Keith Olbermann and his merry band of America haters have long stated that the Iraq war has caused other countries to 'hate' America causing out nation to lose prestige in the world. I never agreed with that view. As the world's lone superpower, preemptively invading Iraq to rid the world of their WMD's was a signal that an angry America would be able to do things in this world and could not be stopped. What drove our mainly European critics was fear - fear of what we could do rather easily if the thing that angered us shifted from WMD's to something far less. This is an understandable position for them to take but it was never articulated that way by the Left in the United States because they had a mission to weaken a President who was not going to perpetually campaign for public opinion.
What America hath brought now may actually bring hatred compared to the fear during the Iraq war. The free world is on the precipice of economic failure. An America that fiddles while Rome is burning due to petty politics is likely to make even the least vocal Europeans speak up. Why? Because when times are good small things like the sacking of a dictator is not likely to rile people up. But if someone loses their job and cannot put food on the table because of inaction by the same superpower is going to get people who are normally rational in an irrational state in a hurry. Remember, it is with foreign money that we have been allowed to borrow and spend our way into prosperity. Foreigners are going to look at the situation and see that things went too far and call it quits. If people are unemployed and marching in the streets it could get downright ugly.
This last several months has felt like the missing chapter of Atlas Shrugged. The looters have siezed control over the media and made this election a coronation. Opposing views have been shot down and criticism is not allowed to take place. Allies like Unions and Acorn are being awarded in bailout packages. While hundreds of billions are being debated, more billions are being spent while people are distracted. And the former smartest guys in the room have been taken over by the new smartest guys in the room. Trouble is that neither were the smartest, most talented, most creative or best. Those guys must be hiding in Galt's Gulch.
Change is not going to be a solution and it's clear from this saga that change in part caused the problem. Bipartisanship is not needed because there's little that can be agreed to which will bring about a solution. Maybe fear will be the solution. Once we see the horror of what we've done to other innocent parties maybe, just maybe we'll get our act together. But I guess that's America - we're not unified until the British are coming, Pearl Harbor is attacked or Sputnik is in orbit.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
I Want Names
Today's news couldn't get much worse. The banking bail out plan fails because Nancy Pelosi couldn't keep her big mouth shut and decided to blame the administration and Republicans for being the cause of the banking crisis immediately before the vote. Normally, that kind of nonsense is worth criticism and a blog entry. But when things are down you simply have to look at the humor in any bad situation. In essence, life threw us a whole lot of lemons today so I'm going to make some lemonade.
At the end of the bailout vote the numbers were 227 Nay, 207 Yea and 1 not voting/absentee. At the moment before the voting closed two votes changed from Yea to Nay. In other words, two brave souls saw that the bill was going down and they wanted to look good in the eyes of the voters in their districts. Nobody would know they pulled a John Kerry and voted for it before they voted against it so they pulled the trigger. You got to love the courage that they showed by changing their votes. This is the type of nonsense that got us into this situation in the first place. I'd love to get the names of the two representatives so I can post their pictures because they belong on a wall of shame.
At the end of the bailout vote the numbers were 227 Nay, 207 Yea and 1 not voting/absentee. At the moment before the voting closed two votes changed from Yea to Nay. In other words, two brave souls saw that the bill was going down and they wanted to look good in the eyes of the voters in their districts. Nobody would know they pulled a John Kerry and voted for it before they voted against it so they pulled the trigger. You got to love the courage that they showed by changing their votes. This is the type of nonsense that got us into this situation in the first place. I'd love to get the names of the two representatives so I can post their pictures because they belong on a wall of shame.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
How McCain Blew it Big Time
After watching clips of last night's debate I walked away with the impression that there is so much that John McCain could have done to KO Obama but didn't. McCain's debate errors allowed Obama to go unchecked in both parts of the debate and actually lead to Obama winning the first part on economics. Here's what I saw that would have KO'd Obama and might have actually lead to a shift in the current momentum in the campaign in Obama's favor.
1. It's clear from in speeches and campaign documentation that Obama truly believes in Keynsian economics. Keynsian economics was the central economic strategy in this country for the better part of the 20th century. In Keynsian economics, the government uses fiscal policy (taxation) to shape social policy. At it's worst, it led to the tax code having too many tax brackets and also led to it's main premise, heavy taxation on the wealthy who could afford it, being undermined because the middle class actually ended up paying most of the taxes.
What McCain should have done is remind people that this was the key economic strategy in the Carter years. Then remind people that Obama was either in Indonesia or a stoned HS student living in Hawaii during those years (crude but effective to remind people that he was not paying attention and want's to relive what most believe was a total and complete failure). Next, remind Obama that the purpose of taxation is to fund the government not to create an elusive social equity. The payoff would be in reminding Obama Keynsian economics lead to the wealthy using their wealth to find tax loop holes to avoid taxation which lowers tax revenues and ends up causing the middle class, who cannot afford accountants and have few loopholes, to make up the lost revenue. Finally, remind Obama what happened in the transition from Carter to Reagan when taxes were cut and the code simplified - revenues to the government went up because there was no need to avoid or fear taxation. This was the policy of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and will be for McCain.
2. Obama loves to state after the fact facts when discussin both Iraq and Afghanistan. On Iraq, he forgets that Bush did not invade Iraq without the consent of Congress. In Congress, the vote was not a majority but closer to a Super Majority (2/3 vote) in favor. This then makes the discussion about intelligence and forces Obama to make wild, left wing Daily Kos/Move On.org claims about Dick Cheney's scheme to skew the intelligence in an effort to get Halliburton more government contracts even though he was long gone and divested. This is a better playing field then letting Obama appear that he has a knack for foreign policy and was somehow a visionary when in fact he's far from it.
On Afghanistan, Obama seems to think that the Taliban are back in force and have been allowed back because of some US inaction. Obama needs a history lesson on Afghanistan. For years, the effort there worked just fine. The Taliban were at bay and the country was on a path to move forward. Then two things happened. First, Nato forces arrived to assist in rebuilding the country. Then the tactics used in Iraq were being used by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The former was a problem because some of the Nato forces would not engage in combat (Germans I'm talking about you). That and the new Iraq tactics led to more success by the enemy and an emboldened enemy. Reminding Obama of these facts under cut his theory and put him into a box. He's not willing to act unilaterally. He also believes that other allies have the same level if interest in doing something that we do which is simply not the case. If he's disproven in Afghanistan then it makes his whole foreign policy strategy look Carterish which it is.
Fortunately, McCain has two more chances to make Obama's strengths his weakeness, which indeed they are. He also has the opportunity to do the same with ads but has yet to do so. Which is why McCain is trailing in national and electoral map polls and is looking to be a loser in November.
1. It's clear from in speeches and campaign documentation that Obama truly believes in Keynsian economics. Keynsian economics was the central economic strategy in this country for the better part of the 20th century. In Keynsian economics, the government uses fiscal policy (taxation) to shape social policy. At it's worst, it led to the tax code having too many tax brackets and also led to it's main premise, heavy taxation on the wealthy who could afford it, being undermined because the middle class actually ended up paying most of the taxes.
What McCain should have done is remind people that this was the key economic strategy in the Carter years. Then remind people that Obama was either in Indonesia or a stoned HS student living in Hawaii during those years (crude but effective to remind people that he was not paying attention and want's to relive what most believe was a total and complete failure). Next, remind Obama that the purpose of taxation is to fund the government not to create an elusive social equity. The payoff would be in reminding Obama Keynsian economics lead to the wealthy using their wealth to find tax loop holes to avoid taxation which lowers tax revenues and ends up causing the middle class, who cannot afford accountants and have few loopholes, to make up the lost revenue. Finally, remind Obama what happened in the transition from Carter to Reagan when taxes were cut and the code simplified - revenues to the government went up because there was no need to avoid or fear taxation. This was the policy of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and will be for McCain.
2. Obama loves to state after the fact facts when discussin both Iraq and Afghanistan. On Iraq, he forgets that Bush did not invade Iraq without the consent of Congress. In Congress, the vote was not a majority but closer to a Super Majority (2/3 vote) in favor. This then makes the discussion about intelligence and forces Obama to make wild, left wing Daily Kos/Move On.org claims about Dick Cheney's scheme to skew the intelligence in an effort to get Halliburton more government contracts even though he was long gone and divested. This is a better playing field then letting Obama appear that he has a knack for foreign policy and was somehow a visionary when in fact he's far from it.
On Afghanistan, Obama seems to think that the Taliban are back in force and have been allowed back because of some US inaction. Obama needs a history lesson on Afghanistan. For years, the effort there worked just fine. The Taliban were at bay and the country was on a path to move forward. Then two things happened. First, Nato forces arrived to assist in rebuilding the country. Then the tactics used in Iraq were being used by the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The former was a problem because some of the Nato forces would not engage in combat (Germans I'm talking about you). That and the new Iraq tactics led to more success by the enemy and an emboldened enemy. Reminding Obama of these facts under cut his theory and put him into a box. He's not willing to act unilaterally. He also believes that other allies have the same level if interest in doing something that we do which is simply not the case. If he's disproven in Afghanistan then it makes his whole foreign policy strategy look Carterish which it is.
Fortunately, McCain has two more chances to make Obama's strengths his weakeness, which indeed they are. He also has the opportunity to do the same with ads but has yet to do so. Which is why McCain is trailing in national and electoral map polls and is looking to be a loser in November.
Friday, September 26, 2008
This Debate Was Not Worth The Commotion
The debate is on. The debate is off. The debate is back on again. THE DEBATE'S A DUD! Now I know why I was never fond of either candidate. Neither candidate was all that impressive. Maybe its because they don't have a personality between them. The only question I have is where were the zingers that the Obama campaign promised?
Sent from my iPhone 3G
Cowardice!
Cowardice is what you can call the recent developments in Washington. Here's the bottom line. The Democrats have enough agreement within their ranks in both houses to pass The Great Banking Bail Out Package of 2008. In the senate, there are enough Republicans that are willing to go along to make it look nice and bipartisan. The house, however, is a 'problem'. The house Republicans do not want to agree to the Administration's plan. The Democrats could still bring a bill to the floor and pass it but they are cowards. The right thing, the 'Country First' thing and the 'Change We Need' is for the Democrats in the house to pass the bill. But they're afraid of short term political considerations - that the voters in their districts who are angry will vote them out of office.
There are worse things in life then losing elections for the doing the right thing. Time to man up and get our lending institutions back on track with the appropriate supervision in place. Waiting will do only one thing - make the problem even worse and force them into making a decision while they watch the stock markets collapse. Time to put the 'L' back in Leadership.
There are worse things in life then losing elections for the doing the right thing. Time to man up and get our lending institutions back on track with the appropriate supervision in place. Waiting will do only one thing - make the problem even worse and force them into making a decision while they watch the stock markets collapse. Time to put the 'L' back in Leadership.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
It's About Time - Part 2
George Bush comes out of hiding to give a speech on the banking crisis - it's about time. Wouldn't of be great if it was done last week? I'm glad he wasn't short and actually articulated the cause of the problem and the proposed solution in a reassuring way. Typically, you never know what you're going to get with him in a speech. So, now we've had our sighting we'll see him again at the next photo op and then it's back to his hibernation leaving the business of running the country to the Presidential Cruise Control.
Sent from my iPhone 3G
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Mr. Obama - Please Return Your Senate Paycheck
John McCain is returning to Washington to turn the tide in Congress and get banking bailout legislation passed. Where in the world is Barak Obama? Traveling the country campaigning. His plan is to talk about change rather than delivering change. He is still on the Senate payroll. This is shaping up to be THE most important legislation that the Senate votes on this year. He believes that to be Presidential you have to do more than one thing at a time.
This crisis is about your job, life savings, 401(k) and the financial future and the financial futures of your children and grandchildren. To have nothing happen is unthinkable. It's a given that the taxpayers are going to get a raw deal. So time to get something passed that minimizes the impact on the taxpayer, is not a give away to financial institutions and solves the problem that Obama supporter and highly respected investor Warren Buffett calls a Financial Pearl Harbor.
In the 1970's when New York City was in a financial crisis of it's own President Ford told the city to bail itself out. The headline in the Daily News was 'Ford to NYC: Drop Dead'. The Daily News should get those printing plates out of mothballs becase they're needed again.
This crisis is about your job, life savings, 401(k) and the financial future and the financial futures of your children and grandchildren. To have nothing happen is unthinkable. It's a given that the taxpayers are going to get a raw deal. So time to get something passed that minimizes the impact on the taxpayer, is not a give away to financial institutions and solves the problem that Obama supporter and highly respected investor Warren Buffett calls a Financial Pearl Harbor.
In the 1970's when New York City was in a financial crisis of it's own President Ford told the city to bail itself out. The headline in the Daily News was 'Ford to NYC: Drop Dead'. The Daily News should get those printing plates out of mothballs becase they're needed again.
It's About Time!
Both of the Presidential candidates are sitting Senators. While they're on the road talking their colleagues in Washington are trying, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill to bail out our banking crisis. It's about time that they understood what's going on and their help in Washington trumps campaigning and debates. If this is a once a century crisis as many have said then you don't talk your way out of a problem that you behave your way into you do what it takes to solve the problem with actions. Kudos, for John McCain for finally realizing what's more important and what Country First really is and getting it right on this issue. Hopefully, Barak Obama follow suit and give us the Change we Need.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Fair and Balanced on Race?
Recently, there were two articles published about race in the upcoming election. The first argued that Barak Obama would face 6% of voters would would vote against him simply because he is half black. The other stated that some middle class Democrats who have a negative opinion of black people. I have no intention of challenging the articles. Racism exists and there are some who simply just not going to vote for Obama or any other black man or woman.
If race is an issue there's another racial story that is not being told. If it is wrong that a small minority will not vote for Barak Obama on the basis of race then what's going on with the Black vote? Barak Obama carriers nearly 100% of the black vote across America. There are multiple blocks behind that total. The majority of blacks are Democrats, so it's natural that Obama, being the Democratic candidate, will get most of their vote. Then there is identiy politics. Some blacks are going to vote for someone who looks like they do. Not exactly the best reason to vote for someone but it's not necessarily racist or unusual because many people do the same thing on the basis of gender, religion, ethinc group or sexual orientation. But is there a small, extremist percentage out there among the black vote that is similar to what's reported about whites that will not vote for John McCain because he is white? We may never know because the magnifine glass is only on whites. What's sad is not that the liberal media will not make the effort to analyze racism on both sides because they're doing what is expected - they're protecting a constituancy that consistantly supports their initiatives. What's sad is that few call them on the issue and once again they are allowed to get away with it. It's OK to call whites racists but in their model of the world racism is only a white issue. The media's model is wrong and should be corrected.
If race is an issue there's another racial story that is not being told. If it is wrong that a small minority will not vote for Barak Obama on the basis of race then what's going on with the Black vote? Barak Obama carriers nearly 100% of the black vote across America. There are multiple blocks behind that total. The majority of blacks are Democrats, so it's natural that Obama, being the Democratic candidate, will get most of their vote. Then there is identiy politics. Some blacks are going to vote for someone who looks like they do. Not exactly the best reason to vote for someone but it's not necessarily racist or unusual because many people do the same thing on the basis of gender, religion, ethinc group or sexual orientation. But is there a small, extremist percentage out there among the black vote that is similar to what's reported about whites that will not vote for John McCain because he is white? We may never know because the magnifine glass is only on whites. What's sad is not that the liberal media will not make the effort to analyze racism on both sides because they're doing what is expected - they're protecting a constituancy that consistantly supports their initiatives. What's sad is that few call them on the issue and once again they are allowed to get away with it. It's OK to call whites racists but in their model of the world racism is only a white issue. The media's model is wrong and should be corrected.
Rome is Burning, Nero is Fiddling
Is anyone at all shocked that the Wall Street Bail Out plan is not fairing well on Capital Hill. The people who contributed to the problem by failing to regulate and legislate are looking to score points on TV rather than take the problem behind closed doors and get a deal done.
We all know the situation stinks and that nobody wants to issue a blank check. So stop complaining about how hard of a situation you put yourself into, stop looking to blame someone else for your failure to lead and stop shopping for votes while you are on the Hill instead of at home where you want to be. Just get an acceptable deal done so we can term limit you in November for getting us into this situation to begin with. And for you lucky 67% in the Senate who face the voters in 2-4 years consider yourself lucky your term will survive past January.
Idiots!
Sent from my iPhone 3G
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Another Blank Check
So the Wall Street bailout details are coming out. $700 @%&*ing Billion to correct something that could have been prevented if our government worked properly. All we keep hearing is that Congress needs to move fast (probably true) and should keep the details to a minimum to allow the Treasury Secretary to do his magic. All I have to say is AGAIN?
We've written blank checks for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've written blank checks for Katrina Aid. We've written blank checks to cover pork and pet projects. The last thing we need is yet another blank check with nothing in return.
The Majority in Congress is asking for provisions to ensure that people keep their homes and to limit executive pay. Great, trying to score more political points for the base. But what's in it for the taxpayer? I heard one idea that I though was great. In exchange for saving companies we should 1) make it uncomfortable by negotiating favorable terms for the taxpayer. If that means 30 cents on the dollar then so be it. The other is that we should ask for warrants. What are warrants? In essence, they company would be giving the new RTC agency stock options.
While this would wreak of Socialism it is a fair exchange. The taxpayers are assuming the risk. The company is getting out of bad decisions and their corporate value is going to take off without that weight on their balance sheets holding them back. Why shouldn't the party taking the risk get something out of it? We get warrants, convert it to stock and sell it on the market at a profit.
The other thing I am not hearing is any kind of war bond type of initiative. Politicians are looking to end this as quickly as possible and report home for campaigning. They don't want to sell patriotism and duty to have as much of the bonds being in the hands of Americans rather than in the hands of the Chinese and Saudis. They seem to be fine putting the US at their mercy and being less secure on another level. They are thinking in the short term as Westerners typically do. The Chinese don't view the world the same way. They don't care if they take us down next week or next century the bottom line is winning. So if it ever came down to a confrontation between out countries the Chinese are looking for a way to win without firing a shot. This gives them more ammo. That's another story for another time. There should be Bailout Bonds floated and they should have the warrants behind them as more of a reason for Joe 6-pack to lay down $100 for some.
None of that will happen. All we're going to see is another foreign funded bail out of America and then the Government can go back to doing things the same way. Change, yeah I'll believe it when I see it.
We've written blank checks for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've written blank checks for Katrina Aid. We've written blank checks to cover pork and pet projects. The last thing we need is yet another blank check with nothing in return.
The Majority in Congress is asking for provisions to ensure that people keep their homes and to limit executive pay. Great, trying to score more political points for the base. But what's in it for the taxpayer? I heard one idea that I though was great. In exchange for saving companies we should 1) make it uncomfortable by negotiating favorable terms for the taxpayer. If that means 30 cents on the dollar then so be it. The other is that we should ask for warrants. What are warrants? In essence, they company would be giving the new RTC agency stock options.
While this would wreak of Socialism it is a fair exchange. The taxpayers are assuming the risk. The company is getting out of bad decisions and their corporate value is going to take off without that weight on their balance sheets holding them back. Why shouldn't the party taking the risk get something out of it? We get warrants, convert it to stock and sell it on the market at a profit.
The other thing I am not hearing is any kind of war bond type of initiative. Politicians are looking to end this as quickly as possible and report home for campaigning. They don't want to sell patriotism and duty to have as much of the bonds being in the hands of Americans rather than in the hands of the Chinese and Saudis. They seem to be fine putting the US at their mercy and being less secure on another level. They are thinking in the short term as Westerners typically do. The Chinese don't view the world the same way. They don't care if they take us down next week or next century the bottom line is winning. So if it ever came down to a confrontation between out countries the Chinese are looking for a way to win without firing a shot. This gives them more ammo. That's another story for another time. There should be Bailout Bonds floated and they should have the warrants behind them as more of a reason for Joe 6-pack to lay down $100 for some.
None of that will happen. All we're going to see is another foreign funded bail out of America and then the Government can go back to doing things the same way. Change, yeah I'll believe it when I see it.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Worst Government EVER!
Now I don't believe for a moment that the crisis on Wall Street is symptomatic of the broader economy. Industrial and service companies in America are strong except maybe for automakers who have the wrong product mix in their home market but right products elsewhere in the world. That's another topic for another day because their problem is in part due to the fact that their best, most fuel efficient products in Europe and South America cannot make the cut here due to emissions regulations, but I digress. Wall Street's problems this week were caused by a number of factors. Perhaps the worst had to do with the removal of proven securities rules (uptick rule, no 'naked' shorting of stocks) which turned investing into trading. Add to that the insistence that federally backed mortgage institutions had become political instruments forcing Freddie and Fannie to make loans that made sense to no sound financial institution.
These causes developed over time and each contributing factor happened independently. Politicians and businessmen from both sides of the aisle are to blame. Many of them profited by making millions before the fertilizer hit the proverbial fan. And now we see the fruits of their labor. No only is Wall Street looking like it was hit by Hurricane Ike but because we live in a global economy their actions have impacted markets, companies and citizens across the globe.
So now that there's a crisis which requires leadership where are our elected officials? Running scared and hiding. President Bush, where are you? Why did you cancel your opportunity to address the press the other day? Assurances that no matter what happened the government would be there to help would have been a great thing to do. Instead we hear nothing from the White House as the government takes a case by case view of which companies to bail out and which to let go into bankruptcy (which is not the end of the world and in some cases is good but the media will have you believe that these companies have evaporated). Nancy Pelosi, where are you? You wanted this opportunity to be the Speaker of the House and made some bold promises. Yet, you were in charge of a do nothing congress more partisan and corrupt than the one that you replaced promising change to the American people. Claiming that this mess is not your fault is not only untrue but also not a sign of leadership. And going on recess may help you campaign but watch out for what you see when you hit the campaign trail - my guess is a lot of folks with pitchforks and torches. Harry Reid, where are you? Saying that nobody knows what to do is not the kind of leadership that we expect in this country. We pay billions of dollars for you to have staffers and advisors. The Constitution gives you powers to subpena powers to get people to talk to you. How about using some of your God-given authority and actually finding out what to do instead of quitting?
These are the top 3 elected officials in our country. None of them is leading or doing anything. One is retiring in January and good riddence to him. One is up for re-election. I hope the people in San Francisco see her for what she is and give her the boot but believing that will happen is like Harry Reid going to his happy place while Wall Street burns.
What about the people running for President. Neither has shown leadership. Obama's 2 minute Presidential Address was a joke. Nothing to disagree with but no plan and no content. And his content is the wrong message. We've been throwing money at problems that Washington created in the first place and we're going to be asked to bail the government out. Sorry, Senator but wrong answer. John McCain shows that he's voted on the right side of these issues in the past. But I don't even hear rhetoric from him on the subject - good or bad. Saying that the problems are greed and he's for the American worker is on par with what his less experienced opponent is saying. And finally, there's Joe Bidan. Sorry but sending more tax money to Washington only to be wasted is not Patriotic it's stupid, plain stupid.
People, give us sign that you get it. Please.
These causes developed over time and each contributing factor happened independently. Politicians and businessmen from both sides of the aisle are to blame. Many of them profited by making millions before the fertilizer hit the proverbial fan. And now we see the fruits of their labor. No only is Wall Street looking like it was hit by Hurricane Ike but because we live in a global economy their actions have impacted markets, companies and citizens across the globe.
So now that there's a crisis which requires leadership where are our elected officials? Running scared and hiding. President Bush, where are you? Why did you cancel your opportunity to address the press the other day? Assurances that no matter what happened the government would be there to help would have been a great thing to do. Instead we hear nothing from the White House as the government takes a case by case view of which companies to bail out and which to let go into bankruptcy (which is not the end of the world and in some cases is good but the media will have you believe that these companies have evaporated). Nancy Pelosi, where are you? You wanted this opportunity to be the Speaker of the House and made some bold promises. Yet, you were in charge of a do nothing congress more partisan and corrupt than the one that you replaced promising change to the American people. Claiming that this mess is not your fault is not only untrue but also not a sign of leadership. And going on recess may help you campaign but watch out for what you see when you hit the campaign trail - my guess is a lot of folks with pitchforks and torches. Harry Reid, where are you? Saying that nobody knows what to do is not the kind of leadership that we expect in this country. We pay billions of dollars for you to have staffers and advisors. The Constitution gives you powers to subpena powers to get people to talk to you. How about using some of your God-given authority and actually finding out what to do instead of quitting?
These are the top 3 elected officials in our country. None of them is leading or doing anything. One is retiring in January and good riddence to him. One is up for re-election. I hope the people in San Francisco see her for what she is and give her the boot but believing that will happen is like Harry Reid going to his happy place while Wall Street burns.
What about the people running for President. Neither has shown leadership. Obama's 2 minute Presidential Address was a joke. Nothing to disagree with but no plan and no content. And his content is the wrong message. We've been throwing money at problems that Washington created in the first place and we're going to be asked to bail the government out. Sorry, Senator but wrong answer. John McCain shows that he's voted on the right side of these issues in the past. But I don't even hear rhetoric from him on the subject - good or bad. Saying that the problems are greed and he's for the American worker is on par with what his less experienced opponent is saying. And finally, there's Joe Bidan. Sorry but sending more tax money to Washington only to be wasted is not Patriotic it's stupid, plain stupid.
People, give us sign that you get it. Please.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Cultures of corruption
Point 1: Rep. Charlie Rangel
In the run up to the 2006 mid-term elections, Nancy Pelosi who would become House Speaker framed the election as a way of doing away with the Republican's culture of corruption. She promised a clean, reformed congress under her watch. There's another watch going on and it deals with corruption in her leadership ranks. Charlie Rangel who is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes our country's tax laws, is under fire because he did not claim income from Caribbean properties that he owns. At least that's what we originally thought. It must be worse than that now because he's hired a forensic accountant to sort through his previous returns to correct it's many inaccurcies. Where does speaker Pelosi stand on this? She's allowing Rangel to keep his chairmanship. This is not exactly the sort of change we were looking for.
Point 2: Government Oversight
Two branches of government are responsible for oversight of the financial markets - Legislative and Executive (read Congress and the White House). The Bush Administration has shown an ability to clean up the mess after it became a mess - they've become good at cleaning up their own messes. But where's Congress been? They've been busy doing nothing. This Congress can barely pass a budget. They've taken more of an interest in digging up dirt on the Bush Administration than overseeing situations today that could impact us tomorrow. It's not simply their lack of an energy policy it's everything - financial markets, telecommunications, global trade practices, healthcare and education. This Congress is more interested in scoring political points to win the next election than they are putting together a stronger America for tomorrow. Social Security and Medicare? Forget that - they shot down's Bush's desire to change that nearly 4 years ago and haven't been back there since. I guess it's not enough of a problem, yet.
Point 3: Corporate Aristocrats
I'm all for free markets. I'm also for capitalists who risk everything they have to succeed reaping the rewards for their efforts. These capitalists are the business founders who put in the long hours, put their family assets at risk and bet big on themselves. The people who work long hours during the week, all weekend and take no vacations because they want to be a success and want their businesses to succeed. There are many examples of this in America both yesterday and today. In the past, think of names like Ford, Vanderbilt and Morgan. Today think Walton, Buffett (Warren, not Jimmy) and Munger (who badly gets overshadowed by his partner but deserves as much credit for Berkshire's success), Jobs and Woz, Gates and Allen, Michael Dell and Larry Ellison. You may not like some of these people but there is one common denominator - all started with little and grew their businesses.
Now compare these people to the new American Gentry. The people who inhereit companies built by others but expect the riches afforded to the founders because they carry the title of CEO or Chairman. These people rent their office space after being given title by their board and no matter if they do well or do poorly they are rewarded with multi-million dollar salaries, stock and options. If they last a while they somehow become a company's largest shareholder. This feat comes not because they had the fortune before but were granted the fortune by the board. If they fail, they walk away with tens to hundreds of millions compared to nothing but the shirt on the back of a founder who does not succeed.
Somewhere along the line boards forgot the risk-reward principle. You're rewarded for the personal risks you take not for being nursed by the company and punching a clock for a few years as stewart of a company.
In Washington and around the country there are two people who are talking about change. Both will likely bring change to some of these practices which I am happy with. However, the type of change is going to be radically different. Listen carefully and understand that we can be as punitive as possible on points 1-3. However, we need to understand that these changes, though necessary, should not go so far that we risk our competitiveness for years to come. I'm not talking slap on the wrist punishment for those who do wrong or light regulation. I talking about true reform that understands we live in a free, global market and change that puts the United States in a competitive position moving forward. This is possible and at the same time is necessary. In the meantime, time to throw the bums out - all of them.
In the run up to the 2006 mid-term elections, Nancy Pelosi who would become House Speaker framed the election as a way of doing away with the Republican's culture of corruption. She promised a clean, reformed congress under her watch. There's another watch going on and it deals with corruption in her leadership ranks. Charlie Rangel who is Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes our country's tax laws, is under fire because he did not claim income from Caribbean properties that he owns. At least that's what we originally thought. It must be worse than that now because he's hired a forensic accountant to sort through his previous returns to correct it's many inaccurcies. Where does speaker Pelosi stand on this? She's allowing Rangel to keep his chairmanship. This is not exactly the sort of change we were looking for.
Point 2: Government Oversight
Two branches of government are responsible for oversight of the financial markets - Legislative and Executive (read Congress and the White House). The Bush Administration has shown an ability to clean up the mess after it became a mess - they've become good at cleaning up their own messes. But where's Congress been? They've been busy doing nothing. This Congress can barely pass a budget. They've taken more of an interest in digging up dirt on the Bush Administration than overseeing situations today that could impact us tomorrow. It's not simply their lack of an energy policy it's everything - financial markets, telecommunications, global trade practices, healthcare and education. This Congress is more interested in scoring political points to win the next election than they are putting together a stronger America for tomorrow. Social Security and Medicare? Forget that - they shot down's Bush's desire to change that nearly 4 years ago and haven't been back there since. I guess it's not enough of a problem, yet.
Point 3: Corporate Aristocrats
I'm all for free markets. I'm also for capitalists who risk everything they have to succeed reaping the rewards for their efforts. These capitalists are the business founders who put in the long hours, put their family assets at risk and bet big on themselves. The people who work long hours during the week, all weekend and take no vacations because they want to be a success and want their businesses to succeed. There are many examples of this in America both yesterday and today. In the past, think of names like Ford, Vanderbilt and Morgan. Today think Walton, Buffett (Warren, not Jimmy) and Munger (who badly gets overshadowed by his partner but deserves as much credit for Berkshire's success), Jobs and Woz, Gates and Allen, Michael Dell and Larry Ellison. You may not like some of these people but there is one common denominator - all started with little and grew their businesses.
Now compare these people to the new American Gentry. The people who inhereit companies built by others but expect the riches afforded to the founders because they carry the title of CEO or Chairman. These people rent their office space after being given title by their board and no matter if they do well or do poorly they are rewarded with multi-million dollar salaries, stock and options. If they last a while they somehow become a company's largest shareholder. This feat comes not because they had the fortune before but were granted the fortune by the board. If they fail, they walk away with tens to hundreds of millions compared to nothing but the shirt on the back of a founder who does not succeed.
Somewhere along the line boards forgot the risk-reward principle. You're rewarded for the personal risks you take not for being nursed by the company and punching a clock for a few years as stewart of a company.
In Washington and around the country there are two people who are talking about change. Both will likely bring change to some of these practices which I am happy with. However, the type of change is going to be radically different. Listen carefully and understand that we can be as punitive as possible on points 1-3. However, we need to understand that these changes, though necessary, should not go so far that we risk our competitiveness for years to come. I'm not talking slap on the wrist punishment for those who do wrong or light regulation. I talking about true reform that understands we live in a free, global market and change that puts the United States in a competitive position moving forward. This is possible and at the same time is necessary. In the meantime, time to throw the bums out - all of them.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Unscientific Americans
In an earlier post I indicated that one of my interests is particle physics. I also commented on the news that the LHC at CERN was going live this past week. Well, the news reporting on this subject was quite interesting. The news ranged from the accurate (that the scientists at CERN were firing up the LHC for the first time and running tests) to the totally off base (the LHC was live and after use there were no tiny black holes and all was well).
If you ever wondered why China, India and third world countries around the world are catching up with us you have part of the answer. If our schools don't make us all dumb paying attention to the mainstream news surly will. There was a time when those who reported the news were literate, maybe more so than the average person in the country. Those days are long gone. The average person has more education and common sense than the average reporter. But the know-it-all attitude that goes along with being in the news business remains. To that, add the fact that the editorial choices that are made in what constitutes news and you have the answer to the question of why people are online looking for news from weblogs and YouTube rather then buying their local newspapers and watching local and network news.
I can't remember the exact date that this happened for I can point to the event. Back in the late 80's after I graduated from college and was in the workforce for a year or two I read an article about the New York Times. The Times decided to lower the vocabulary in their publication so that it was on par with vocabulary used by the average 8th grader. This you're not smarter than an 8th grader decision was supposed to help the Times reach more readers. My sense is that the average reporter was not as smart as veteran journalists - the kind of which we once respected.
Getting back to science, there will be a day in the next month or so where the LHC does actually perform an experiment. When that happens we may see some interesting things but my sense is that the end of the world is not going to be one of them. What the LHC is going to create is something close to the conditions present in the universe not seen since the Big Bang. The end of the world will not come, in my opinion, because the LHC will simply not be able to provide enough energy and the universe will absorbe much of what energy and matter used in the experiment.
If you ever wondered why China, India and third world countries around the world are catching up with us you have part of the answer. If our schools don't make us all dumb paying attention to the mainstream news surly will. There was a time when those who reported the news were literate, maybe more so than the average person in the country. Those days are long gone. The average person has more education and common sense than the average reporter. But the know-it-all attitude that goes along with being in the news business remains. To that, add the fact that the editorial choices that are made in what constitutes news and you have the answer to the question of why people are online looking for news from weblogs and YouTube rather then buying their local newspapers and watching local and network news.
I can't remember the exact date that this happened for I can point to the event. Back in the late 80's after I graduated from college and was in the workforce for a year or two I read an article about the New York Times. The Times decided to lower the vocabulary in their publication so that it was on par with vocabulary used by the average 8th grader. This you're not smarter than an 8th grader decision was supposed to help the Times reach more readers. My sense is that the average reporter was not as smart as veteran journalists - the kind of which we once respected.
Getting back to science, there will be a day in the next month or so where the LHC does actually perform an experiment. When that happens we may see some interesting things but my sense is that the end of the world is not going to be one of them. What the LHC is going to create is something close to the conditions present in the universe not seen since the Big Bang. The end of the world will not come, in my opinion, because the LHC will simply not be able to provide enough energy and the universe will absorbe much of what energy and matter used in the experiment.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
CERN, The Large Hadron Rap and Hip Hop
One thing in life I love to explore but have trouble getting people to relate to is particle physics (proven by my atomic inspired logo). It's not because I'm a scientist or techno elitist, I'm not, but I find the subject fascinating. Discovery in this field tells us more about how the universe was made and allows one to have a deeper appreciation for the world we live in and the one who created it.
So news of this weeks activities at CERN, the particle collider located in Switzerland and France got me all excited. Particle colliders are like time machines. The force of particles running into each other at speeds close to light speed allow scientists to see how matter behaved close to the Big Bang. The faster the speeds, the harder the collision the closer to the time of the Big Bang. The upgrades at CERN that are now being completed will give scientists more of an opportunity to discover particles missing from current theories of the Universe which will have an impact in science in the years to come.
During my news scanning on this topic I ran across a YouTube video which provoked some thought. It's called the Large Hadron Rap named after the Large Hadron collider at CERN and was created by alpinekat. Apprently, alpinekat is a Michigan State scientist who works at CERN but has a flair for Hip Hop. Her rap song is about the facility and partical physics in general. In the past, Hip Hop was not something I was a fan of but she made me one with this song. It's catchy enough for my 10 year-old son who liked it and is no fan of Hip Hop either (he's into Guitar Hero Aerosmith these days). And since the video runs the lyrics along allows kids to read the story of what's going on in particle physics today. What better way to engage future scientists and let people know more about discovery which is normally explained in ways that they cannot comprehend. Bravo to aplinekat!
My final thought is on Hip Hop itself. All of the anger and negativity in the 'art' form repel people like me and my son. But clearly it is an effective form of communication and one that can be used to good end. Now I don't expect to see artickat on top of the Hip Hop charts anytime soon. However, it would be great to follow he lead and take anger out of it and turn it into something positive rather than something that is a release for some and degrading for too many more.
More on particle physics in the future.
So news of this weeks activities at CERN, the particle collider located in Switzerland and France got me all excited. Particle colliders are like time machines. The force of particles running into each other at speeds close to light speed allow scientists to see how matter behaved close to the Big Bang. The faster the speeds, the harder the collision the closer to the time of the Big Bang. The upgrades at CERN that are now being completed will give scientists more of an opportunity to discover particles missing from current theories of the Universe which will have an impact in science in the years to come.
During my news scanning on this topic I ran across a YouTube video which provoked some thought. It's called the Large Hadron Rap named after the Large Hadron collider at CERN and was created by alpinekat. Apprently, alpinekat is a Michigan State scientist who works at CERN but has a flair for Hip Hop. Her rap song is about the facility and partical physics in general. In the past, Hip Hop was not something I was a fan of but she made me one with this song. It's catchy enough for my 10 year-old son who liked it and is no fan of Hip Hop either (he's into Guitar Hero Aerosmith these days). And since the video runs the lyrics along allows kids to read the story of what's going on in particle physics today. What better way to engage future scientists and let people know more about discovery which is normally explained in ways that they cannot comprehend. Bravo to aplinekat!
My final thought is on Hip Hop itself. All of the anger and negativity in the 'art' form repel people like me and my son. But clearly it is an effective form of communication and one that can be used to good end. Now I don't expect to see artickat on top of the Hip Hop charts anytime soon. However, it would be great to follow he lead and take anger out of it and turn it into something positive rather than something that is a release for some and degrading for too many more.
More on particle physics in the future.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
My Congressman and Me
About a month ago, my congressman, David Price - North Carolina (D), was on a local radio show. The host is new the the all talk station and it was the first opportunity for this morning drive host to speak with one of the local representatives to Washington. Gas prices were a hot topic of discussion because we were paying close to $4 per gallon of gasoline.
The host asked about drilling off shore. Being a Democrat, naturally Rep. Price gave the party line of environment and using the leases that have already been granted. Now I can understand the environmental issue. Here in North Carolina it is a big issue because of our beaches. Any drilling will have to satisfy the need to maintain the beaches which are a summertime draw for tourists from neighboring and inland states. But with any drilling coming miles off of our coast I have doubts that there will be a major spill which has an impact on our beaches.
Callers made similar comments and naturally the congressman took refuge behind the lease issue. Many people could not get him off of this because they are not sure why oil companies refuse to drill on these leased areas. Well, there is an answer and it is one that requires an understanding of economics to comprehend. So, that means that democrats will not get it because they choose to ignore economic realities. So, here's the answer.
People wrongly assume that all oil extracted from the ground is the same. This is not true. At one time oil on the market here in the US was known as 'West Texas Intermediate'. The name was later changed to 'Light Sweet Crude'. Why? Because it better reflects the type of oil that it is and represents the type of oil that refiners want in order to make gasoline. So, there is light oil which is low in sulfur, considered an impurity and removed from crude in the refining process. There is also sour oil which has more than 1% of it's content in the form of sulfur.
As I stated earlier, sulfur is considered an impurity in oil that needs to be removed in order to make gasoline. The more sulfur in the crude the more the crude must be refined raising the cost of oil. So, if oil companies get a lease and find that the oil is high in sulfur they will find that the refiner will not buy it favoring crude lower in sulfur giving the oil company less of a market to sell their product. The investment in exploration, building a rig and extracting the oil will not be paid off unless the only alternative is sour oil. If the were able to sell and refine the sour crude the cost at the pump is going to be higher.
So what should be done? Open up the coastline for exploration and extraction. Make it far enough off the cost so that the rigs cannot be seen and so any spill will not impact the beach, wildlife. Once the pockets of light sweet crude are found then Drill, Drill, Drill! In the meantime, refiners are going to have to find better ways to refine sour crude. Make sure that some of the proceeds are reinvested into these processes. If necessary, make it a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) which has a better track record of technical advances than grants and other government programs. It is, after all, vital to national security.
So, what happened with my congressman? I wrote him a letter letting him know that he let me down. I requested a response and asked for no Democratic talking points. His response contained the talking points about the leases. So, I essentially took him to task again giving him the explanation I gave above but being even more critical than in my 1st letter. In the time between letters (4 weeks - thanks for the prompt response BTW, congressman) the Democrats in congress tried to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices. But their move did not end there. They wanted to replace the Light Sweet Crude with Heavy Sour Crude meaning that the oil in the reserve would be useless when it was needed most - a really good short term measure and really bad long term decision and one that's typically Washington. So, knowing that he was part of this debate I took him to task for knowing the truth but communicating disinformation. But what do you expect from an incumbent.
The host asked about drilling off shore. Being a Democrat, naturally Rep. Price gave the party line of environment and using the leases that have already been granted. Now I can understand the environmental issue. Here in North Carolina it is a big issue because of our beaches. Any drilling will have to satisfy the need to maintain the beaches which are a summertime draw for tourists from neighboring and inland states. But with any drilling coming miles off of our coast I have doubts that there will be a major spill which has an impact on our beaches.
Callers made similar comments and naturally the congressman took refuge behind the lease issue. Many people could not get him off of this because they are not sure why oil companies refuse to drill on these leased areas. Well, there is an answer and it is one that requires an understanding of economics to comprehend. So, that means that democrats will not get it because they choose to ignore economic realities. So, here's the answer.
People wrongly assume that all oil extracted from the ground is the same. This is not true. At one time oil on the market here in the US was known as 'West Texas Intermediate'. The name was later changed to 'Light Sweet Crude'. Why? Because it better reflects the type of oil that it is and represents the type of oil that refiners want in order to make gasoline. So, there is light oil which is low in sulfur, considered an impurity and removed from crude in the refining process. There is also sour oil which has more than 1% of it's content in the form of sulfur.
As I stated earlier, sulfur is considered an impurity in oil that needs to be removed in order to make gasoline. The more sulfur in the crude the more the crude must be refined raising the cost of oil. So, if oil companies get a lease and find that the oil is high in sulfur they will find that the refiner will not buy it favoring crude lower in sulfur giving the oil company less of a market to sell their product. The investment in exploration, building a rig and extracting the oil will not be paid off unless the only alternative is sour oil. If the were able to sell and refine the sour crude the cost at the pump is going to be higher.
So what should be done? Open up the coastline for exploration and extraction. Make it far enough off the cost so that the rigs cannot be seen and so any spill will not impact the beach, wildlife. Once the pockets of light sweet crude are found then Drill, Drill, Drill! In the meantime, refiners are going to have to find better ways to refine sour crude. Make sure that some of the proceeds are reinvested into these processes. If necessary, make it a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) which has a better track record of technical advances than grants and other government programs. It is, after all, vital to national security.
So, what happened with my congressman? I wrote him a letter letting him know that he let me down. I requested a response and asked for no Democratic talking points. His response contained the talking points about the leases. So, I essentially took him to task again giving him the explanation I gave above but being even more critical than in my 1st letter. In the time between letters (4 weeks - thanks for the prompt response BTW, congressman) the Democrats in congress tried to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices. But their move did not end there. They wanted to replace the Light Sweet Crude with Heavy Sour Crude meaning that the oil in the reserve would be useless when it was needed most - a really good short term measure and really bad long term decision and one that's typically Washington. So, knowing that he was part of this debate I took him to task for knowing the truth but communicating disinformation. But what do you expect from an incumbent.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Battle of the Brands: Oprah versus Palin
The Drudge Report today had a series of posts related to Oprah. Word got to Matt Drudge's staff that Oprah's organization is split on whether to have Sarah Palin on the show. No doubt that given the ratings for Palin's speech on Wednesday the ratings on Oprah would similarly be through the roof. However, Oprah want's no part of Palin because she's thrown her support behind Barak Obama.
This decision has infuriated many of Oprah's fans the most vocal of whom have left messages across the Internet. There is also an equal and as vocal faction that is supporting Oprah's decision. How this turns out is anyones guess but given her support for Obama it is unlikely we'll see Sarah Palin on Oprah until after the election if at all.
Now it is Oprah's show. She's the boss and that fact alone says that her word is law. She's got every right to not have Palin on the show. What is questionable, however, is her reasoning. Oprah maintains that since the 2008 Presidential campaign commenced that she has not had a candidate on the show - that includes Barak Obama. In essence, she's saying that there is a firewall between her show and politics.
While that is a lofty and admirable sentiment there is a flaw in her logic. The fact of the matter is that Oprah is a brand. What she is, what she embodies and what she believes is the show, the magazine and all other Oprah/O/Harpo entities. Once you become a brand they all represent you. So when Oprah attends Obama's Acceptance Speech it is a reflection on the rest of her assets without separation. So while Oprah want's to act as if she is above politics she is not.
Oprah is a very intelligent and talented person. She knows this loop hole and expects that we all believe that what she's doing is fair and proper. This is an example of what conservatives brand as elitism. Since the day that natural selection kicked in where those who outsmarted people of lesser intelligence, the thinkers have been using their minds to suppress others in a soft, nonthreatening way. It has always worked. However, in the information age people are wise to these scheme because few of these Jedi Mind Tricks go undocumented.
While we'd all love for people like Oprah to relent and admit that she is a Brand and allow Sarah Palin to be on her show the reality is she's simply not going to do it. Some can get all worked up an a lather over it but it's not going to change anything. In time, those who get upset will make amends with Oprah which is all well and good. But never, NEVER forget that someone who builds an empire on a brand on their persona like Oprah, Obama, Trump, Branson, etc simply cannot selectively step away from any part of their brand.
This decision has infuriated many of Oprah's fans the most vocal of whom have left messages across the Internet. There is also an equal and as vocal faction that is supporting Oprah's decision. How this turns out is anyones guess but given her support for Obama it is unlikely we'll see Sarah Palin on Oprah until after the election if at all.
Now it is Oprah's show. She's the boss and that fact alone says that her word is law. She's got every right to not have Palin on the show. What is questionable, however, is her reasoning. Oprah maintains that since the 2008 Presidential campaign commenced that she has not had a candidate on the show - that includes Barak Obama. In essence, she's saying that there is a firewall between her show and politics.
While that is a lofty and admirable sentiment there is a flaw in her logic. The fact of the matter is that Oprah is a brand. What she is, what she embodies and what she believes is the show, the magazine and all other Oprah/O/Harpo entities. Once you become a brand they all represent you. So when Oprah attends Obama's Acceptance Speech it is a reflection on the rest of her assets without separation. So while Oprah want's to act as if she is above politics she is not.
Oprah is a very intelligent and talented person. She knows this loop hole and expects that we all believe that what she's doing is fair and proper. This is an example of what conservatives brand as elitism. Since the day that natural selection kicked in where those who outsmarted people of lesser intelligence, the thinkers have been using their minds to suppress others in a soft, nonthreatening way. It has always worked. However, in the information age people are wise to these scheme because few of these Jedi Mind Tricks go undocumented.
While we'd all love for people like Oprah to relent and admit that she is a Brand and allow Sarah Palin to be on her show the reality is she's simply not going to do it. Some can get all worked up an a lather over it but it's not going to change anything. In time, those who get upset will make amends with Oprah which is all well and good. But never, NEVER forget that someone who builds an empire on a brand on their persona like Oprah, Obama, Trump, Branson, etc simply cannot selectively step away from any part of their brand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
