dies and we never give in to those who would have us believe that dissent is unpatriotic...whether their voices call from the left or the right.

Reverse Discrimination Reversed...

2009-06-29T16:58:00.007-05:00

Good news! The headline at CNN says it all: "High Court Backs Firefighters in Reverse Discrimination Suit." In a high profile case, the court overturned an appeals court ruling that the city New Haven, Connecticut, was correct in throwing out the results of an exam used to determine promotions. A group of white and Hispanic firefighters sued the city over throwing out the results, losing in a lower court and in an appeal then winning at the Supreme Court (incidentally, Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor was part of the three judge panel that upheld the lower courts ruling on appeal).

In a feeble attempt to uphold the appellate court ruling, Justice Ginsberg offered that "relying so heavily on pencil-and-paper exams to select firefighters is a dubious practice," calling the majority ruling "troubling." Interestingly, it was because the city was afraid of being sued for racial discrimination that the test was used and then thrown out in the first place.

In addition, one little nugget of information that the CNN article does not mention is that one of the white firefighters, Frank Ricci, passed the test in spite of suffering from dyslexia. In fact, "when his department announced exams for promotions, he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material." That's right...one of the firefighters who passed such a "troubling" test and survived this "dubious practice" overcame dyslexia to do so and passed, placing sixth on the exam.

Obama was looking to nominate a Justice with empathy, who would be able to look at cases with compassion, which is supposedly a major contributing factor in his decision to nominate Sotomayor. But where was the compassion for a hard working firefighter who sacrificed his time and money to put forth maximum effort, who faced incredible odds battling dyslexia to pass a test that is 60% written, who made a Herculean effort to pass the test for the good of his family? Where was the compassion for that hard working American? Oh, wait...let me guess...wrong gender, wrong color.

Thankfully, the majority of the court saw fit to uphold justice.

In a related (not really) story: "Obama says Honduras coup was 'illegal' and Zelaya remains the president." Interesting that Obama can speak with specificity about Honduras and what is legal and right but can only dance around the issue of freedom when it's on the line in Iran.

[image from cnn.com]

Can You Dribble, Kick or Run?

2009-06-19T11:42:00.007-05:00

A few months back, I blogged about the absurd amount of money that is paid to professional athletes while no one seems to care and yet a CEO of a company gets run out of town on a rail for making such a living. Forbes Magazine has released its list of top paid athletes. The top ten is:

Tiger Woods, $110 million
Kobe Bryant, $45 million
Michael Jordan, $45 million
Kimi Raikonnen, $45 million
David Beckham, $42 million
LeBron James, $40 million
Phil Mickelson, $40 million
Manny Pacquiao, $40 million
Valentino Rossi, $35 million
Dale Earnhardt, Jr., $34 million

The world's top earning females are is tennis star Maria Sharapova ($26 million), Serena Williams ($14 million) and Venus Williams ($13 million). In and of itself, this list probably doesn't really surprise anyone. One only need glance at ESPN.com occasionally to find out the contracts these athletes sign on a pretty regular basis (not to mention signing bonuses that I mentioned in the blog linked above).

The problem is that there is a decidedly anti-executive attitude in today's press and from politicians looking to score points with class warfare and keep support from unions. For example, according to the ALF-CIO, their list of the top ten highest paid CEO's is as follows:

Bruce Wasserstein, Lazard Ltd., $134 million
Lawrence J. Ellison, Oracle Corporation, $85 million
Mario J. Gabelli, GAMCO Investors, Inc., $71 million
Richard C. Adkerson, Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc., $68 million
Leslie Moonves, CBS Corporation, $68 million
Michael T. Fries, Liberty Global, Inc., $57 million
Raymond Barrette, White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. $57 million
Bob R. Simpson, XTO Energy, Inc., $57 million
Lloyd C. Blankfein, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., $54 million
Robert A. Iger, The Walt Disney Company, $51 million

(For the record, CEO's at pariahs Exxon [Rex W. Tillerson] and Walmart [H. Lee Scott] made $27 million and $30 million respectively. For the rest of the top 100 see here.)

I'm sure the salaries in Hollywood would make an equally effective comparison. Last I checked, companies like those listed on the AFL-CIO website either produce goods or offer services for people to use. Actors and athletes do neither of those things. On top of that, the NBA recently opened a line of credit to offer to some of its struggling franchises so they could pay support personnel...heaven forbid the athletes have to take a cut in pay or help out with the lowly support staff that actually make it possible for them to play their little game and get paid thousands of dollars for every minute their on the floor.

Put It In Yourself...

2009-06-18T11:03:00.005-05:00

Ok, so the sexual references in these commercials are pretty obvious. While youtube comments on this series of commercials have been filled up with people arguing over the homosexual overtones in the commercials, I have a different beef. Imagine if the oven were talking in a sexy woman's voice...some sultry, breathy voice. People would be up in arms about how Quizno's is a sexist company and is promoting mysoginistic ideas and should be boycotted and every woman that works at one should quit. NOW would have the ACLU in tow leading the charge against Quizno's. Such is the world created by affirmative action and political correctness...a world where double standards are the norm for those outside the "majority."

Ok...one more...

I guess with only a fraction of their locations actually in Gulf Coast states (or Southern states in general), Joe's can afford to insult the area. Besides, since we on the Gulf Coast don't really have electricity (or indoor plumbing, for that matter) we probably won't even see these commercials anyway, right? There's a difference in being offensive and insulting...

Stick and Stone May Break My Bones...

2009-06-15T11:44:00.005-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the various names used to identify the two major parties in U.S. politics. I've thought some more about some of the labels that have been thrown around a lot lately with little to no grounding whatsoever. I think the best way to view the differences between the various points of view is to look at life as a citizen being roughly parallel to a game or something one plays at. With that in mind, here are a few ways to think about some of the epithets (some more hostile than others) being applied today (for the record, I'm not explaining these various "isms" but merely using a common metaphor to try to compare them). They are each stated from the view of the government.

Communism - You can only play the game(s) we tell you to play and we determine the rules of the game(s), said rules being subject to change at our discretion without prior notice. Said games are to be played in the interest of the state (government).

Fascism - You can play any game(s) we specify you may play and we determine the rules of the game(s) and reserve the right to forbid you from playing various games at various times. Also, the rules of each game(s) is/are subject to change at our discretion without prior notice (although a perfunctory "ballot initiative" may be utilized to simulate citizen input). Said games are to be played in the interest of the state (government). (It should be important to note that fascism is not a "left/right" issue. Fascism can be either liberal or conservative.)

Socialism - You may play any game(s) you like but we determine the rules of the game(s) and reserve the right to forbid you from playing various games at various times. Also, the rules of each game(s) is/are subject to change at our discretion without prior notice (although a perfunctory "ballot initiative" may be utilized to simulate citizen input). Rules will be enforced on a case by case basis, the standards of enforcement varying based on the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other arbitrary standard we may include in the future. Said games are to be played in the interest of the "underprivileged" in conjunction with national interests, however the benefits of said games must go to the state (government), specifically the politicians in charge of running said state.

Capitalism -You may play any game(s) you like. The rules are determined by general consensus of those playing the same game. Said rules must be made public so that others may decide whether or not they wish to play as well. Participants are expected to be self-disciplined and self-policing. Appeals regarding the breaking of the rules may be handled internally by those playing the game but if no satisfactory agreement is obtained, the participants may appeal to us (the government's judicial system) for a final ruling. As far as possible, such rules as we determine will deal with the making of rules for the game(s) and not with the actual rules of said game(s). Said games are to be played in the interest of the self-aware, yet not self-absorbed, individual.

Anarchism - You may play any game(s) you like and may make up your own rules to each game(s). If your rules give you an advantage over others playing by different rules, that is not a matter for the state. We are in no position to enforce rules so making rules is superfluous. Said games are to be played in the interest of the self-centered, self-absorbed individual.

There are obviously many variations of these different points of view but in light of the current political climate, especially as we teeter on the edge of having one ideology in power in the federal government, it would be helpful if we all brushed up on exactly what some of the terms that are being thrown around willy-nilly actually mean.

Twenty years...I remember...

2009-06-04T20:36:00.003-05:00

June fifth is the 20th anniversary of one of the most familiar photos from the Tiananmen Square protests in China. When the Olympics were in Beijing, I wrote several blogs on China and human rights and their pollution problems and stuff like that (see here, here, here and here.) The one that came to mind was this one. In it, I link to a map of the locations where many of the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre died.

I bring all of this up because I can't help but wonder if I could have stood in front of that tank. Rhetorically, we talk a lot about freedom of religion and of speech and of assembly. The right to bear arms, a fair trial and prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment are often taken for granted. Seldom do we ever really have to think about such things in more concrete ways because we feel like our freedoms are protected by the Constitution and by our government. The problem is that we take the Constitution for granted and assume to much about our government. The place we're most likely to be threatened to lose our freedom is from our own government. The encroachment of the government is likely under either a Republican or a Democrat. It's likely to happen under the watch of either the right or the left. More government is not the answer to our problems. In fact, in many cases government really is the problem. Sure, people "protested" at tea parties (exactly what they were protesting, I'm not exactly sure, but that's another blog), but their lives were never in danger. Even the nitwits who have protested the current war on terror by terrorizing returning soldiers haven't been in danger of losing their lives (except maybe by a righteously indignant soldier). It would be easy for our rights to be taken right out from under us and we'd never know it (see "The Patriot Act").

So, the point of this rambling is this: could you or I stand in front of a tank and say "Enough!"? Are freedom and liberty so important and such worthy causes that you or I would be willing to give our lives to try to ensure their survival? Maybe an even better question would be, "would you or I even recognize freedom or liberty being gone in the first place?"

[photo from AP via Investor's Business Daily Editorials. IDB caption: Thursday marks the 20th anniversary of the Chinese military assault on demonstrators on the night of June 3-4, 1989, in Tiananmen Square. In this iconic June 5, 1989, photo, a protester blocks a line of tanks heading east on Beijing's Cangan Blvd. in front of the Beijing Hotel. The man, calling for an end to the violence and bloodshed against pro-democracy demonstrators, was pulled away by bystanders.]

What's In A Name?

2009-05-29T13:32:00.001-05:00

Apparently the en vogue thing to do in Washington these days is to change what we call things in order to fix them. The "war on terror" is now "overseas contingency operations" and "acts of terror" are now called "man-made disasters." While the debate over these changes will probably be ongoing, I think one positive adjustment has been the dropping of the term "war on drugs," which has been a dismal failure. (For more on decriminalization of drugs in Portugal and the possible ramifications here, see blog and links here.) Interestingly, the GOP recently announced they were dropping an effort to get the Democratic Party change its name to the Democrat Socialist Party. (Seriously? That's the best that the Republicans have to discuss?)

Even the names of the two major parties themselves, Republican and Democrat, are somewhat misleading. Republicans don't advocate an oligarchic state run by a small group of the best and brightest. Democrats don't advocate for a true democracy of the majority ruling by virtue of being the majority.

Anyway, in the spirit of naming and renaming, I was thinking about how the labels are used to identify political parties beyond just their party names. For example, liberals and conservatives are usually used as synonyms for Democrats and Republicans, respectively. One newer adjective is becoming more prominent among Democrats who find the term liberal to have come to carry too much pejorative weight, progressive. I can't help but think of the progressive movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's that still held to the idea that humankind was ever progressing and improving. Defining progress is difficult but the notion that progress is automatically a good thing because it can be done is fallacious from the start. Besides, one person's progress may not be progress to someone else, or may even be regress to another. Progressive seems to be a much more warm and fuzzy alternative to liberal, but I think it is more fitting for Democrats than liberal, as I'll explain below.

Another term being applied to Democrats from the GOP is socialist (and in some cases, communist). The two, communism and socialism, should not be confused, and I think the charge of communism is still off base. However, I find socialist to be a rather appropriate descriptor for the Democratic party. Socialism is a very broad term but basically it implies a great level of government intervention into the lives of its citizens. While the level of government intervention may vary from incarnation to incarnation of socialism, the core of it is government intervention and control (see Nazism and Communism) While Democrats may view it as derogatory, the term socialist, is an accurate descriptor in many ways.

As for Republicans, the name conservative still fits the party in many ways. Republicans want to keep things as they are (or were). Where this gets the GOP in the most trouble is in keeping people moral attitudes and sensibilities the way they were. The influx of fundamentalism from the Religious Right (the single worst thing that ever happened to the GOP, in my opinion) expanded the scope of Republican conservatism to include social practices. A return to Victorian prudence seems to be the goal of many Republicans. Instead of abridging economic freedom, the conservatives of the GOP lean toward abridging personal freedom (censorship, sexuality, alcohol, etc.). With the advent of the Bush administration's penchant for spending, the only true conservation within the GOP is in regard to determining social norms. (Another term that may be applicative to Republicans may be legalistic, but that term is a bit more narrow than I would use to characterize the group as a whole.)

So what about the name liberal? It does not really apply to the "left" as has usually been the case. The word itself comes from the Latin liberalis, where we get our word liberty. Liberty and freedom are synonymous. True freedom (e.g. liberty) is only achieved when people are allowed to make choices for themselves, not based on what the state tells them is good or has chosen for them (see national health care) and not based on what a preacher or religion or political party tells you is the "right" thing to do (homosexuality, prostitution, etc). Until one party or the other comes around to understanding what true freedom is (and was what this nation was founded on), I'll not join either of their ranks. I'll continuing to be a libertarian leaning independent. (For "The World's Smallest Political Quiz", and to find out where you are on the spectrum of liberality, see here. For a more detailed quiz, see the "Libertarian Purity Quiz" here...by the way, I scored 69.)

Social Security...In The Funny Papers...

2009-05-14T20:05:00.002-05:00

Related to my previous post...

[cartoons from Ramirez and Stantis]

Social Security, Medicare, and Health Care Reform, OH MY!!

2009-05-14T13:20:00.005-05:00

Lots has been said and written about health care reform in this country. Facts and figures range from politician to politician, so I'm not so much interested in the numbers as I am the big picture effects of the promised "reform."

In an April 19 interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Larry Summers, referring to an Obama statement that savings had already been identified, said that "[T]the really important issue for the long run...is changing the way in which we deliver health care in this country. You know, there have been a whole set of studies done, they look at health care, the frequency of different procedures, whether it's tonsillectomies or hysterectomies in different parts of the country, and what you see is that in some parts of the country procedures are done three times as frequently and there's no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we--estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system."

In other words, by telling people who want those procedures for personal reasons that the procedures are not necessary because they don't serve the larger population and are a waste of money and that they can't have those procedures (at least not funded by the health care regime) will save money in the long run. How this doesn't fit the definition of rationing, I don't know. In addition, it flies in the face of the ideals of freedom from government interference in our personal lives that this country was founded on. Enough about that though...

Social Security and Medicare, are schemes that would make Bernie Madoff feel like a small time crook. The Ponzi scheme of paying prior investors with money from current and future investors works well as long as the number paying in increases relative to those who are receiving money. A few videos will illustrate:

So what is the best way to save Social Security and Medicare? Health care reform. Yep, that's right, reforming health care can save Social Security and Medicare. How? It's simply really. Rationing of health care will cut costs, saving some money (a good bit according to Summers). In addition, this rationing will result in a reduction of people who live into retirement, thus creating an additional savings. Think Logan's Run or The Giver for example. The fewer people who live to retirement, the few people there are to need Social Security and Medicare. Pretty smart, huh?

[image from Social Security Administration; videos and other information can be found at savesonny.org]

Do As I Say...Or As I Tell You To Do...

2009-05-05T22:53:00.002-05:00

In case you've missed it, in the huge omnibus spending bill that passed Congress a few weeks ago, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) added an amendment to kill the D.C. school voucher program. This article discusses the double standard that Democrats are using in this decision, but perhaps most egregious is Durbin's own explanation. In his floor statement defending his killer amendment, Mr. Durbin admitted he chose Catholic schools for his own children. "If I entrusted my own children to [private education], I certainly believe in it." But he went on to say this choice should be there only for Americans who pay for it.

This choice (choosing an educational institution) should only be for Americans who can pay for it? Really? Why not other choices? Why not "owning a home" (as opposed to renting)? Had Congress taken this attitude with home ownership (a privelege, not a right) we very likely could have avoided many of the problems that brought us into this current recession.

What about "healthcare"? Stick with me on this one. Larry Summers has suggested that some elective procedures like some tonsilectomies and hysterectomies are only adding to the health care costs of Americans. Those elective procedures sould be streamlined by government intervention through universal healthcare (see rationing). If people can A) afford the procedures themselves, or B) afford the insurance that will pay for the procedures, why should the government intrude and tell citizens what procedures they can have? (For more on this, see John Lott's blog here or article here. In his article, he points out that Summers made no mention of such rationing of abortion, even though they equally rarely involve life and death situations.)

So, bottom line. Something as important as education, only those who can afford it should be allowed to choose. In healthcare, those who can afford it shouldn't be the ones to make choices, the government should. Our options are either A) no choice, or B) the government chooses. Either way, we're screwed.

I'm Curious...

2009-04-11T19:45:00.007-05:00

I'm curious. If you know me, you know I'm full of opinions and ideas of my own (some worth something, others, well, not so much). But now I have a question. First, some context.

There's been a lot of talk lately of the "socialization" of America. In truth, America has been in the process of socialization for almost a century, but that's beside the point. The ideologies of socialism and capitalism have been at odds with each other for decades. Ideologically, I'm a capitalist (and take "capitalist pig" as a compliment) but I'm also a realist. Ideologically, I find socialism to be morally wrong on a couple of levels. Ideologically, I'm about as opposed to socialism as you can probably be.

But, because we find ourselves in dire straights economically and because all ideas should at least be on the table and because I do have some pragmatic sensibilities to me, I have a question. My question is, pragmatically speaking, what can socialism do? How can socialism possibly save us? I'm not talking about blaming capitalism for our problems (which is a red herring at best and a gross misunderstanding of capitalism at worst) and I'm not talking about why socialism is morally superior to capitalism (which is an argument I know and reject). In other words, I'm not looking for ideological reasons why socialism is to be preferred (I hear enough ideology from Washington). I want to know, pragmatically speaking, what can socialism do to save the country (or the world)?

Pay Me...I Can Sign My Name...

2009-03-17T13:46:00.010-05:00

I'm not going to go into a lot of depth on this blog because I think the subject matter speaks for itself and because I'm more interested in thinking about it than coming to some kind of conclusion about it.

Recently, NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo has said that 73 employees of AIG have received $1M+ bonuses. These bonuses were contracted between the employees and AIG and should have been noticed by the government when they tried to bail the giant corporation out of it's financial mess. Apparently the federal government was asleep at the wheel.

All that aside though, with the top executive getting $6M, I understand that AIG has brought about a certain amount of ire in how it has conducted itself over the past year in light of the government's continued efforts to bail the company out. However, I want to know why it is that companies pay large bonuses like this regularly and now they come under fire for it (not only AIG but other companies as well), while signing bonuses in major sports are routinely equal to or greater than the bonuses these executives receive. Why is there some kind of moral indignance over the heads of companies that employ hundres of people and produce products lots of us use and enjoy getting large bonuses while many of these athletes get these exorbitant sums before they even hit the playing surface for their teams?

For example, here is a list of the signing bonuses for the first-round selections in the 2008 MLB amateur basebally draft...total of approximately $71M with an average of approximately $2.5M among those who signed. In July of last year, Oakland signed top prospect Michael Inoa, a 16-year-old from the Dominican Republic, to a contract with a $4.25M signing bonus. On the other end of the spectrum, veteran pitcher CC Sabathia was signed by the Yankees to a 7-year, $161M contract with a signing bonus of $9M. Because of the structure of the agreement, Sabathia will receive over $9M (partially bonus, partially salary) before the season opens in April.

Other examples from other sports can be found with simple searches on Google or Goodsearch. I used baseball examples because they came up first. NBA salaries are incredibly bloated (See here for some breakdowns by player, position and team). Regardless of their nomenclature, the NBA also recently gave a bailout to some of its less financially stable teams to keep from laying off administrative staff and other support staff. (Here's an idea...stop wasting money on the players and pay the support staff.) My question is simply this: "Why is no one outraged with the salaries that athletes are paid (especially signing bonuses in light of current news events) and yet feel righteously indignant over salaries of CEO's and other high level executives of companies? Why is this not a double standard to focus on one and not the other? Also, what about artists like actors and big name recording artists?"

With Apologies...

2009-03-12T12:46:00.011-05:00

I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of President Obama. I find myself at odds with the majority of his policy plans, but realize that those are differences in ideology (and yes, Obama is as much an ideologue as the next politician). That being said, I have no visceral reaction to Obama like so many liberals did to Bush. I just disagree with him on most issues.

In spite of my disagreements, I can honestly say that I never thought Obama would be an embarrassment but I've been proven wrong less than two months into his presidency. Bush was sometimes embarrassing, but it was almost always because of his personality and not because he was downright rude and thoughtless. Obama's recent blunder is nothing short of insensitive, rude and insulting. It wasn't a mistake--a mistake is wearing a black sock and a blue sock. It wasn't an oversight--an oversight is when your due diligence misses something in spite of your best efforts. It was nothing short of a thoughtless embarrassment.

Last week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the Obamas at the White House. There was no customary joint press conference with the two leaders of the two greatest nations on the planet standing in front of their respective flags (we'd hate for Brown to show Obama up by not using a teleprompter like Obama has to). While that may be customary, skipping the press conference is not big deal. The big deal was the customary exchange of gifts between the heads of state and their wives.

Brown presented Obama with a pen set made from the wood of the anti-slave ship HMS Gannet, whose sister ship was the HMS Resolute. The desk in the Oval Office was a gift from England in 1880 and is made from the timbers of the Resolute. Immense sybolic meaning behind this gift. The Gannet pen set sitting on the Resolute desk, both gifts from the UK, in plain sight of any other world leaders who come to the Oval Office. The United States and United Kingdom are bound by solidarity with one another. In addition, Brown also gave the president a framed commission for the HMS Resolute and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill. Not to be outdone, President Obama presented Brown with (drum roll, please) a set of 25 DVD's, classic American films. That's right, Obama gave the Prime Minister of Great Britain 25 DVD's. Several commenters on English paper websites wondered along with me whether they even took into consideration that DVD's are region encoded Region 1 (North America) or are Region 2 (Europe).

Adding insult to injury, the First Lady was presented with gifts from Topshop for the Obamas' daughters. In addition, the Browns gave the girls six yet to be published children's books by British authors. In return, the Obama's gave the Browns models of Marine One, the president's helicopter, to take home to their sons.

Nothing says I thought a lot about these gifts because our relationship is special like a gift of DVD's that can be bought at Blockbuster or model helicopters that any visitor to Washington can pick up at Dulles.

Small by comparison, during his redecorating of the Oval Office (standard procedure for a new president) Obama decided to remove a bust of Winston Churchill that the British had let the previous administration borrow soon after the 9/11 attacks, a sign of solidarity and good will between our two countries. A bust of Abraham Lincoln now stands in the place where the Churchill bust once was. Instead of continuing the loan of the sculpture as it was extended by the Brits to do, Obama has decided to say "Thanks but no thanks" and send the gift back to the Brits. All presidents redecorate the Oval Office, so the busts removal is not altogether out of the ordinary, but it could have been put on display in another area of the White House and not returned so unceremoniously.

In the end, I feel compelled to offer an apology to the Brits. It's not my fault really because I didn't vote for him, but, as president of my country, I still feel sorry that Obama insisted on putting so little thought into such an important meeting with such an important ally. For Bush, my sentiment was often one like that of apologizing for a drunk buddy who just doesn't know what he's saying. For Obama, it's more like apologizing for that friend you bring home from college that you realize too late that he/she has no regard for your family. A drunk buddy will sober up eventually, but a snobby, snooty, condescending friend will be hard pressed to change.

For a humorous look at this from the other side of the pond, check here and listen to the first 15 minutes or so.

Monkey Business...

2009-02-21T20:14:00.004-06:00

This particular story seems to have developed a life of its own. Because the rhetoric surrounding it has continued to crescendo, I thought I might bring it up myself. A brief background into the story is necessary first. Earlier in the week, Travis the chimpanzee attacked a friend of his owner prompting a frantic call to police who had to resort to deadly force to save the woman. The woman sustained significant injuries to her hands and face. The entire episode has even spurred renewed interest in changing federal law involving animals like chimpanzees.

On Tuesday, President Obama signed the $787,000,000 "stimulus" bill into law in Denver, Colorado. If you've missed the criticism of the bill...well, I don't know how you could have missed it. Anyway, the Cato Institute has been one of the institutions at the vanguard of critiquing the spending measure. You can read more at their website. One visual critique of the "stimulus" package was a cartoon in the New York Post on Thursday, 18 February. Drawing on the tragic shooting of the frenzied chimp, editorial cartoonist Sean Delonas depicted police officers standing over a chimp with bullet wounds, one with a smoking gun, the other saying "they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The cartoon drew immediate and sharp criticism, likening it's protrayal of a chimpanzee as author of the stimulus package to a racist attack on President Obama and asserting that it encourages attacks on the president. The NAACP has even called for the firing of the cartoonist and the cartoonist's editor to be fired. With a historic achievement like the election of this country's first minority president supposedly pushing us into a post-racial society, it is sad that incidents like this one only serve to illustrate how far from the truth that really is.

As for the cartoon itself, I don't find it to be specifically racist in it's overtones. First, there is an obvious connection to a very recent news story that did indeed involve a chimpanzee. I think it was in poor taste for Delonas to use a tragic event like the chimp story to draw his satire, but I don't think it was a specifically racial reference. Second, the reason I don't believe it to be racist is because President Obama didn't write the stimulus bill himself anyway. The House made their changes before the bill was sent to the Senate, where it was changed even more. The two houses finally agreed and sent their compromise bill to Obama to sign. Sam Stein, of the Huffington Post, has been quoted as saying, "At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus bill was so bad, monkeys may as well have written it. Most provocatively, it compares the president to a rabid chimp." Given the fact that Obama didn't write the bill himself but that it was the product of the Democratic contingency in Congress (plus three re-election minded Republican Senators) that produced and passed it, I'm given to agree with Stein's former point.

Perhaps most disappointing in all of this is the NAACP and, more specifically, Al Sharpton. While I am certainly no apologist for Obama, I do recognize and appreciate the fact that we have come to the point in this country of electing someone from a minority race to the office of president. Some have quibbled about the fact that Obama is, in fact, bi-racial, but the fact remains that, by old laws, Obama would have been affected by segregationist laws and his election is indeed historic regardless. In truth, Obama's election is the death knell for race baiters like Al Sharpton, proving that if a member of a minority race can be elected president, we should certainly be beyond the days of preaching defiance and reverse discrimination (especially those like Shaprton who have done so apart from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's. peaceful civil disobedience). Sharpton called it "troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys" proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is stuck living in the past by referencing "historic racist attacks." In addition, the NAACP, which has done positive things for African Americans, stands shoulder to shoulder with Sharpton threatening to "move this from a local, regional issue to a very national issue" as if it wasn't a national issue already with the media frenzy that has developed. NCAAP chairperson Julian Bond ridiculously called it "an invitation to assassination of the president of the United States."

Had the cartoon been drawn apart from the context of the situation in Connecticut with the chimpanzee that went crazy, I would certainly assume the cartoon to be a racist attack and worthy of the cartoonist being dismissed from the paper, assuming the paper would like to maintain some level of journalistic integrity. However, with the obvious (yet, in my opinion, distasteful) reference to the tragedy in Connecticut, the current furor over Delanos' cartoon would make the witch hunters of Salem squeal with glee at people jumping to conclusions...especially in an enlightened, post-racial society like we supposedly reached with the election of President Obama.

There Goes the Neighborhood...

2009-02-11T16:16:00.009-06:00

Congress has reportedly reached an agreement on the stimulus package. While the bill is reportedly below the $800,000,000 mark, the long term costs are still anybody's guess...likely into the trillions of dollars when all is said and done.

Anyway, the stimulus package has been debated hotly among political pundits and economists. Only three Republicans voted for the package in either of the houses of Congress. Obama, in selling the stimulus, asserted that "there is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help jumpstart the economy." The only problem is that there is in fact disagreement. Check this list to see a large group of economists who disagree with Obama's resurrection of Keynesianism.

In addition to the fact that there is in fact disagreement on the stimulus bill, the bill itself is full of pork and earmark spending--the very thing Obama promised to stop. As recently as last month, then president-elect Obama promised his stimulus proposal wouldn't include pork. "We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review. We're not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period." And yet, both houses passed bills that were covered up with pet projects, earmarks and pork. (This breakdown is as of 1/15/09. I haven't seen the breakdown of the compromise bill, but with a price tag of just under $800,000,000, there won't be a lot of change in this list.) For more on Obama's "promise" to cut earmarks, see here.

Economists may disagree about the effects of the stimulus package and even the necessity of having a stimulus package at all. One thing I haven't seen discussed is how such a spending bill circumvents budgetary restraints. In effect, this bill is nothing more than a way for lawmakers to spend money that they wouldn't be able to put in a regular budget. In other words, a budget this large would never fly at all with the American people, but by tapping into the paranoia and fear of the people and passing it as an emergency measure, the spending is now on the books. With roughly a third of the bill being comprised of tax cuts, the rest is a massive amount of spending that will be paid for by my generation and my children's generation and my children's children's generation.
[Cartoons from Ramirez and Stantis]

Can you count to a trillion before you die?

2009-02-06T19:11:00.005-06:00

Much to my chagrin, it looks as though the economic porkulus package will be passing through the Senate. In the video below, Glenn Beck plays a clip of Nancy Pelosi saying that "every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500,000,000 Americans lose their jobs."

Really? We lose 500 million jobs? That's funny. Last I saw, there are only a little over 300 million citizens in the United States. Apparently we owe somebody some jobs somewhere. And she is the "leader" of the people running this country. And we thought Bushisms were bad...

Anyway, this second video is Glenn's commentary on the fearmongering that President Obama has resorted to in trying to regain support for the stimulus package. It intrigues me that when Bush fearmongered (which I think he did to an extent) with the military/defense money, the left cried out with much wailing and gnashing of teeth and yet Obama gets away with saying things like that if the stimulus package doesn't pass the country may never recover.

Do you even know what all the pork and waste in the "stimulus" package is? Do you have any idea where all of the nearly $1,000,000,000,000 is supposed to go? Check this out (also linked above) for an idea of where all they want this money to go.

Let's try to get a little more perspective on what $1,000,000,000,000 is. (With interest, the stimulus will cost that much at least.) If Publisher's Clearinghouse had a $1,000,000,000,000 prize paying out over 50 years it would take 20,000,000,000 years (that's 20 billion). You could spend $1,000,000 dollars a day for over 2,700 years with a trillion dollars. That is an insane amount of money...

It may be a bit of an overstatement to say we're headed for Communism, but with people as clueless at Pelosi helping to guide the process, I think I'm probably more fearful for my generation (Gen X) and the ones that follow than anyone was when W was in office.

Economic Viagra...

2009-01-29T11:19:00.007-06:00

It's been over a month since I last posted on here. No particular reason for that. Just nothing that really caught my interest enough to write about or, if it did, it wasn't something I wanted to commit my thought about it to writing. Anyway, I'm back again for now.

"The aim of politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

If you've opened a newspaper or news magazine, if you've turned on any news program on TV, if you've looked at any news website in the last six months to a year, you've seen the clamor surrounding the late, great US economy. Some might have us believe we're in an even greater depression than the Great Depression. Others are less severe about it. In any case, the great preponderance of stories seem to forecast doom and gloom for a long time. Enter the politicians.

In this article in the NY Times reporting the passage of the stimulus package through the House, President Obama urged “...what we can’t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do.” Interestingly (and somewhat encouragingly) the bill cleared the House with only Democrats voting for it. While the merits of the government "putting Americans to work" can be argued ad nausaem, the idea that "we can't drag out feet" seems to be a bit problematic, especially from someone hailed as a pragmatist.

Not only should we not drag our feet but we shouldn't "allow the same partisan differences to get in our way." This is Presidient Obama's statement but it seems to reflect the general attitude of the Democratic leadership as a whole. Why do we even have partisan differences in the first place? Because we have philosophical differences in how things should be done. It's not rocket surgery we're talking about. For some reason, in the past few years, when Democrats worked against legislation it was because of principle. Now, when the GOP threatens to stand against legislation, it's partisanship.

Some some hail as pragmatism is nothing more than a philosophical framework that President Obama works from. At its heart, his "pragmatism" is still based on a philosophical foundation, an ideology. (We're all ideologues at heart, so don't even start on how Obama is not an ideologue. We may have different ideologies, but we're all ideologues.) The president wants to rush this nearly $1,000,000,000,000 (that would be a trillion, by the way) stimulus package through with little, if any, data to suggest that it will be successful. The bank stimulus' failure has been linked to lack of oversight and accountability but those who would misuse the funds will find ways around the oversight (politicans, above all people, should know that).

The stimulus packages from last year did not work. Period. Trying to force through an even larger version of something that didn't work in the past is not practical. The stimulus package is an ideological solution, not a pragmatic one. On the most important issue of the day, the man hailed as being a pragmatist is already showing himself to be the ideologue he declared we needed freedom from. ("What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry - an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels." --Barack Obama See here for more on that.)

[Cartoons from Ramirez and Stantis]

It's Not Always What You Say...And Sometimes It Is...

2008-12-16T18:57:00.003-06:00

See Sedition Act (1918 especially, and also 1798). For good measure, you may want to also look at the Fairness Doctrine.

[Cartoon from IDB Editorials by Ramirez]

Props...

2008-12-03T19:50:00.010-06:00

[This is the second of a two part blog on Prop 8 and gay marriage. You can read the first part here.]

Most of the hoopla over Prop 8 in California has passed and the main fields of battle are the courts once again. The question I would like to pose is, why gay marriage in the first place?

One of the arguments I've heard most often floated for gay marriage is that it's morally indefensible to deny two people who love each other the right to be married to each other. Perhaps, but there is no one denying gay couples the right of having their relationship. Does a married couple need the state to recognize them as married to validate their love and relationship? Of course not. If it were only about love, the state's involvement would be a moot point because the state can't legislate relationships (even though I'm sure Jerry Falwell would have liked to have tried it).

Well, some may say, married couples get tax benefits that gay couples aren't allowed to have, and they aren't able to get benefits at work that straight couples have. Without getting into the potential liabilities inherent in a homosexual relationship, if that's the direction the argument takes, then it's not about love at all; it's about money. To say 'we want to be married because we want to file our taxes like married people' is a money issue, not an example of a relationship being stifled by the state.

So what should the state's role in all of this be? What should the state do? Shouldn't the state provide for the equitable treatment of it's citizens? This is the part where I show myself to truly be neither liberal nor conservative. All I ask is that you hang with me to the end here. The short answers are: none, nothing, and it depends.

Let's talk about the love aspect of this. As it stands, marriage defined by most states is basically a contract between a man and a woman. The assumption is that these two people are married because they love each other. The argument for gay marriage basically question the validity of the two people being required to be the opposite sexes. If two people of different sexes are married in the eyes of the state (on the basis of mutual love and affection), why can't two people of the same sex be married (on the same basis)? In response, I ask why can't three people who share said love and affection be married together? Why not two couples who share each other with, well, each other? To allow gay marriage but not polygamy is an affront the the "equal protection" gays seek in legalizing gay marriage in the first place.

Someone may say, but polygamy isn't really what those people want to do. They're conditioned to say that or feel that way. Really? That same subjective argument could just as easily (and validly) be made against gay marriage. Sauce for the goose, right?

What about the money? Why should straight couples be given the benefits of marriage like taxes and such while gay couples are denied those benefits? First, to get married for money or financial benefits is a lousy reason to get married. Be that as it may, the problem is not the marriage laws; the problem is tax laws. 'Whoa, whoa, whoa,' you may say. 'We're not talking about tax laws.' This is true, but the tax laws bring us to something deeper and more fundamental to the question of gay marriage.

The fundamental problem that underlies the entire marriage debate is that the state shouldn't be involved in the act of marriage as it is. Marriage is a religious rite, not a government sanctioned event. Churches (or denominations, as the case may be) should be the ones to determine whether or not they will sanction a gay marriage. Whether they do or not is up to that denomination or congregation. Just like the issues of women in ministry, speaking in tongues or abortion, if a person doesn't like the stance that his or her congregation/denomination takes on gay marriage, consider whether the issue is serious enough to make a change. For purposes such as probate proceedings and power of attorney issues, the secular marriage of "civil unions" may take the place of marriage.

So where does that leave the tax laws and such that benefit married couples? In short, the tax code is the problem. The really only fair way to adjust the tax code is a consumption tax. (While there isn't room to discuss it in full here, you can find out more about one of the more popular versions here.) There is no silver bullet for fixing the tax code, but it needs to start somewhere and the issues surrounding gay marriage only serve to highlight how badly the tax code needs fundamental change.

The bottom line is this: the specific issue of gay marriage shouldn't be an issue at all. It shouldn't be an issue because marriage as a whole-gay, straight, polygamous, etc.- shouldn't be administered by the state in the first place. The First Amendment prohibits the state from being involved in religious rituals and practice of churches and religious institutions. The Church-both the left and the right, the mainstream and fundamentalists-need to start by returning marriage back to its rightful place, in religious circles, not political ones.

Bees!! BEES!! They're Huge! They're Ripping My Flesh Off!! Save Yourselves!!!

2008-11-25T19:08:00.011-06:00

[This is without a doubt going to take at least two posts to get my entire set of thoughts out in a coherent manner, so if you read this post, just know there will be another one to follow in a day or two. (The title of this blog comes from here.)]

In 1849, Brigham Young, then President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, led the charge to apply for statehood for a proposed State of Deseret (the name from the word for honeybee in the Book of Mormon). The area was much larger than the Utah territory itself (1850) and its size was one deterrent to admitting the state into the union. Another issue that would continue to keep Utah from becoming a state was the Mormon Church's practice of polygamous marriages (or more specifically polygyny).

In January of 1896, nearly fifty years after their initial application, the State of Utah was admitted to the United States of America, but not until they had greed to include a ban on polygamy in their state constitution.

All of the hoopla following the 4 November passing of Prop 8 in California gotten me to thinking. I would be curious to know whether a Deseret would be admitted to the union today if they insisted on practicing polygamy. As it relates to the state, I see no difference between two people of the same sex who choose to live together as a couple and a man and several women who choose to live together as a family (or a woman with several men, although that is quite uncommon). (I'll put some more thoughts directly relating to the state and marriage in my second blog.)

My question about the situation as a whole is where the line is drawn between those who can be married and those who can't according to the states. If minors can obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent, why should there be a statuatory limit on when someone is of marriageable age (this age varies from state to state)? While the practice seems absurd to most Americans, what prevents someone from marrying an animal other than arbitary governmental prohibition if they've emigrated to the US? Or why is polygamy still seen as aberrant, even though it was accepted by a small portion of our population just over a century ago?

Particularly disturbing in the wake of Prop 8 is the vitiolic rhetoric that has come from some of the opponents of Prop 8. However, if it were nothing but rhetoric, it would be different, but that's just not the case. With the requirement that campaign donors be made public, those who supported Prop 8 have been exposed to attack, slander and libel the likes of which would not be tolerated and would be all over the 5 o'clock news if the shoe were on the other foot. Protests have been staged in front of churches and synagogues (interestingly no mosques that I've seen). Business have also been targeted, not just for a boycott but for blacklisting and intimidation. The "McCarthyite" tactics liberals have long decried are now fair game for them to practice. While the negativity of these people may be the minority of those who opposed Prop 8, little has been said to dissuade this minority from the crusade on which they've embarked (the article linked above at least recognizes the inconsistencies in the Prop 8 opponents posturing).

Perhaps most ironic in this episode is that the Mormon Church is taking the major brunt of the anti-Prop 8 activists (see here, and here for a couple of stories), ironic because the Mormons were some of the first to be persecuted and ostracized because of their beliefs about marriage.

Next blog: Marriage: Love or Money? and Marriage: Church v. State

[photo from the LA Times]

You Could Learn A Lot From A Dummy...

2008-11-20T11:00:00.004-06:00

This cartoon is too good not to share. See my previous blog for some of my thoughts about the Big 3's request for bailout money.

[Cartoon from The Birmingham News editorial cartoonist Scott Stantis]

Paradigm Shift--"Abandon Ship"-->"All Aboard"

2008-11-19T15:41:00.009-06:00

I've been intrigued by Obama's choices for his cabinet over the past few weeks. For someone who ran on a campaign of change, he sure is looking to the old guard for his cabinet posts. But that's a blog for another day.

In case you thought that is the $700,000,000,000 financial bailout that Congress passed shortly before the presidential election wasn't a Pandora's Box, you should definitely rethink that. (BTW, I like writing out 700 billion with the zeroes like that because if gives it a bit more perspective, don't you think?) Anyway, executives from the Big 3 automakers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) were on Capitol Hill making their bid for $25,000,000,000 of the bailout money to keep them afloat. Many Democrats in Congress have come out in support of bailout out the failing auto giants (no union influence there, right?). These same people who have been so critical of the "golden parachutes" and irresponsible business of commercial banks seem to be absolutely ga-ga to give money to Detroit, in spite of the fact that the executives from the Big 3 flew to Washington on private jets. 'Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., said there was "a delicious irony in seeing private jets flying into Washington D.C. and people coming off them with tin cups in their hands."' Yes, irony.

Anyway, GM says they're blowing through about $5,000,000,000 a month but they only want $10,000,000,000 to $12, 000,000,000. Seriously? Only a two to two and a half month loan? That's gonna get you back on your feet? 'Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, the senior Republican on the Banking Committee, said he did not believe there would be a turnaround in industry until its top management is ousted and its manufacturing operations are revamped. "I don't think they have immediate plans to change their model, which is a model of failure," Shelby said. He said he thinks a large part of any such bailout would amount to "life support" for the automakers. "I believe their best option would be some type of Chapter 11 bankruptcy," he said. "These leaders have been failures and they need to go."' (I'm proud to say Senator Shelby is from my state.)

The airline industry will be next, then maybe the package delivery industry, followed by the steel industry, then the candy industry, then the shoe industry, then...well, you get the picture. the paradigm that is being set is this: "If your business is failing, forget bankruptcy. Get a bailout from the federal government." Dangerous times, my friend. Dangerous times.

[Cartoons by Ramirez of Investor's Business Daily]

For God's Sake...Just Get Out Of The Way...

2008-11-11T11:14:00.011-06:00

It's reported in the AP, that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling on Europe and the US to lead in a move toward "a New World Order." (Funny how he refrained from mentioning that before the US presidential election, but that's a blog for another day.) Anyway, that's not really what caught my eye.

The article ends saying "Brown will also say the world faces five major challenges — to promote democracy, fight terrorism, strengthen the global economy, tackle climate change and resolve conflict." Ok...let's look at those five a little more closely, shall we?

"Promote democracy"--don't get me wrong, democracy is good in general terms. I like it. It has it's problems and all, but in general, I'm a fan. Not everyone is. One aspect of the ever dynamic definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" was this idea of spreading democracy. You can't force democracy on people that don't want it. If Iraq votes to return to a despotic tyranny the week after our troops are pulled out, that's just how it will have to be. Period. "Chump don't want the help, chump don't get the help."

"Fight terrorism"--this is, without doubt, the most ridiculous of the five he names. Seriously? We need to fight terrorism? Because we haven't been for the last 7 years? I'm glad Brown pointed this one out for us all. We'd have missed it for sure.

"Strengthen the global economy"--Brown addresses this particular challenge in the article talking about the International Monetary Fund and how he proposes to change it and improve it, etc. Here's the problem...government intervention is what has gotten us into the mess we're in. Government can't improve or strengthen the economy. The bailouts are just about the worst monetary policy governments could take (not coincidentally, Obama is pushing for a bailout of the US automakers as well). Anyway, governments getting into the middle of things to "fix" them is not only not the answer, it's a major source of more problems.

"Tackle climate change"--this is perhaps one of the most amusing and, simultaneously, infuriating issues of the day. Amusing because of the brilliant hoax that has been sold to the people. Infuriating because the hoax continues to be perpetuated. Also, this bit about calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming" kills me. "Climate change" is just a convenient nomenclature change to hide the 'inconvenient truth' that Al Gore and his green-nik buddies have been and are wrong about said "climate change." Give me a break. Tackle pollution. That's fine. Tackle energy waste. That's fine. But get off the global warming/climate change bit because "tackling climate change" should rank right up there with "finding Bigfoot," "solving the Bermuda triangle" and "figuring out a dispensational chart of the end times"...they deal with fictions, myths, fear and mystery.

Finally, "resolve conflict"--by this I'm guessing he's referring to the international community (via the UN) resolving the world's conflicts. That has worked out spectacularly in the past. What a great idea. Too bad no one thought of that before.

Ridiculous.

[images from AP via FoxNews; blognetwork.poynter.org/visual/; freakingnews.com; and imao.us respectively]

Election Reflection...

2008-11-07T17:28:00.010-06:00

With the 2008 elections behind us, I thought I might take a bit of time to jot down some of my thoughts about what has transpired and what lies ahead.

First, I must say that it is certainly a historic occasion for the country to elect it's first African American president 150 years after slavery in America. The journey was long but it has been fruitful. In an ironic twist of fate, the Rev. Abraham Woods, a long time civil rights leader, lived just long enough to see Obama elected. He passed away today at Princeton Baptist Medical Center in Birmingham after a long illness. So first and foremost, I do believe congratulations are quite in order for president-elect Obama.

Second, the Republican party has been in an uproar pointing fingers and placing blame on people for losing the election. Bottom line: the McCain campaign was riddled with incompetence. Period. I don't know whether McCain was directly involved in some of the decisions of the campaign or not, but everything from the ads they ran to which states to target to decisions to take off the table legitimate issues pertaining to Obama's judgment and character all pointed to a confused, disorganized campaign that never found a specific identity with which to present the voters. Two specific items really gave me pause when considering McCain as president. First, he supported the Warner-Lieberman legislation on "Global Warming." Second, he voted for the Wall Street bailout package. In the end though, the Republicans chose the worst possible nominee for this election. I don't know where I heard it first, but it is true that McCain was the best Democrat running (you know it's bad if Ann Coulter publicly said she'd have supported Senator Clinton over McCain if she'd won the nomination).

Third, if you're like me, you don't like the fact that Obama was elected. That's fine. However, drop the negativity about it. McCain lost, Obama won. Get over it and yourselves. Having said that, it doesn't mean that we have to drop in lock step with Obama on his policy positions. On this topic, let me make two points. First, Obama's calls for unity are very similar to those of President Bush in 2000. This idea of a "purple" country is a myth. We all have convictions and ideas about our government and none of us should relinquish those if they are legitimate (which I'll get to in point two). I'm not going to say, 'hey, you know what? Obama was elected so now I'm just gonna go with whatever he, Pelosi, and Reid say.' Not gonna happen. The reality is that this country is divided and simply giving the tired rhetoric of us all being Americans ignores the freedom to have different opinions that makes this country what it is. Different opinions are not going to go away because of this election any more than they have in the past elections.

Which leads to my second point on this matter. If you want to oppose Obama's positions, back it up with something other than 'he's a liberal' or 'he's a Democrat.' If you don't like his tax policy, have reasons for it. If you don't like his position on abortion, say more about it than 'abortion is a sin because the Bible says so.' If you don't like his position on the global warming hoax, back it up. If you don't like his positions on energy, defense, the "fairness doctrine," education, federal judges or any other issue, have reasons for it that back up your position.

I'm sure over the next several months I'll have more to say about decisions and statements Obama makes as he transitions into the White House. For now, if you're an Obama supporter, drop the "Yes we did" signs and roll up your sleeves because the real work is about to begin; if you're a McCain supporter, stop the blaming and finger pointing and start to think about the ways that the Republican party has left behind the principles of smaller federal government and civil liberties and how to get back to those core values.

[cartoons my Scott Stantis, of the Birmingham News and Michael Ramirez of Investor's Business Daily]

A Picture Says A Thousand Words...So They Say...

2008-11-04T23:07:00.007-06:00

There are a couple of stories I've come across regarding this picture. I haven't been able to nail down the specifics, but these give a pretty good idea of what is going on here. First, "He cries as he watches the German soldiers marching down the Champs Elysees." Or, "He cries as he watches French soldiers leaving Toulon for Africa, perhaps to fight another day." Or, "We are told in the notes that the photograph was taken on the streets of Paris the day the Germans took over the city."

Finally, "He's not handsome, this weeping man--not beautiful. But there can be no doubt that this proper, well-dressed man is grief-stricken. More than those behind him, he seems to know what will happen to his city, to his life, to his world over the next four years. There are no words necessary. The photograph tells it all."

Where's Iraq?

2008-10-31T11:58:00.003-05:00

A year ago, everyone thought that the Iraq war would be one of the major foci of the presidential campaign. As it has turned out, not so much. To that end, I read an interesting line on cnn.com today. As it turns out, more Marines have been killed in motorcycle accidents than by enemy fire in Iraq. "Twenty-five Marines have died in motorcycle crashes since last November -- all but one of them involving sport bikes that can reach speeds of well over 100 mph, according to Marine officials. In that same period, 20 Marines have been killed in action in Iraq." (See the article here.)

No wonder the Iraq war is off the radar.

No Child Left Behind...No Citizen Let Ahead...

2008-10-27T16:52:00.008-05:00

Tomorrow marks one week until the presidential election. At this point, I couldn't be more apathetic about the election itself because the two major party candidates represent everything that is wrong with our government...out of control spending, intrusive federal government, legislative waste. What I am not apathetic about is my distrust of and all out opposition to Barack Obama. If you're a Barack Obama support at this point, you probably bleed Kool-Aid because, in spite of the media's attempts to hide his blatant socialist agenda, it has still come out in the open. Just today, a clip of an interview of Barack Obama from his days in the State Senate of Illinos has been circulating. If redistribution of wealth (a la Karl Marx..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.") wasn't enough, in this new clip, Obama seems to quite clearly be equating wealth redistribution to reparations. Reparations...let that sink in a few minutes. Reparations.

It has been said that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Too bad those of us who care to read history and try to learn her lessons can only be dragged down by those who refuse to acknowledge the lessons of history...

How Do You Spell "Vote Fraud"?

2008-10-17T15:24:00.006-05:00

In light of the voter fraud allegedly being perpetrated by ACORN, a story in today's Birmingham News is intriguing. Apparently, six Alabama counties have "have more people on their voting rolls than they do people of voting age, according to voter registration numbers and U.S. Census Bureau estimates." The counties are all in what is known as the "Black Belt." The Black Belt tends to vote heavily Democratic and is predominantly African American (but that's not why it's called the Black Belt, so don't even start that). While no vote fraud has taken place in those counties, the way the numbers are looking, it could be a possibility on election day.

An interesting note regarding ACORN (with a corollary to the Alabama counties) is that only the GOP is upset about this. Why isn't the Democratic Party equally upset that the democratic system in this country is potentially being railroaded by someone or someones? This is a bipartisan problem. No one should be allowed to vote if he or she isn't eligible to vote, period. I don't care if they're voting Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, or whatever. Instead, the Democrats don't seem to be concerned about this potentially widespread vote fraud. Why?

From news reports, most of the areas in which ACORN operates are highly Democratic areas with people who are most likely going to vote for Democrats (urban areas with high numbers of African Americans and young people, two groups that typically lean to the left). The counties in Alabama that have been found to be the potentially most problematic are heavily African American, as well. In my previous post, I argued that the Democratic Party is an oppressive force in the United States against the poor. Much like being owned by plantation owners in the antebellum South, many of today's African Americans are equally enslaved...only time will tell the results...

Social Justice...Revisited...

2008-10-16T12:32:00.007-05:00

Some of you know that I have a B.A. in Religion and a Master of Divinity degree. I've heard a lot lately about social justice and how it is a Christian's duty to seek social justice and equality. I'm fine with that, except that I don't think social justice means what Democrats and liberals would have us to believe. (I can hear Inigo Montoya asking Vizzini, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.") Social justice does not mean "equality." Social justice, in terms of equality, means "equal treatment."

As an example of the difference, I would point out Senator Obama's opposition to the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts. Obama explained his "no" vote saying Roberts had "far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak." (See here for more of my thoughts on this obvious example of inciting class war.) It's not a matter of the weak v. the strong in the court of law. It's a matter of right v. wrong so far as the law is applied. If your the religious type and really think that it's about the weak against the strong or the poor against the rich then you've already lost me there. It makes no sense to replace "Might makes right" with "Weakness makes right" just to sound like you're helping along the cause of "social justice" when in reality you only make the situation worse.

"Worse?" you say? Yes, worse. "How can giving so much to the poor and unfortunate be bad? Isn't that caring for the poor, like Jesus said?" Jesus obviously had liberals in mind when he said that you would always have the poor with you because keeping the poor poor is exactly what the Democratic tax plan will do.

The marginal tax rate is, if I understand correctly, basically the difference in the amount of taxes you'll pay if you make more money than you're making now (apologies for my gross oversimplification to economists everywhere). In other words, the marginal tax rate is how much it costs you to move up a tax bracket. Keep that thought in your head. Under Obama's tax plan, he cleverly disguises the redistribution of wealth (made famous by Joe the Plumber) as "tax credits." In other words, people can get tax credits whether they actually owe any taxes or not.

Let's pause and mention tax cuts versus tax credits. A tax cut means that the government takes less of your money, period. Everyone who has a job gets to keep more of the money they earned working...up to all of it if they are able to take advantage of the various deductions. You keep your money because it's, well, yours. A tax credit, on the other hand, is money given back regardless of tax liability. In other words, if you owe $100 in taxes but are eligible for $200 in tax credits, you just made $100 off the government. In other words, the money belongs to the government, but, out of the kindness of their hearts, they let you have money back. Tax cuts v tax credits. (See here for a better explanation of this.)

Anyway, marginal tax rate. If a lower income person wants to make more money, which is the goal of capitalism-for people to make as much as they can or want, he or she will inevitably cross over into a new tax bracket. This new tax bracket will be relatively so much higher than the one he or she was in that it would have been better for him or her to stay at the lower level of income and take any government handouts that are available. Why should someone go look for a job if by doing so it will actually lower their standard of living? These people are kept in the lower economic classes because they live off of the government handouts that the Democratic party is known for supporting. It's not because these people are lazy or ignorant (some are, but that's a different issue altogether). It's because the cost of working for a higher wage is more than the benefit provided by that higher wage. When you make it in the best self-interest of a person not to work, it would be ridiculous to expect them to work.

The Democratic party is the party that claims to be for the regular people, the working class, the lowest classes of society, yet it's the policies (and politics) of the Democratic party that keep many in lower income levels, many who consistently vote for the Democrats who keep them where they are. That, my friends, is not social justice. Quite the opposite, the Democratic party is a major contributor of political and economic oppression in the United States. Jesus' main target in his teachings in the gospels was the oppressive power structures that existed in his time.

Am I saying Jesus would have been a Republican? I seriously doubt it. But I get the feeling that his estimation of Democratic party echoes in his description of the Pharisees, "hypocrites."

[UPDATE: I included a link to a better explanation of "Marginal Tax Rate." It is basically what it would cost a person to move up a bracket, but it's a bit more complicated than the oversimplified definition I have above.]

[photo is "Justice and Mercy" at Samford University; chart is from the WSJ article linked above; sand sculpture picture from strangecosmos.com]

I'm Voting Democrat...

2008-10-11T10:11:00.003-05:00

I'm voting Democrat...

For God's Sake, He's Not Muslim...I Mean...For Allah's Sake...

2008-10-10T11:25:00.007-05:00

Ok, let's make sure we have one thing straight. Obama is not a Muslim. I'm sure you've either gotten or at least heard about all the emails and things that seem to describe Obama as a type of Manchurian Candidate who is deep down committed to Islam. While Obama may have some sympathy for Islam because of his upbringing and his family connections, I don't think it's fair to say that Obama will bring Islam to the White House in the way people are saying it. To me, that charge is completely unfounded and unsubstantial.

However, having said that, I have said for a while that Obama is a socialist at best and a closet Communist at worst. I had intended to do a series of blogs on some of the things I've come across as I've observed this year's presidential election. Fortunately, Investor's Business Daily has done a series called "The Audacity of Socialism." With the recent questions surrounding Obama's background and associations coming to the front of the campaign again (and rightfully so) I thought it would be helpful to share this series with y'all.

As the questions about the relationship between Obama and American terrorist William Ayers have continued to be asked, Obama's camp insists that the two have never really been close friends and that they had a working relationship. The problem is twofold. First, if Ayers were the only questionable person in Obama's relatively recent history, I could possibly overlook it as being made out to be more than it is. However, there seems to be a pattern of poor character judgment and association with Obama (Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, etc.). In response to his sweetheart deal for a property that he bought from Tony Rezko, Obama replied that it was a boneheaded decision. Really? So when his tax hikes smother what life is left in the economy out of it will he say that was a boneheaded move? Would saying that we should go to the UN to seek sanctions against Russia in light of the Georgia invasion be a bonehead statement? At what point does the "aww shucks, I made a mistake" just not cut it anymore? But I digress...

Second, the fact that the questions are still swirling around Obama regarding his past is proof positive of the mainstream media's absolute infatuation with him. Why is it that in a month, they have dug up more dirt (most of it being inconsequential and petty) on Sarah Palin than they have in the two years Obama has been running for president, especially now that we see that there are so many questions left unanswered by Obama. I would agree that one of the functions of the press is, in a sense, to vet candidates for the public. We can't all go interview people the candidates knew and don't have time to look closely at their financial records or voting records, etc., but the media gets paid to do that stuff. Unfortunately, they were too busy tooling around with Obama on his world tour to look at his record. They were too busy burying Hillary Clinton to look at Obama's past associations. The media failed to vet Barack Obama, period.

In the end, I do believe Obama is a kind of Manchurian Candidate, but not with a hidden Muslim agenada. The agenda that underlies Obama is much more dangerous to capitalism in general and the United States in particular. Perhaps the original Manchurian Candidate was more prophetic than was thought...

Words Escape Me...

2008-10-01T20:45:00.012-05:00

Tonight, the Senate passed their version of the Financial Bailout Bill, ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’ (H.R. 1424--to read all 450 pages of it, see here). There are a few things that strike me in this situation.

First, so much blame has been thrust at President Bush and his administration, in spite of the administration warnings about the coming crisis we now face.

Second, by association with Bush, Republicans have been blamed for the crisis too. Instead, it was Democrats who only 4 years ago believed nothing was wrong at Fannie Mae and that then Franklin Raines was doing a great job (he was subsequently found to have covered up accounting improprieties that made Enron look like a Sunday School picnic.)*

Finally, in the same vein as the previous point, John McCain has also been blamed for the current financial crisis. Instead, quite the opposite is true. McCain was one of a handful of Senators that saw this crisis coming and acted (for more see here):

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership."

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.

Democrats would have us believe that this crisis happened over the course of only the last eight years, but that is just simply not the case. They know it but are still trying to sell that bill of goods to the American people knowing full well that the problem stems back much further...specifically to the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter's administration. Assuming McCain is four more years of Bush, I think I'd take that over four more years of Carter any day.

The bailout is a band-aid for broken bone...a short term fix for a problem that needs long and hard consideration for how to truly best handle the situation.

In any case, it is a proud day for the state of Alabama. Senator Richard Shelby, the senior senator from here, spoke in opposition to the Senate version of the bailout. (Additionally, Rep. Artur Davis-Democrat representing Alabama's 7th District-admitted his mistake in supporting Fannie and Freddie in '04)

*Franklin Raines, CEO and chairman of Fannie Mae from 1999-2004, presided over the company during the time that an accounting scandal to the tune of about $9 billion (with some estimates at $11 billion) was going on. For some perspective, Enron's book cooking amounted to about $500 million dollars. The accounting fraud at Fannie Mae was 18 to 22 times the amount covered up by Enron! And yet, somehow, Fannie Mae (and the low-lifes that ran her) are not made out to be the bad, awful, corrupt, greedy people that Ken Lay was protrayed. Over his roughly 5 year tenure, Raines "earned" $90 million, $52 million of which was tied earnings targets (which is where the accounting fraud really comes into play). See here for more.

[cartoon by Stantis]

I...Just....Can't...Turn....Awaaaayyyyyyy...

2008-09-29T14:06:00.005-05:00

In a 202-228 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives defeated the proposed $700 billion bailout plan hammered out over the past week. It is encouraging to see at least a majority (95 Democrats and 133 Republicans) in the House see the folly of having the government take such an ownership stake in these companies at the taxpayers' expense. Hopefully, what will now be done will be an actual workout and not a bailout.

[image is the train wreck at Montparnasse Station]

Eject! Eject! Eject!

2008-09-24T14:48:00.006-05:00

The headline reads "McCain Suspends Campaign To Help With Bailout." (See here,too.) All in all, I'm not a fan of the proposed $700 billion bailout plan put out by the Bush Administration. It's hasty and raises too many questions. However, the debate surrounding what to do at this point in time regarding the financial mess we're in is important. Senator McCain has decided to stop talking presidential and act presidential.

I'm sure some will say that McCain is using the economic crisis to avoid the debate, which sounds kinda hollow when you think that Obama refused to accept McCain's offer of a series of town hall meetings between the conventions and the election.

More importantly than the debate over debates, McCain has caught a lot of flak over the months for not being tough enough on the financial markets while Obama has taken credit for blowing the whistle on Fannie and Freddie and the impending crisis. In fact, Obama was so adamant about the lack of leadership at Fannie Mae that he hired former CEO James Johnson to be on a three person committee charged with vetting his vice-presidential hopefuls. His campaign has also been in contact with former Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, who presided over one of the largest accounting scandals in U.S. history (try roughly 20 times larger than Enron!). In addition, Obama has accepted thousands of dollars from Fannie alone over the course of his brief time in the Senate (second only to Chris Dodd).

[cartoon by Stantis]

May I Cut In...?

2008-09-24T13:01:00.003-05:00

Once, not too terribly long ago, there was a political decision to be made. Either way the decision went, there would be political fallout, because the country was not unanimous in it's support either way. And so, after making the decision (one which was met with negative response and continues to do so), the politician stuck by it come hell or high water, in spite of the fact that the money could have (should have) been spent elsewhere. The obvious politician to fit this story is President Bush and his entry into and then poor execution of (under Secy. Rumsfeld) of the Iraq War. Perhaps less obvious is the position taken by both Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden respectively regarding the huge earmarks bill in general and specifically the now infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."

According to an article on CNN.com today, both Biden and Obama voted against an amendment to the spending package that would have sent the money to Louisiana, which was still recovering from Hurricane Katrina. The money that was sent to Alaska was nowhere near enough to fund the bridige to Gravina Island so the newly elected Governor Palin, keeping her promise of cutting spending and fiscal responsibility, spent the federal money elsewhere. Unlike the Democrats and current President Bush, Palin had once held a position, considered it's implications, then changed her position based on having more complete information.

When asked about his earmark requests, a Biden spokesperson avoided the question entirely and sent a brusque email at once deflecting the question and again seemingly scoffing at Gov. Palin.

This seems to indicate a couple of things. First, for all the fuss the Democrats raised about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, only 4 Democrats voted to divert funds to Louisiana, and 2 others didn't vote (McCain also didn't vote). Instead of doing something constructive and moving funds to where they were needed, they voted against the amendment.

Second, according to the CNN article indicates that "Delaware has requested 116 congressional earmarks through Biden, its longtime senator, at a cost to taxpayers of $342 million." That amount of money, $342 million, is almost enough to build that bridge to nowhere on federal dollars alone, completely apart from state or local funds. Yet, Sen. Biden's campaign had no answer for CNN.

Third, for all the "change" the Obama/Biden ticket is touting, these votes seem to be a stark indication of more of the same old same old. Most likely, the voted to kill the amendment in a quid pro quo game so that senators like Ted Stevens of Alaska would vote similarly if amendments came up that dealt with their earmarks. That, my friends, is how they do the ol' Potomac two-step...and it looks like Obama and Biden dance as well as anyone.

Whadya Wanna Hear...I'll Tell Ya...

2008-09-23T10:53:00.010-05:00

Part of the Obama/Biden plan is to "develop and deploy clean coal technology." I'll admit, I'm a huge fan of coal. It's an abundant natural resource here at home that is cheap and, with the right technology, safe. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) has endorsed Obama for president, which is no big surprise. What is surprising is all this in spite of Biden's having said that coal fired plants are more dangerous to Americans than terrorism (see here) and telling this woman that he and Obama will not build coal plants here in America because China is building them ("No coal plants here in America"). Are we going to sell all of it to China for their coal plants (in spite of the fact that they mine more coal than we do)? Makes you wonder if the UMWA looked at anything besides the letter after Barack Obama's name...Barack Obama (D-IL).

Money Matters Too...Not Just Words...

2008-09-22T23:31:00.016-05:00

Over the last week, the economic landscape of the country has changed dramatically. The $700,000,000 financial bailout is an incredible amount of money and will no doubt generate a lot of talk over the coming months and weeks...some positive, lots negative.

In light of the fact that the bailout is an amount roughly 140% of next years federal budget deficit, I thought about looking at some of Obama's tax proposals. Even in a stable economy, not great but not in the tank, his tax proposals would be questionable (unless you like Stalinism) but in light of the growing economic crisis, I fear them even more.

In an op-ed piece, economist John Lott points out that warnings of this impending economic collapse have been around for a decade. In the New York Times (9.30.99), it was stated that "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's." Hello! 1999? I've heard a lot about the last eight years, but if my math is correct, 2008 minus 8 equals 2000, which means 1999 was before the eight years of hell Obama's campaign has been talking about. (For more on the early warning signs, see here.)

Jim Johnson was CEO and chairman of Fannie Mae from 1991-1998, the formative years for many of the changes that led to the current meltdown in the lending market. In 2004, "an Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report in September accused the company of improperly deferring $200 million of estimated expenses in 1998" allowing Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to reap millions in bonuses ($1.9 million and $1.1 million respectively in 1998 alone). Johnson was originally tapped (but stepped down) to be one of three people charged with vetting Obama's VP candidates, which makes one wonder who vetted Johnson that Obama would think it was a good idea to choose him and why on earth would Obama choose such a person to be making such high profile and important decisions.

Franklin Raines, CEO and chairman of Fannie Mae from 1999-2004, presided over the company during the time that an accounting scandal to the tune of about $9 billion (with some estimates at $11 billion) was going on. For some perspective, Enron's book cooking amounted to about $500 million dollars. The accounting fraud at Fannie Mae was 18 to 22 times the amount covered up by Enron! And yet, somehow, Fannie Mae (and the low-lifes that ran her) are not made out to be the bad, awful, corrupt, greedy people that Ken Lay was protrayed. Over his roughly 5 year tenure, Raines "earned" $90 million, $52 million of which was tied earnings targets (which is where the accounting fraud really comes into play). While the ties between Obama and Raines are unclear (as they seem to be with everyone these days), the fact that the Obama campaign would call him at all for advice is incredibly troublesome.

So what does this have to do with Obama's tax policies? A couple of things. First, I'm not convinced that Obama really has a grasp of the economy any better than McCain, and maybe not even as good of a grasp (and that's saying a lot in light of McCain's recent statements). Calling Franklin Raines for advice whether he's an official advisor or not raises red flags and sets off sirens and lights and warning signs galore. Tapping Johnson, while the matter resolved itself, is just another in a long string of episodes in which Obama shows a lack of ability to judge character (giving the benefit of the doubt that character does in deed matter). (Additionally, Obama has received thousands of dollars in campaign funds from PAC's of Fannie and the giant mortgate lender who also played a major role in the current meltdown, Countrywide.)

Second, Obama's tax policies sound incredibly similar to tax policies that have plunged us into depression (1932) and recession (1990). With an economy already teetering on the brink, his tax plans and, to an even greater extent, his spending wish list will only serve to drive the economy into the ground.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling for anyone old enough to even remotely remember the Cold War, the Obama/Biden rhetoric smacks of the class warfare that can only truly be classified as a neo-Leninism or perhaps neo-Stalinism. In this clip, Biden says two things that are quite telling. First, "it's time to be patriotic (referring to paying more in taxes)." How is that patriotic? Since when was the government taking money "patriotic?" Maybe the founding fathers should have been "more patriotic" and paid that tax on tea, right?

Second, "we want to take money and put it back in the pockets of middle class people." This statement is so flawed that it would take more space than I want to devote to breaking it down. From whom are they taking the money? Answer: Anyone making more than $250,000/year (I wonder if that would have included Raines or Johnson or if they'd have gotten a way out.) So if this money comes from the 250k people, it's not going "back into the pockets of the middle class people." Robin Hood and Vladimir Lenin make strange bedfellows indeed.

[cartoons by Stantis and Ramirez, respectively]

Gun Control Is Hitting What You Shoot At...

2008-09-18T11:43:00.005-05:00

I'm not shocked. I'm not even amazed. I would probably be amused if it weren't such a serious issue. For months, one of the loudest strains praising Sen. Obama was honesty and integrity and how he is not the typical politician. If by that they meant that Obama is the most liberal, most pro-abortion (deliberately I use this phrase as opposed to "pro-choice"), most inexperienced, and, as this post will focus on, most pro-gun control (among other things).

It is enough to be for banning guns. That, in and of itself, is not really very news worthy or even very attention grabbing. However, Obama has made such a ridiculously sharp shift--nay, about-face--that one must wonder if he's seeing a chiropractor for whiplash. Even Hillary Clinton used his extreme gun control position against him in the primaries (and did well with those who were clinging to their guns). (For more on Obama's insane shifts see here and here.) As it turns out now, Obama is wanting those people in those increasingly important swing states to think that he's a champion of the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights, in spite of the fact that he has supported the current gun ban in Chicago (even though it's a failure) and was in support of the D.C. ban before it was ruled unconsititutional (at which point he lauded the SCOTUS for it's decision).

Whether this is a flat out lie or just an incredibly quick change in position, the political positioning behind it is obvious. We may cling to God and guns, but we're not stupid.

[title from a quote by Montana's Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer]

An Inconvenient Truth...Or A Convenient Lie...

2008-09-17T23:04:00.003-05:00

Hey...if you have trouble embellishing your thin résumé, just make stuff up. Forget this stuff about being for it before being against it before you knew what it was they were talking about in the first place. We're talking out and out untruth...not half-truth or misconceptions; not while lies or misrepresentations. Flat out lies.

"For days now Barack Obama told voters he was the one who predicted the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and who was working in the Senate to try to get lawmakers to agree to a plan that would let the federal government regulate the activities of both investment giants. Obama, the narrative sold by the Obama campaign goes, stood at the forefront, he was one of the leaders, on bills that would force the companies and others like it to behave responsible.

There’s just one problem with Obama’s story; it’s fiction. Never did the Democratic nominee lead on this issue, or something related to it. Never did he attempt to hold these companies responsible and to regulate them.

Back in 2006 McCain said, in a speech on the Senate floor, that ‘if Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.’

Again, that was in 2006. Two whole years ago, when Obama was doing business with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives and lobbyists, McCain was calling on Congress to regulate them. He may be 72 years old, and he may have been a senator for many more years than Obama, but the ‘maverick’ is the one truly willing to take on the ‘establishment.'"

[Note: I was tempted to use an image of Pinocchio on this blog, but I couldn't bring myself to attach the Obama "O" to Pinocchio. Apologies to Pinocchio for considering it in the first place.]

Bad Form, Obama Campaign. Bad Form...

2008-09-17T21:23:00.007-05:00

In lieu of a longer entry that I've been thinking about lately, I've decided to blog on something that I can do so in less time. The presidential election has been chock full of historic significance. Added to all that has come so far, I would add that, if Obama loses the election, it will be because of two simple reasons, both related to each other, one of his campaign's own doing, the other outsides it's control.

The first reason, the one outside of Obama's control, is the media. Ever since the announcement of Governor Palin as McCain's running mate, the media has been relentless in tracking down any story they can find to put a negative spin on about her. Bald faced lies have been reported as news and, once discovered, retracted almost secretly, if at all. In one poll, 51% said they believed that the media was out to hurt Palin. The incredible scrutiny that has been brought on Palin in the absence of such scrutiny of the other three candidates (especially Obama and his equally thin experience) is not likely to endear the media to mainstream America. While this particular issue may not drive voters to McCain/Palin, it will almost certainly get them to give the ticket a second look since the media is and has been so condescending and negative toward her. If the elites don't like her, maybe there's something to her, they might say.

The second reason is more pervasive in the Democratic party as a whole and has consumed the Obama campaign in particular. Obama and his campaign seem to have forgotten that he is running for President of the United States against John McCain. Palin is the vice presidential candidate. I know that sounds incredibly simple minded, but it's true. An outside observer or a historian 200 years from now may wonder whether it was actually McCain or Palin running for president. While some attention has been put on McCain, the vast majority has been aimed at Palin. In a campaign that wasn't supposed to be about personalities, the focus of the election has become two charismatic personalities...one running for president, the other running as a vice presidential running mate. In this country, we don't elect vice presidents; we elect presidents. If Obama wants to win the election, he needs to get over the fact that Sarah Palin's celebrity overshadows his own right now and that's the nature of celebrity.

Perhaps he's more akin to Paris and Britney than we thought.

[cartoon by Mike Ramirez]

The End Of The World As We Knew It...

2008-09-10T19:12:00.008-05:00

It's funny how time flies. I'm sitting here at my desk with books around trying to get ready to teach tomorrow night as well as get reading done for the classes I'm taking. As I sat here, I got to thinking about what today is--September 10. Seven years ago tonight was the last night before the world changed forever.

I remember that night for several reasons. I was scheduled to fly to Dallas on September 13, the following Thursday. I had lost the debit card I'd bought my tickets with so I went to the airport on that Monday, September 10, to go ahead and make sure everything was in order for my flight in spite of losing that card (I couldn't show it when I picked up my tickets so I had to get a letter from the bank saying that the lost card had belonged to me and it had been canceled.) It took a few minutes to get it straightened out, but I got my tickets for that Thursday and went home.

It was my first semester at New Orleans Seminary at the Birmingham center. One of my first assignments was due on Tuesday, September 11. It was a theology worksheet that I had sorely underestimated the time it would take to do. Being my first semester in grad school, I was determined to do well, so I worked and worked on that worksheet. It was probably overkill, but it ended up taking me all night to finish it. I showered and got ready for work that day and school that night. I had accomplished something and I was glad to have done it...even if it had taken me all night.

That Tuesday morning, for reasons I don't recall now, my brother, Matt, rode with me. Apparently his truck was in the shop or something, so I dropped him off at Samford then drove to work at LifeWay where I worked just a few minutes away. Just before we got to Samford, they said on the radio that a plane had hit one of the WTC towers, but information was just beginning to come in and the full scope of what was going on was still quite a while from being known. I dropped him off and headed to LifeWay. The second tower was hit before I got there; something was terribly wrong.

I worked in the stockroom in shipping and receiving at LifeWay and I listened to the radio and TV the entire day. A plane hit the Pentagon. Another one disappeared from radar over Pennsylvania. I remember watching the first tower collapse. News was scarce as real answers were hard to come by. I left work and went to class. It was cancelled. I honestly don't remember picking Matt up from SU that night.

I still have the ticket for my flight from Birmingham to Dallas/Ft. Worth dated September 13, 2001. Air traffic was still halted, so that trip was cancelled. I still have that worksheet I did for that class, too. I don't remember my grade on it, but I still have it with my school stuff. Both serve as reminders of a world that no longer exists and point to a future that is as uncertain as the present is fleeting.

Tonight, I remember...do you?

[Skyline photo from www.terragalleria.com; Firemen photo by Thomas E. Franklin]

At What Cost, History?

2008-09-05T00:10:00.005-05:00

Reading history is much easier than understanding history; both make making history seem like an incredibly drawn out process. My fear is that this years election has turned into a rush to "make history" instead of being a natural part of history.

Senator Obama's nomination for president is truly historic and the Democratic party should be proud that it has accomplished something Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., could only dream about. On the one hand it could be argued that Dr. King's dream has not been fulfilled yet and won't be until an African American (or other minority) has been elected president.

After re-reading Dr. King's speech, I'm inclined to think that, in large part, much of Dr. King's vision and dream has been fulfilled, insomuch as the government can achieve it. The racism and bigotry that exists now is on such a personal level that I think that issue is more spiritual than anything else and should be addressed as a moral fault in spiritual/religious contexts. Bigotry and racism (as well as sexism) do exist, but not in the systematic/culturally accepted/expected way they did when Dr. King gave this speech. Also, the true American dream is that this is a land of opportunity (*pursuit* of happiness), not guaranteed success (or guaranteed happiness).

My fear is that many people will want to make history in the voting booth on 4 November and forget that elections are not about making history, they are about choosing leadership. The voters in 1992 didn't vote to make history by electing the country's first Baby Boomer president in Bill Clinton. The voters in 1960 didn't vote to make history by electing the country's first Catholic president in John F. Kennedy. The voters in 1940 didn't vote to make history by electing Franklin Roosevelt the first president to a third term. The voters in 1928 didn't vote to make history by electing the first president born west of the Mississippi in Herbert Hoover. The voters in 1860 didn't vote to make history by electing the country's first president born outside the thirteen original colonies. The voters in 1836 didn't vote to make history by electing the country's first president who was not of British descent in Martin Van Buren.

What's my point in all of that? History happens all around us. My fear is that Dr. King's dream will be lost more quickly than it was achieved; that voters will vote for Obama for the color of his skin and not for the content of his character or the policies he holds. History would be made...but at what cost?

[image from theage.com.au]

Words Matter...Because They Mean Something...

2008-09-04T18:55:00.005-05:00

I heard something yesterday and read something today that really made it clear to me how much Marxist thought and Liberation Theology have crept into the Democratic party in general and into this years ticket for President/Vice President of the United States.

I heard a clip of Senator Biden saying that no one had mentioned the middle class at the Republican Convention. First, I think Governor Palin's speech more than clearly was aimed at the middle class (or working class). Second, class should have nothing to do with it. The issues are not issues of class. They are issues of right and wrong and what is best for this country, period.

But I understand where Biden is coming from. His rhetoric is the same as what the Democratic party has been pushing for years. The Robin Hood mentality is alive and well in the Democratic party. So Senator Biden's statements don't really bother me nearly as much as a statement I found from Senator Obama.

When the Senate voted on the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama explained his "No" vote saying Roberts had “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.” Mr. Obama is a graduate of one of, if not the, most prestigious law schools in this country, yet somehow he thinks the rule of law is about the weak versus the strong. It should never, never, never be about this group or that (whether those groups are weak/strong, poor/rich, left/right, old/young, race v. race, religion v. religion, etc.). The rule of law is about what is right versus what is wrong, period. If the weaker party is right, then that's right. If the weaker party is wrong, then that's wrong. Period. End of discussion.

The Obama/Biden campaign seems to be running on the notion of changing Washington and uniting the people of America. This in spite of a VP candidate who has been in the Senate as long as or longer than 95 of his colleagues and rhetoric that smacks of divisiveness and agitation.

Stay Classy, CNN...Stay Classy

2008-09-03T21:44:00.006-05:00

Watching GOP VP nominee, Sarah Palin, on CNN because it's in HD. So they cut away from the speech to show a protester being hauled off. I watch a lot of sports and when somebody comes out on the field with a sign or streaking or something, the cut away to either the sportscasters or a shot of the crowd or something to keep from legitimizing the protester. Surprising that CNN has less journalistic integrity than a typical sports cast.

[Update--A lot of times, at political events such as this, they will have one pool of cameras that people will all share feeds from. I don't know if CNN had control over what was coming over their feed or if it was a pool feed like at a state of the Union address. If anyone hears, please let me know...otherwise, I'm leaning toward the CNN producers choosing the shot.]

Rudy On A Roll...

2008-09-03T21:21:00.002-05:00

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani is on a roll at the GOP Convention. I have to admit, his bits about McCain aren't really new and I've heard them before, but his barbs at Obama are right on! I'll be looking for this speech on YouTube soon.

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Beat 'Em Up...

2008-09-03T19:40:00.004-05:00

Last week, Senator McCain set off a media firestorm with his announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. While the media is certainly right to being to scrutinize Ms. Palin, some of the stories have been ridiculously malicious. The announcement of her daughter Bristol's pregnancy was a surprise, but the Daily Kos, a liberal blog site--not news site, decided to run a completely unfounded story stating that Trig, Palin's 4 month old, was actually Bristol's baby. Just so all you readers know, Daily Kos is not a news site...it's a blog. Anyway, in addition to the aforementioned article, DK also insinuated that Gov. Palin supports Alaska secession. While this dribble is all completely unfounded, many liberal readers see this tabloidism and take it as gospel without ever checking any responsible and reputable news sources. (See here for a brief yet effective debunking of both of the DK lies.) The "troopergate" issue has been hashed and rehashed in the past few days and you can find all the articles you want on it on your own, but it would seem that her former brother-in-law that so many in the media paint as a victim could be a bully with a badge, having been accused of illegally shooting a moose, driving a police car while drinking, and allegedly tasing his son to discipline him. Additionally, the trooper story was publicized by a political rival of Palin's. (See here for more.) One other attack that seems to have had some sticking power is that somehow Palin wasn't vetted properly. Just a flimsy barb when other avenues of attack are failing or begin to ring hollow. All of these are in addition to the belittling of her experience (see my previous entry) and insinuations that she should remain barefoot and pregnant. (A Democratic commentator takes exception to the attacks on her decision to run here.) As the attacks mount, the Democratic party is indeed seeming like the green party in this election...but it ain't because of their envirofacism.

No Experience Necessary...Some Restrictions Apply...Batteries Not Included...Void Where Prohibited

2008-09-02T16:01:00.006-05:00

I can write this blog entry now that I've picked myself up off the floor from laughing. We now have a definitive answer as to why Obama is qualified to be President of the United States. Check this out...

So, on CNN, to Anderson Cooper, Obama revealed that he is prepared, as an executive officer, to be POTUS because he's been running for the office of the presidency. Interestingly, in the video, Mr. Obama completely avoids the fact that Ms. Palin has been running a state government for as long as Mr. Obama has been running for president and only points to her time as mayor. For more on this and also more on the GOP response see here.

Stay Classy, Protesters...Stay Classy...

2008-09-01T19:47:00.003-05:00

Protesters. Even as the Republican Convention did basically a business only meeting today, protesters turned violent outside the Xcel Center in St. Paul. Of all days, when a potentially devastating storm was about to hit the Gulf Coast just three years after Katrina, these jerks had the audacity to try to turn attention, not to their issues or concerns, but onto themselves. Protest tomorrow or the next day when the immediate threat of a hurricane isn't right on our doorstep. Selfish.

The Left v. The Little People

2008-09-01T09:56:00.004-05:00

James Carville, bless his heart. Granted, he makes me laugh sometimes because he is incredibly quick-witted, even though I may totally disagree with what he says, but this time, not so much. In this video, they were talking to him about hurricane Gustav because Carville is a native of Louisiana and still has a home there. When asked about Sen. McCain's choice of AK Gov. Sarah Palin, he begins with what has become the common Democratic refrain about her lack of experience, but then he goes farther...too far...and says that the city hall in the town where she was mayor "looks a little bit like a bait shop." It may or may not look like a bait shop, but the point is that these Democratic surrogates continue to belittle Palin's background simply because of her small town roots. (See my blog here about when Palin was announced.) What's worse, you would think someone like Carville would be more sensitive to something like that considering his hometown is Carville, LA, a small community named for his grandfather.

SportsCenter Is Better Off For Sure...

2008-08-31T23:59:00.006-05:00

Don't tell me there's no media bias against the right in this country. Don't tell me that right wing radio is the only media that's biased (oh, and of course Fox News Channel). And most of all, don't tell me that MSNBC isn't totally, completely, 100% in the tank for Obama. One only need watch Kieth Olbermann a few times to realize that he doesn't have an objective bone in his body (check out this article from an obviously liberal leaning writer)...much like the many of the rest of the MSNBC crew. The far left nature of their viewing audience was clear last week when their rating spiked during the Democratic National Convention, a misleading jump sure to bloat the already gargantuan egos of the likes of Olbermann. Now that the Democratic hoopla is over, they'll settle back down at the bottom of the cable news heap as their viewers from last week go back to their regularly scheduled lives.

As a case in point, last week, when John McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, MSNBC ran across the bottom of the screen, AS BREAKING NEWS: "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" Someone may want to ask the governor later on how many houses she owns...that's fine. In terribly poor taste, but be that as it may. In any case, this does NOT belong under "Breaking News."

People who work at MSNBC should be ashamed of their network. Keith Olbermann should have stuck with SportsCenter...God knows he's a disgrace to the news business. Maybe he and MSNBC were made for each other.

[See here to watch Bill O'Reilly's rant.]

Hurricanes Damage More Than Just Big Cities...

2008-08-31T12:17:00.005-05:00

At the time of this writing, hurricane Gustav is bearing down on the Gulf Coast. Three years after hurricane Katrina devastated nearby areas, it seems we've learned a lot about disaster preparedness, planning, and even meteorology, but there's something that I think we haven't learned. While New Orleans was devastated when the levees that protected the city gave way, the damage was equally devastating (if not more so proportionally) in parts of Louisiana east of New Orleans and in the gulf region of Mississippi. A disproportionate amount of attention was focused on New Orleans after Katrina. There was certainly much news there to cover; I'm not insinuating that there was no news there. In the days and weeks after the hurricane, the coverage became more and more about New Orleans and less and less about places like Ocean Springs, Mississippi; Biloxi, Mississippi; and other places along the Mississippi coast.

As Gustav nears and the entire coast of Louisiana braces for the impact of a category 3 or 4 hurricane, I see news reports and all they mention is New Orleans and Katrina and FEMA and Mayor Nagin. Certainly New Orleans is in the path of another dangerous storm, but so are well over 1,000,000 other people from Houma to Baton Rouge to Lafayette to Lake Charles over to Beaumont, TX. In the wake of Katrina and as Gustav approaches, it seems to be clearer and clearer that the greatest division in this country is not rich and poor, liberal and conservative, or Democrat and Republican. The starkest contrast of all is that between urban America and rural/semi-rural/small town America.

New Orleans should be prepared and agencies should be ready to offer assistance there where needed, but there is much more to this hurricane, just like Katrina, than just a single city in its path. So as we think and pray regarding Gustav, remember New Orleans, but also remember there are others who will be affected too.

Fire In The Hole...

2008-08-29T16:27:00.010-05:00

From Barack Obama's speech accepting the nomination for president from the Democratic National Convention: The--the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47's out of the hands of criminals.

For a peak at the "reality" of Obama's position on guns see here.
[image is a mailer by Hillary Clinton for President]

The Last Frontier...A Little Closer...

2008-08-29T15:10:00.006-05:00

Today, John McCain announced his pick for running mate, Sarah Palin, first-term Republican Governor of Alaska. The wisdom of the pick will have to be decided in light of this week's Republican National Convention and, ultimately, in the history of this election when it's all said and done. But for now, the choice is news and it became clear early on that this decision took the Obama camp completely by surprise. Obama spokesperson Adrianne March, parroting the official Obama statement, said, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same." As for the statement itself, it's pretty much the same tired old Democratic, rhetorical double-talk, which makes the job of breaking it down all that much easier.

First, right off the bat, Obama's campaign criticizes the fact that Palin was mayor of a small town in Alaska. For a campaign that is trying to reach the heart of America, her small towns, it seems incredibly wrong headed and quite offensive to people living in small towns that can finally find someone running for national office that actually has a legitimate connection with a small town. Don't insult people who live and work in small towns by denigrating her proud service to her small town.

As for Palin's foreign policy experience, several red flags go off here. First, her position as governor of a major oil producing state as well as the geographical location of Alaska make relations with Canada and Russia of extreme importance, not to mention relationships with other energy producing nations around the world. While this experience is certainly not as extensive as Senator Biden's, Gov. Palin is running for vice president. At last check on the election, Senator Biden is not running for president, but it is the inexperienced Barack Obama that will be, not just a heartbeat away from the presidency, but the Commander in Chief himself. With the majority of Obama's time in the U.S. Senate being consumed with running for president, Palin's experience as governor of Alaska at least equals Barack Obama's "experience" running at the top of the Democratic ticket. Apprently Democrats are happy to keep someone with excellent foreign policy credentials one heartbeat away from the presidency by electing someone president with minimal foreign policy experience.

The Roe v. Wade argument inevitably wends its way into the debate. Many Republicans may feel strongly about overturning the Supreme Court's decision, but the reality of that happening is not very likely, even with the current SCOTUS' makeup. A moot point used as a scare tactic.

In Alaska, from the reports I've read, she has stood against "Big Oil" when it was in the best interest of the people of Alaska to do so, as well as other special interest groups. The "Big Oil" statement and the connection to George Bush of both her and McCain will be either confirmed or dispelled at the GOP Convention this coming week.

Highlighting the unpreparedness of the Obama campaign, the best response they could muster was an attack on Palin's small town roots and the same old generic Democratic attacks of being a typical Republican when, if the rest of her record is consistent with what has come out so far, she may be as much of a maverick as McCain has always considered himself to be. This could turn out to be a relatively electrifying election after all.

Historic Night...

2008-08-29T12:04:00.009-05:00

Last night, on the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's historic "I Have A Dream Speech," Senator Barack Obama made history by being the first person of African-American heritage to be nominated by a major party to be President of the United States. The historic nature of the day was reason enough to tune in and watch the senator give his acceptance speech in front of 85,000 people at Invesco Field in Denver. Personally, I was interested in his speech because I had hoped he would outline with some specificity how he intends to change Washington and give hope to America and the world. Admittedly, I missed the first 10-15 minutes or so of the speech because I had class til 9.15 but once I got to my car, I was able to tune in on the radio. I listened and then watched after I got home to see the bare bones frame of hope and change from the primaries have flesh attached with real plans and solutions. I was disappointed, not surprise though, that the speech itself, while acquiring a soaring quality at times, was little more than a litany of the typical liberal agenda, pitting workers against business, the poor against the rich, etc. After reading the transcript and getting through all of the obligatory anecdotal evidence that supports on political position (like all candidates do regardless of party), I sought out exactly what an Obama presidency would really entail.

From his speech:
Obama: And next week [at the Republican National Convention], we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but, really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time?

As Dick Morris, Democratic analyst, points out, "The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senator. (When Obama’s people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn’t mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president." He follows with a list of major issues that McCain has disagreed with and voted against the President.

Obama: We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president...(APPLAUSE)... when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of go down $2,000, like it has under George Bush.

I find it unendingly fascinating that, in Bill Clinton's 8 years in office, he was forced to move to the center, infuriating the far left (of which Obama's razor thin record indicates he is a part of). He was forced to move to the center because the people voted Republicans into control of Congress after only 2 years of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Obama: I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.

It's somewhat of an issue of semantics, but 95% of all working families is a lot different than 95% of all taxpayers. At the end, I'll point out exactly what I mean, but there is a major rift this line signifies that lies just below the surface of these words.

Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime: by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less, because we cannot meet 21st-century challenges with a 20th-century bureaucracy.

Finally, I thought, I'll finally get to hear how he will pay for all the stuff he's going to be initiating and mentioned in vague generalities earlier in his speech. No...not really. Closing corporate loopholes and tax havens is fine, but it won't generate that much new revenue. And as for going "line by line" through the federal budget, one commentator I saw said that the budget runs tens of thousands of pages with about 50 lines per page. The sentiment is nice, but it just ain't gonna happen.

Obama: If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

I find it interesting that Obama wants to debate now, in spite of balking at McCain's idea to take the debate to the people where they live and bickering over the debates they eventually agreed to.

Obama: We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

Obama has yet to come across a pro-choice bill he didn't support or a pro-life bill he didn't ignore at best. See here for some of the story...a story that will undoubtedly play a part in this election.

Obama: The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

Obama's record on gun control is one of the few things that is pretty clear in his resume. See John Lott's article for more.

Obama: I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

This is an issue he completely danced around. Marriage? Civil Unions? What a weak way to frame a debate that needs to be discussed in a civilized manner and not in the fringe lunacy that tends to dominate the debate.

Obama: You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

In spite of the damage done when "an employer undercuts American wages," Obama's wife Michelle doesn't want illegal aliens to live in fear of their workplace being raided, in spite of the fact that those workers, by virture of being here, are breaking the law! This on the heels of a raid in Mississippi that detained 600 suspected illegal aliens.

Obama: If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.

For someone with as thin a record as Obama, this is an incredibly hollow and empty attack that is reminiscent of Obama's race baiting earlier.

A couple of things really stuck out in this speech. First, the lack of specificity was almost overwhelming to me. This was an opportunity for Obama to lay out, point by point, exactly how he was going to change Washington and provide on his promise of hope, and he squandered it. While he did hint at a few specific policy positions, the vast majority of his time was spent attacking McCain as Bush's third term. We've heard enough about that and know that that is a major talking point for Democrats going into this election. What America needs is a choice based on facts, ideas, and policy not the same old politics Obama is probably used to being a product of the Chicago political machine (and that influence is beginning to show more and more). (Dick Morris was more impressed by Obama than I was, though, and he is certainly more knowledgeable of the game of politics than I.)

Second, a point was brought up by Charles Krauthammer, who, hopefully, will elaborate more on it in an article soon. Throughout the speech, Obama was very careful to speak to workers and said very little to entrepreneurs and small business owners. Two lines juxtaposed next to one another in his speech highlight my greatest reservation about Obama:

I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow. I will -- listen now -- I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.

The first line is probably the brightest spot in this speech for small business and entrepreneurs. Small businesses and start-ups are the life's blood of the American economy and the backbone of the American spirit of independence and innovation. It's a myth to believe that all of those small businesses are high paying or high tech, so I'm not really sure where that comes into play, but this is at least a positive in Obama's column.

On the other hand, the second line, if he means by it what his record and rhetoric indicate, sends shivers down my capitalist spine and is a first step down a slippery slope away from a democratic-republic to, at best, an oligarchic country. Obama has framed the debate over taxes, not in a way that holds government accountable for its addiction to spending money it didn't earn, but in setting at odds two groups of people in this country who all work hard. Instead of trying to be the great uniter, Obama is setting up a great divide between the rich and everyone else. The class warfare that is at the root of Marxist Communism has been used by the Democratic party for years to drive a wedge between the classes in this country; Obama's entire social agenda is built on that foundation.

In the end, I think the temple in Denver was best summed up in the line from MacBeth; it was "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Image of Barack Obama from the BBC]

Calgon, Take Me Away...

2008-08-28T18:45:00.011-05:00

Tonight, from a stage of white columns in front of a crowd of 75,000+, Barack Obama will make his acceptance speech for the nomination for presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. I will be interested to see whether the pillars and columns in the back of the stage come across as resembling the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the Brandenburg Gate, or perhaps even the Acropolis.

One Down, One To Go...

2008-08-23T08:41:00.006-05:00

Today, Barack Obama will announce Joe Biden as his running mate and the two will appear together in Springfield, Illinois. The chosen one has chosen...time will tell if he chose wisely.

Speaking of the announcement, the Democratic Convention is next week. Will Hill and Bill overshadow the convention with their nearly nightly appearances and the roll call highlighting just how close the primaries actually were (especially if you excluded oligarchic superdelegates). I ran across this comic and laughed. Enjoy!

[photo from FoxNews, cartoon by Stott Stantis]

Talk About a "Yes Man"

2008-08-21T16:57:00.004-05:00

The conflict between Russia and Georgia is still a major issue regarding the diplomatic relations that may have suffered long-term damage due to Russia's desire to take unrest in the sovereign state of Georgia (a former Soviet republic) and use it for it's own imperialistic gain. One interesting point that caught my ear originally but that I didn't pay a lot of attention afterward was the responses made by presidential candidates McCain and Obama.

Obama: I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war.

McCain: [T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces.

Maybe Obama missed the fact, while he was on vacation, that Russia invaded Georgia. In any case, as the conflict raged on and the international community urged a cease-fire, VP wannabe Virginia governor Tim Kaine, in a phone interview, said that he was "very very happy that the senator's [Obama] request for a cease fire has been complied with by President Medvedev." Seriously? First, the cease fire is tenuous at best. Only time will tell how well it works out. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, does Gov. Kaine really believe that it was at Obama's request that Russia agreed to a cease-fire? Talk about saying anything for political positioning.

[map from fronteraresources.com]

Betcha Bills Bother Barack Bad...

2008-08-21T14:47:00.005-05:00

The alleged connections between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers are well documented and you can easily see more about them if you Google "Bill Ayers Barack Obama." No need to cut and paste a bunch of links here. The worrisome part of their relationship is Ayers' involvement in the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for several bombings toward the end of the Vietnam War. Ayers, in spite of his affiliatioin with the group, was never convicted in the bombings. He has said that he didn't "regret setting bombs" and that the group "didn't do enough." Certainly close ties to a man like Ayers would be a detriment to Obama's campaign as a person of character who is a good judge of character and makes good decisions (especially vis-a-vis his Republican opponent).

As it turns out, the University of Illinois at Chicago is refusing to release documents that could either exhonerate Obama as an associate of Ayers (or they could possibly link Obama more closely to the former terrorist than Obama would like). Claiming that the documents' donor has not given permission for their release, the university is now denying the press access. While Obama personally has no involvement in this particular dispute (as far as I know), why would close associates and supporters of his (like mayor Daley and others at the university) want to hide and withhold documents like these? If Obama's relationship with Ayers was so casual and Ayers demeanor so changed from 35-40 years ago, why hide the documents or keep them secret?

[image from floppingaces]

China Cheating?

2008-08-21T10:26:00.006-05:00

So after all the wrangling over human rights, the environment, and limiting information via internet at the games and with the Chinese government having to plant people in the venues so the stadiums look full, do we really expect the Chinese government to tell the truth about anything at all? Even before the Olympics started, the ages of several of China's female gymnasts were in doubt. Now it seems that someone has hacked into the Chinese records and verified at least one of the ages of the gymnasts and found her to be 14, well below the minimum age of 16. (For more on the documents themselves, see here). I'm sure more will be said on this story in the coming days and week as the IOC is probably going to be faced with verifying the information and, if it is true the athlete or her teammates are too young, taking appropriate action (namely, taking their medals away and moving up those behind them).

These Olympics have been a sham. The Chinese government has tried it's best to put forth an image that they felt would be pleasing to the rest of the world, especially the West. Instead, from the very beginning when it was announced that Beijing would host the Olympics, it has just been one example after another of how China is still just as oppressive, controlling, manipulative and shady as ever. But I don't place all the blame on China. The IOC is as much to blame as anyone. They should never never have chosen to have the Olympics in Beijing. On top of all of that, China leads all countries in gold medals by an almost 2-1 margin. Makes you wonder what else might have been lied about, covered up, manipulated, mandated, or just plain cheated for that to happen.

[image from www.artforchina.com]

You Won't Leave This House Looking Like That...

2008-08-15T17:47:00.003-05:00

You don't often see stories about parents complaining about a school's dress code not being enforced strongly enough. Usually, it's kids complaining about the dress code being uncool or parents saying that uniforms or clothes that conform to a dress code are a financial burden or some other goofball crap. However, this is a different story.

In Ventura, California, a 15-year-old 8th grader at E.O. Junior High School was shot by a fellow student, allegedly because of his sexual orientation, which the former was apparently open about by wearing makeup and feminine clothing. The parents of the slain student are filing suit against the school for not enforcing the dress code which, they claim, would have prevented their son's death. My first thought was, well, you should have make your son wear clothes that adhered to the dress code yourselves and not be blaming the school. The solution, it appears, would not have been so simple.

Toward the end of the story, there is a decidedly odd twist that seems a little off to me. "King [the victim] was a ward of the court and living at a shelter for abused, neglected and emotionally troubled children at the time of the shooting." He was a ward of the state? Why was he a ward of the state? Why was he living in a "shelter?" Was there a reason that the child was no longer in the hands of the parents? It really sounds like the parents are milking this one for some spending money.

A second issue comes up in this story as well. "He [the alleged shooter] was charged as an adult and also faces a charge of a committing a hate crime." Ok, charged as an adult, I can see. I don't know enough details about the alleged shooter to make a good judgment on that one way or the other, but a "hate crime?" It makes me mad when people throw around the term "hate crime" when it applies to homosexuals and African Americans like they're the only people that are hated. Any crime that was premeditated is a hate crime (crimes of passion are usually spur of the moment and can be triggered by a number of emotions...lust, rage, envy, etc.). There shouldn't be special prosecution for this "hate crime." If the shooter shot the other student, he deserves to be punished, period. "Hate crime" language is nothing more than coded reverse discrimination.

2 4 6 8 Who Do We Appreciate? Mao! Mao!! Mao!!!

2008-08-13T13:37:00.010-05:00

For a while now, I've been critical of having the Olympic games in China. In the old days it was about us (the West led by the USA) v. them (the "East," so to speak, led by the USSR). Today it's more complicated than simply a playing out of the Cold War on the field of competition instead of the trenches of war. Our economies are so intertwined with and dependent upon each other that if we were to completely drop China as a trade partner, we'd lose tons of stuff we use every day (just look at all the stuff you have that says "Made in China.") We were enemies with the USSR and they with us when we took turns boycotting each others' games in 1980 (Moscow) and 1984 (Los Angeles) and relations between the US and USSR were not the same as now between the US and China.

I don't like China's human rights record. I don't like China's oppression of dissidents, religion, free speech, free assembly and the host of other things we take for granted here in the US. I don't like China's interference in the Sudan. I don't like the fact that somebody in the 1940's thought having China as a permanent member of the UN Security Council was a good idea. Above all, I hate, despise, loathe and in all other ways cannot stand Communism. However, the one good that has surfaced during the leadup to and now the coverage of the games is that China is under a microscope. Will the rest of the world address the elephant in the room or will they continue to ignore the China in the Bull shop?

Ultimately, the games must go on and so they have, but unless the numbers turn around, the games could end up costing the advertisers and the Chinese government more than they expected and they could lose money. Contrary to reports and speculation from the official site of the Beijing Olympics in May, empty seats have been an issue and empty stands means that advertisers aren't getting all the bang for their buck in those venues. Like the 2004 games in Athens, empty seats that have to be filled with plants are just one more chink in the perfect armor the Chinese tried to dupe the world into buying. I'm not buying it, apparently not any more than some of the Chinese people bought tickets.

[image by Steve Benson from www.artforchina.com]

Cough...cough...cough...

2008-08-12T16:41:00.008-05:00

At the time of the writing of this entry, the US has 22 medals (7G, 7S, 8B) to China's 20 (13G, 3S, 4B) with the rest of the nations at 12 or fewer according to the medal tracker on ESPN.com. One wonders if training in all that smog since the last Olympics has given the Chinese atheletes a home-smog advantage.

We may be ahead in total medals in the Olympics, but it's sad that so few people realize that we're also ahead in things that matter far more than gold, silver or bronze...and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[comics by Scott Stantis]

Peacekeeping Requires Peacemaking...

2008-08-11T11:56:00.005-05:00

As I read this article, I couldn't help but think of Neville Chamberlain's "peace for our time" statement. Then I got to the end of the article and what do you know? In conversations, I've made some comparisons of Obama to Chamberlain, but mostly in hyperbolic terms. After the article linked above and then reading this article, I'm not so sure it's hyperbolic at all and may have some truth to it.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." attributed to Edmund Burke

I Declare a Flair War...

2008-08-09T12:23:00.007-05:00

Lately on Facebook, some friends and I have been trading flair (little buttons with pithy sayings on them...well, some of them pithy, some of them not so much. See the movie Office Space) regarding the price of gas. I sent the first piece of flair...it says "Gas was $2.19 when Democrats took control of Congress in 2006." (Technically, Democrats took control of Congress in Jan. 2007.) In return, I have received at least three of the same piece of flair that says "When Bush took office, gas was $1.46." (Bush took office in Jan. 2001.) Whether those number correlate exactly with the prices of gas for the respective days Congress and President Bush were sworn in, I don't know, but they are at least close enough for our purposes. Using the price high of $4.00 we saw a few weeks ago, I have a few observations.

1. Gas increased approximately 33 cents per year over the roughly 7 1/2 year period from the time Bush was sworn in.
2. Gas increased approximately $1.20 per year over the roughly 1 1/2 year period from the time Democrats took over Congress.
3. Gas increased approximately 12 cents per year over the 6 year period from the time Bush took office to the time the Democrats took over Congress.
4. If the rate of increase had remained steady from Bush's first 6 years over the last year and a half, gas would be somewhere around $2.50, roughly.
5. I very seriously doubt that either the President or Congress could really do much unilaterally to influence the price of gas that much, so to be honest, while these numbers are fascinating, I don't think they really mean a thing. So truth be known, this is all in good fun.

Why Don't You Ask The Kids From Tiananmen Square...

2008-08-09T01:20:00.002-05:00

If you're heading to China to see the latter portion of the Olympics, or if you'd just like a little more information as you watch the games, I thought I'd offer a handy dandy map I ran across at the blog of John Lott, an economist at the University of Maryland. It contains useful information regarding China's glorious past as a leader of democracy, human rights, and other rights such as free speech and free assembly.

[map originally found at http://www.massacremap.com/ ]

Mr. McCain, I'll See Your Flip and Raise You A Flop...

2008-08-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

In case you've missed it, today is 08/08/08. Today marks the beginning of the Olympic games in Beijing. I put some of my comments on this blog a few months ago, so I won't belabor the point now. I didn't watch the opening ceremonies. I probably won't watch the games...other than maybe a few sports here and there. I know it's a matter of national pride for our country to do well at the Olympics, so if you don't want to boycott watching them, I would make another suggestion. If you do watch them, take note of the sponsors of the games and boycott them instead. After all, at the end of the day, the Olympics are a money game for advertisers and their sponsorship of the games in China is a tacit endorsement of the oppressive government there. So, cheer the US on, but take note of the people who have poured millions and millions of dollars into the hands of the Chinese government so you can be sure not to replace the money they spent.

As a side note, it's hard for me to write a blog without bringing presidential politics into it and this one is no exception. Senator Barack Obama made clear in this video that the Olympics should have been boycotted by the President (at least) if China didn't meet certain demands regarding human rights in Tibet and Darfur as well as conditions within China itself. In addition, Obama encouraged the President to boycott the Olympics and was critical when the President decided he would go. And yet, apparently I've missed something along the way and apparently things in Darfur are better or maybe the Dalai Lama was invited to the games or something because now it seems that the Olympics are a perfectly legitimate venue for Obama to spread his hollow rhetoric by buying $5 million of national ads for the games on NBC.

Wrong. The Darfur region of the Sudan is still hurtin g. The Dalai Lama is still in exile and human rights are still ignored there according to recent reports from Amnesty International. China has backtracked on it's promise not to censor internet access at the Olympics. In addition, aside from the environmental impact, China's pollution is a hazard to it's own people but the government cares little for it's citizens and even less about the environment, yet knowing this and knowing the Olympics were coming to Beijing for years, the government had to enact an "emergency Olympics smog plan." Against this backdrop, Obama is still pouring money into advertising during the Olympics in spite of saying he would personally boycott the Olympics, saying "If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the digniy, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies." I guess I missed the good news from Tibet and the Sudan this week.

[cartoons from Scott Stantis at the Birmingham News]

In Need of an Anti-Depressant...or Will Be Soon...

2008-08-05T22:44:00.000-05:00

I'm a big fan of Dick Morris, for personal and political reasons. I don't always agree with what he says politically, but I always read it with thoughtful consideration and, if I do disagree with him, I try to have good reasons because I respect him so much personally. On the issue at hand, I find myself in total agreement with a couple of pieces he wrote for Rasmussen Reports...here and here.

I'm no fan of John McCain but will reserve my final decision about my vote until after he chooses a VP candidate. One thing I do know though, I definitely will not be voting for Barack Obama. On one hand, an Obama win could be just the thing to unite true conservatives and capitalists to rally against his socialist/statist agenda and bring economics and individual liberty back to the fore of Republican thinking (deposing the social fundamentalism that has tended to grip the party over the last 20 years). On the other, the damage a President Obama would do to our economy even in one short term could take years to recover from.

So does Obama scare me? Absolutely. And it has nothing to do with the fact that he looks nothing like the presidents on our money and everything to do with how senseless his policy positions are regarding that money he alluded to. (As a side note...talk about race baiting. *shakes head*)

I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Barry Goldwater, whom McCain replaced as Senator from Arizona: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." --Barry Goldwater, 1994

[images from dickmorris.com and visualconsumer.blogspot.com]

If You Just Talk Louder and Slower, It Might Make More Sense...

2008-08-04T20:49:00.000-05:00

If you go back and you look at the blogs I've written over the past several months, you'll notice several blogs about oil and oil companies. Honestly, I'm kinda getting tired of writing about them, but Obama keeps bringing up the same old non-sense, so I'm going to keep writing blogs about them. I'm neither an economist nor a political scientist, but common sense dictates that what Obama is proposing in this ad apparently released today makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. (For reactions to the new ad see here.)

Now, I'm not going to defend McCain because I haven't seen much from him that I particularly like other than that he's come out in support of more offshore drilling. Did you see that? A $1,000 rebate funded by a tax on big oil's profits. I'll get into some more specifics in a second, but do you know what that will ultimately do? If you guessed lower gas prices, you're wrong. In the long run, it will mean that we'll eventually pay roughly $1,000 more at the pump. Companies, whether they're big oil or little corner store, pass their costs of doing business on to consumers. It costs more to eat at, say, Ruby Tuesday than at McDonald's in large part because the cost of doing business is much higher at Ruby Tuesday. Raise taxes on the companies and they simply raise their prices to compensate. Like any other government redistribution of wealth, the little guy will be hurt in the end.

What I find most intriguing about Obama's rhetoric is not the fact that windfall profits taxes have been tried before and seen to be a failure at helping control prices or secure tax revenue and only served to help foreign oil companies. What I find most intriguing is that neither Obama nor any of the other vocal Democratic leaders are calling for windfall profits on other sectors or industries. From this article:

"Why should we stop with oil companies? They make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Why doesn't Mr. Obama slap a windfall profits tax on sectors of the economy that have fatter margins? Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. Call out Mr. Obama's Windfall Profits Police!

It's not the profit margin, but the total number of dollars earned that is the problem, Mr. Obama might say. But if that were the case, why isn't he targeting other industries? Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. At the same time, the financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion. What kind of special outrage does Mr. Obama have for these companies?"

I'll give McCain a little bit of room to have changes in his positions. After all, he's been in Washington a while and, one would think, have reconsidered some of his positions over the years. I don't accept all of McCain's changes wholesale, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt on some points. On the other hand, Obama has only been in Washington a very short time and seems to be shifting his position on some matter almost daily. Given the dog and pony show we were given on Obama World Tour '08 and his propensity to make statements based on political positioning, I'm not really sure what is true policy position and what is simply semantics in political grandstanding. (See the first paragraph here to see what I mean.)

[graphs from taxfoundation.org and dailyreckoning.com respectively; comic by Ken Catalino]

I Need a Break from Gas...but Not Like Gas-X...

2008-07-28T17:10:00.000-05:00

Last week, the Denver Post reported that the Democratic National Convention Committee and others affiliated with the host committee for the Democratic National Convention to be held in Denver later this year have been fueling up at city fueling pumps, thereby avoiding fuel taxes. Apparently the fuel tax holiday wasn't such a bad idea for the people planning and promoting the Democratic convention.

It has been explained that the committee has a contract with the city to pay for the gas along with any taxes that may be due, but that's not exactly clear because the alleged contract itself hasn't been fully executed. The RNC and St. Paul/Minneapolis have repeatedly said the RNC has no such arrangement in their city and that Republican workers there are filling up their tanks at commercial, public gas stations.

Even if the DNC does pay the city back, that's thousands of dollars that they've taken away from owners of gas stations in the city of Denver, many of which are locally or even individually owned not corporately owned. The best way to help a local economy is to put money in the hands of it citizens by supporting local business not funnel the money to the government.

[chart from glennbeck.com]

No, No, No...You're Being Too Political...

2008-07-28T14:40:00.000-05:00

Buried a little ways down this article in the Washington Post is a tidbit about Obama's skipping a previously scheduled visit to a military hospital in Germany in favor of a workout. This first surfaced apparently because of a McCain ad attacking Senator Obama for skipping the visit because they wouldn't allow cameras. Aside from McCain's accusations and politicizing of the aborted visit, according to the Post, Obama's own campaign said that the visit was canceled "upon learning that the military regarded one of Obama's military advisers as a campaign staffer." The Post goes on to explain that "Obama said the distinction 'triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political' and therefore the campaign called off the visit."

Seriously? The Obama campaign thought the visit would be "perceived as political?" Have they seen the news at all while they've been overseas? Obama's whole trip has smacked of political grandstanding, just like McCain's global jaunt several weeks ago. This was exactly the time when political positioning shouldn't matter. By visiting the troops in the hospital, Obama could have shown solidarity with the troops in spite of his opposition to the war. Would it have looked like a political ploy? Not any more than the Obama World Tour '08 has.

As a side note, check out this article from CNN, especially the last few paragraphs.

Surge Protection Will Cost You Extra...

2008-07-23T23:06:00.001-05:00

I admit, in retrospect, I think the invasion of Iraq was the wrong decision. Based on the intelligence available and the fact that Iraq defied the U.N.'s actions, I can see how it might have seemed to be the right thing to do, but now that we've been there, it's easier to see clearly that the (multilateral) intelligence was incomplete. (In 1991, intelligence was equally wrong. At that time, Iraq was much closer to having WMDs than originally thought, the reverse of the current conflict.) In any case, I'm all for getting out of Iraq as soon as strategically possible now that we're committed there.

On the other hand, I ran across this blog from the LA Times. I don't have a problem with opposition to the war in Iraq. I think Obama is right to draw attention to Afghanistan and it's place in the war on terror (and I think more should be said about Pakistan's apathy [to be generous] toward U.S. efforts at tracking down terrorists). What I cannot get my head around is how he can say the surge was reasonably effective and yet, knowing what he knows now, he still wouldn't vote for it. John Kerry's vote for the war before his vote against the war makes more sense than Obama on this one.

If nothing else, the surge has lowered the level of violence so that a reduction in troops is now a viable option, no matter which side of the aisle you may be on. Obama needs to realize that we're beyond the point of debating whether the war was the right decision or not. Additionally, just reducing combat troops in Iraq over 16 months is not the same as bringing all the troops home. What both campaigns should be focusing on is how to reduce our military presence as a whole in Iraq.

[comic by Gary Varvel]

Tear Down This...Wait...Where'd That Wall Go?

2008-07-23T19:51:00.000-05:00

I don't usually just post links in blogs. I figure that if you take the time to read my blog, you're at least remotely interested in my point of view about things. Today though I am going to post a link because I think it sums up pretty well the issue of Obama abroad in light of his (ridiculous) call for bilingualism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/20/obama-flunks-history-again/

[comic by Michael Ramirez]