The Pundit Master

Is it okay to "dis" the President? The Congressman and the Hockey Player

2012-01-24T08:09:00.001-08:00

Congressman Doug Lamborn has announced that he will not attend the President's State of the Union Address tonight in protest. He says it will be little more than a campaign speech, so he will instead watch on television.

Tim Thomas, 2011 Stanley Cup MVP, skipped out on his invitation to the White House with the rest of his team. He was protesting what he believes is the erosion of freedom and constitutional government by the administration.

Are these men wrong to pass on invitations from our Commander in Chief to spotlight their political beliefs? Yes and no, in that order.

Doug Lamborn is a Congressman. The State of the Union is an annual address from one branch of government to the other two, as well as to the people. Yes, it has evolved into a mostly ceremonial presentation of what a great job the current administration thinks it's doing, but it is a government ritual and one that the Congressman should bite his lip and attend. If others were to follow his lead, future addresses by Presidents might only be attended by members of their own party. This does nothing to further productive debate and discourse.

Mr. Thomas, on the other hand, is a hockey player. As a private citizen he is under no obligation to attend a White House photo op, just because he was asked to. If you are genuinely disturbed by the direction the President is taking the country in, why would you show up to exchange pleasantries on camera for any reason? This is not North Korea. Individuals cannot be compelled to bow or even shake hands with a politician they'd rather not be associated with.

If you enter the field of politics, you put yourself in a position where you must deal with people with whom you disagree. You have to keep the lines of communication open to be effective for the people you represent. You don't have to be submissive, but you have to be present. If you're in most any other profession in America, you don't. Citizens don't worship elected officials here. We just agree not to throw eggs at them...mostly.

America on the decline? Don't bet on it.

2011-10-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

The unemployment rate is still at 9% with no signs of improvement in sight. Economic growth is anemic. The hippies are back on Wall Street. Regulators are going berserk. It certainly seems like things are going downhill. So why am I not worried? Because in the land of the free and the home of the brave, the people demand results. They may not always choose the right approach at first, second or even third try, but failure will not be tolerated for long.

Americans are not on the same page politically. In tough economic times, socialist policies and mega-regulation always get a new look, even in the United States. the tide will turn though, because they don't work. Eventually these policies start to impact individuals at the personal level and individuals will demand something different.

Free markets and capitalism got a black eye when, over a couple of decades, the dreaded business/government partnership came up with a scheme to maximize home ownership by essentially mandating that everyone with a pulse qualify for a mortgage. Naturally home sales soared and lots of folks got rich. Also naturally, it was unsustainable and the bubble eventually burst. We'll be cleaning up that mess for a number of years yet. In the interim, people think they want government to step in and prop up markets, subsidize home-buyers, bail out and then restrict banks and somehow artificially fix things. This too shall pass, because it doesn't work.

We've had good times and bad times in the United States, but the trend as far as quality of life in this country, if you look at it objectively over the long run, has been upward. The reason for that is that we have maintained freedom of speech, freedom of association, peaceful transistion of power and value our individual freedom. Many people may not understand the dynamics or mechanics of a free marketplace, but they do understand when someone tries to stop them from doing what they want to do, or achieving what they'd like to achieve. They know when they're not satisfied and they'll keep voting for change until somebody gets it right, or at least more right.

The overall success of this country lies in our individual ability to debate, evaluate, innovate and repeat. So, while your advocating for this candidate or that, remember to take some time to promote the essential fundamentals that are fairly easy to get most people to agree upon. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, no matter how wrong. Everyone has the right to vote, anonymously and absent intimidation. Everyone has the right to the enjoyment of their property whether they have a lot, or a little. Government exists to protect the individual, not to rule over him or her. And if your favored agenda or candidate doesn't win out this election cycle, keep in mind there will be another one soon enough.

Our strength doesn't lie in getting everyone to agree on everything. It lies in maintaining an atmosphere where non-violent difference of opinion can can be expressed and tested on a continual basis. I have confidence in the controlled chaos that is the American way. Advocate passionately for your agenda, your ideals, your candidate. But as long as we remain free, there's no need to panic.

It's the Candidate Stupid

2011-10-12T18:15:00.000-07:00

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, a New Hampshire man stated that while he doesn't like Herman Cain's 999 plan, and disagrees with him on some other points, after watching the New Hampshire debate, he's decided to support Herman Cain. You might think this is contradictory. How can you support a candidate when you disagree with his signature proposal? Because we aren't electing a proposal. We're electing a President.

While there is a segment of the voting population that is single issue focused or so dedicated to their party, that they will support whoever carries their banner, regardless of the candidate, elections are decided by the 40% or so who actually consider and weigh the pros and cons of the individual. Who will be the best leader among the available candidates?

MIchele Bachmann is on the right side of virtually every issue when it comes to Conservatives, Tea Party supporters and Republicans in general, yet she's plummeted in the polls. Why? I think the last straw was when she made a big production out of acknowledging Elvis Presley's birthday, to the extent that her bus was blaring an Elvis Presley song as it pulled up to the stop. Trouble was, it was actually the anniversary of his death, not his birthday. If this had been an isolated mistake, she probably could have skated by. But this was one of a string of innaccurate statements over a period of months. Her demise wasn't that she made a mistake. It was that she was unable or unwilling to correct an obvious weakness in her own campaign; fact checking. She demonstrated incompetence as a leader, to a degree the voters found unacceptable.

Rick Perry could have overcome opposition to his stance on illegal immigration. But rather than displaying confidence and passion, he displayed confusion as to why people didn't already agree with him and scorned his detractors. His inability to confidently address his critics showed poor leadership characteristics and he's paying the price.

Ron Paul is almost a one issue guy. He hates the Federal Reserve. He's right about a lot of things, but when you look at his delivery and imagine him negotiating with world leaders during a crisis, well, let's just say it's not a pretty picture. As a Presidential candidate, he makes a good Congressman.

Rick Santorum has some good ideas and seems like a nice enough guy, but his presentation screams "Why won't anybody listen to me." Again, not a vision of a strong leader of the most powerful country on Earth.

John Huntsman is running his primary campaign as if he's in a general election contest. He seems to be trying to appeal to moderates. Trouble is moderates are folks who are not particularly passionate and probably wont go out of their way to vote in a primary. You can't be a champion moderate. You can be a champion that's acceptable to moderates. There's a big difference.

Mitt Romney is the safe candidate. A lot of Republicans have issues with Romneycare in Massachusetts, but they're willing to put that aside because he does display leadership skills. He looks confident, passionate, and can handle critics without losing his cool or being dismissive. He may not be the most free market guy on the bill, but they perceive him as better than the current occupant of the White House and reasonably adequate, if not their dream candidate.

Cain presents an image of a man who's lived the American dream. He's a likable guy, he's been in leadership positions during times of crisis and has a track record of success. Even when people disagree with a particular proposal, his ideas are at least well thought out and reasonable enough to merit consideration. They seem to be okay with his though process if not every one of his thoughts.

I think Newt Gingrich is running the best example of a candidate presenting himself as himself. He's very relaxed, yet passionate and confident in the ideas he supports. He is uncompromising and unapologetic, yet cool under pressure. He makes you believe that he believes every word he says. Essentially he's saying "This is me. Here are my ideas. Vote for me or don't." A pretty fair proposal I'd say. He may not win, but it wont be because he made a lot of mistakes, it will simply be because the voters liked someone else better.

It's fun to get on the candidates social pages and read the Jerry Springer like back and forth. It's heated and people go at it as if adherence to every word their candidate says is imperative or a bad idea from an opposing candidate will be their swan song. But we're not electing a king and the people who decide the next election aren't going to be voting for a tax plan, or a foreign policy position, or a stance on this issue or that. They're going to be voting for the person they believe will be the best leader of the United States, from among the available applicants over the next four years. They're going to be voting for a candidate.

Faster than light is not time travel

2011-09-24T18:46:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that the folks at CERN have reported initial findings of neutrinos going faster than the speed of light. Naturally lots of commentators immediately start talking about the ability to go back in time. Just so you know, that's not what faster than light suggests.

It would be a problem for physics and for time pieces, both of which are based on the premise that nothing goes faster than light. However, consider this scenerio:

Boy throws baseball faster than the speed of light at a window. You see the window break before you see the ball released from the hand. The boy cannot not throw the ball at this point. It's already been thrown, or else the window would not have broken. You just haven't perceived it yet.

Perhaps, if confirmed, it could lead to early warning systems of some sort, or be used for long distance communication, but no, you can't go back in time.

For the record...

2011-09-18T16:41:00.000-07:00

I told my wife, shortly after Obama was elected that we may well witness the first mental breakdown of a President of the U.S. live on TV. Two reasons: I was confident his economic policies would make a bad situation much worse and the level of constant scrutiny is unprecedented.

Politicians in general crave attention and positive feedback. If Obama faces Carter-like approval ratings in a 24 hour news cycle for over a year, I'll be impressed if he can keep his head on straight.

Spiking Their Own Kool Aid

2011-08-30T17:12:00.000-07:00

Yet another member of the Congressional Black Caucua has suggested that Tea Party folks are crazy racists who want to "see us hanging on a tree." First of all, The Tea Party isn't an organization that issues membership cards. It's a movement that believes in lower taxes and smaller government.

People who also believe in smaller government know that they're not racist or crazy. The CBC and others who are taking this tack, only appeal to those who have already drunk the Obama Kool Aid. They just sound desperate to everyone else. If you want to promote Mr. Obama, tell us about all the great things he's done and what he's going to do.

There's a legitimate split in this country between those who believe government should be the caretakers and overseers of their constituents and those who believe they should not. Name calling and hyperbole don't advance either side and actually make those who engage in it sound nutty and/or ignorant.

If you want to make the case for the Progressive movement, make it. If you think people will abandon capitalism because they don't want you to call them names, you really are crazy.

Debt Debate - Politicians are still negotiating with the wrong audience

2011-07-30T07:08:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives has actually passed two debt ceiling plans and sent them to the Senate. Both were killed on arrival because they contained a requirement that Congress pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states. Even some Republicans voted against the idea, not because they oppose the amendment, but because they've resigned themselves to the idea that the Democrats wont go for it.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 70+% of Americans polled are in favor of a balanced budget amendment. Why are supporters in Congress not taking this case to the people instead of bickering with other lawmakers and media pundits?

It seems to me a good strategy would be to pass a debt ceiling hike with the provision that a vote be taken in both houses on the balanced budget amendment within 60 days. Take those 60 days to appeal to the public to put pressure on their representatives to pass the balanced budget amendment. If public sentiment is where the polls say it is, Democrats will come around. If it's not, so be it.

In any case, helping to kill your own proposals because you assume you're going to lose before you even start the fight is weak. Give yourself time to make your best pitch to the masses. If they aren't moved, you did all you can do.

Where the Casey Anthoney jury went horribly, horribly wrong

2011-07-06T18:14:00.000-07:00

From the beginning of the Casey Anthony trial, the defense had a specific story as to how Caley Anthony died. They didn't propose what if's. They didn't give several possibilities. They state their client was there and this is how it happened.

Why is that important? Because the jury was specifically told they are not to imagine. They were to consider the evidence presented in court. That means there were only two versions of events for them to consider. The prosecution's theory and the defense's statement, which we must assume came straight from the defendant.

So what was the defense's story? George Anthony, Casey's dad, wakes up and finds Caley dead in the pool; a tragic accident. He yells at Casey and says that her mom is going to be very angry. Casey is so deathly afraid of her mom's wrath (and evidently so is George) that she agrees they should put duct tape over Caley's face, put her in a bag, throw her in a swamp and pretend that nothing happened. Remember, this is the defense's (Casey's) version of what happened.

Now, just listen to the first phone call Casey made from jail when she was finally arrested. Far from being a traumatized little girl who's afraid of her mom, she holds her mom in utter contempt and has no problem expressing it directly to her. That alone totally blows up the defense's fairy tale. Remember, the jury is not to imagine alternate scenarios of their own concoction. the defense gave us a specific story in which the defendant was there. This is the only alternative to the murder scenario.

No sane person could conclude that Casey had any fear whatsoever of her mom. There is only one logical conclusion. She's lying again. The jury is not obligated, nor is it entitled to come up with new imaginary alibis for the defense.

But that's exactly what they did. Maybe they just didn't want to believe that Casey Anthony did what she obviously did. I hope it keeps them awake at night, but I suspect there's not enough brain activity between them all to enable a guilty conscience.

EU discovers it's Special Purpose

2011-06-27T20:08:00.000-07:00

The French have come up with a solution for the Greek debt problem! They're going to create a Special Purpose Vehicle ( no, I'm not kidding.) Here's how it works. Bondholders actually get about 30% of what they're due at maturity. The rest is voluntarily rolled over into 20 and 30 year bonds. Here's the good part. The banks, who were the bondholders don't have to carry the new Greek bonds on their books. Instead, the new SPV will own the bonds and the banks will own shares of the SPV. Hmmmm, where have we seen this scheme before?

The beauty is, when the EU has to cover the bonds in the future, they won't be bailing out Greece, or the banks, they'll be bailing out this SPV. I guess they think that will be more politically palatable to EU taxpayers.

Let's review. To deal with toxic assets, bundle, distribute, insure, bail, repeat.

A Real Cushy Job

2011-06-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

A guest post by Tim Churchill

With all the potential Republican candidates falling in and falling out, it becomes hard to know just who might square off against Mr. Obama in 2012. Some of the quitters might even return to the brawl. I suppose you can’t blame them for wanting such a cushy job. And you certainly can’t blame Mr. Obama for wanting to keep it. After all, he has time for golf and for vacations at the drop of a hat. He gets to take crowds of people to foreign countries as his “entourage” without regard for cost or the inconvenience to those who must be displaced by his desires, or the desires of those in his group.

As an added perk for his vacations, how about his right to hop aboard the luxurious airplane called “Air Force One” with all his attendees? Of course we don’t call the golfing trips vacations. Those are just short breaks, for his relaxation. I can just imagine how Mr. Obama might shake a bit at the thought of losing such a job. Shortly before he was catapulted into it, he didn’t have a pot to cook in. He took trips abroad without a valid passport (or did he?). His friends at school thought he was a foreign exchange student, or something like that.

Thinking of his position, where the buck stops, isn’t it great to have so many Government employees to share those vast responsibilities? When you are President you can have a Czar for almost anything. With so many people in charge of almost everything, you can just tell someone what you want and, “voila” it gets done. Since Mr. Obama became President, the number of Government employees has doubled. Isn’t that great? Just think of all those people added to the Government payroll. No worries about the money rolling in. Oh, and don’t forget this, with all those Government folks paying their dues to the Union leaders, his supporters are ready to vote.

And here is something you may not have thought about. The pay is really good. Mr. Obama has been to the bank enumerable times. His deposits were over five million dollars for just his first year in office. How can you beat that, even in the Chicago underworld? The really big deposits though will come after his reelection. That will be when he starts collecting for all those appointments to high places. Never mind that his withdrawals will contribute to the bankruptcy of the Treasury. Don’t forget, he owns the printing press!

It is hard to imagine, wanting to leave such a job. No production is required. If a crises occurs, go golfing, or to South America. Someone will take care of it. Big decisions can be delayed for as long as it takes. And that is the greatest benefit of all the pros. You don’t have to do a thing except go around patting people on the back, making speeches, throw in a bit of praise for the military And the Trade Unions, just to keep the masses happy. Just sign off on the spending bills until we are flat broke, literally, and he will have the Socialist country he wants.

One more thing: The job virtually cries out for edicts, Executive Orders, and Legislation to get rid of that cumbersome Constitution. What a waste of paper that was. Mr. Obama doesn’t have a lot of time for silly questions, like where he goes to church, or why it took two years to come with a Birth Certificate, or why he should worry about the economy. He has appointed Czars to handle that. What a great country, huh?

2012 Republican Presidential Candidates - The Early Going

2011-05-22T15:57:00.000-07:00

It’s very early, but the candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination are beginning to mix it up. Here are my personal observations so far.

Mitt Romney - Mitt has money, name recognition, charisma, gives a good speech and takes a good picture. He’s also got Romneycare around his neck. As long as he opposes Obamacare while defending Romneycare, he’s not going to appeal to the base. He may win the nomination, but if the choice is between a Republican progressive and a Democrat progressive, I think the incumbant wins.

Newt Gingrich - Newt had public relations issues before he announced and made matters worse shortly thereafter. He clearly stated that he considered Paul Ryan’s plan for block granting Medicare to be “right-wing social engineering”. He was not taken out of context or misquoted. He managed to infuriate the party base with that statement, then make himself look like a chump to everyone else, days later, when he totally reversed himself on it. Newt may well be the “smartest guy in the room” but perhaps not the wisest.

Rick Santorum - I agree with a lot of Rick’s positions, but something about the guy gives me the creeps. Judging by early polls, I’m not alone. Not a very thoughtful analysis, I know, but if the question is, does he have a chance, I think the answer is no.

Tim Pawlenty - Nice guy, I like a lot of his positions and his track record. I haven’t seen enough of him on the stump to know if he can sell himself in the national spotlight.

Herman Cain - Herman did well in the first Republican debate. He has a growing and very enthusiastic following. However, lack of political experience and not having access to classified material is not an excuse for not being at least familiar with foreign policy issues. If he’s going to have mass appeal as a potential competent commander in chief, he’s got a lot of homework to do. He should be surrounding himself with experts now, not waiting to see the election results.

Michele Bachmann - As of this moment Michele has not announced. She also has an enthusiastic following and is also subject to rookie mistakes. She’s been called out more than once for quoting figures that are not accurate. In this day and age, you have to know that everything you say is going to be scrutinized and every mistake will be held against you. She needs to get a top-rate fact checking team now, if she’s going to be a serious contender.

Gary Johnson - Love what he says, hate how he says it. He comes across to me as someone who is confident that most of the people in the room disagree with him. This smells like weakness. He needs to learn to address his supporters and convey the confidence in his convictions. If you can’t move people to action, your agenda is meaningless.

Ron Paul - Another candidate with a lot of enthusiastic supporters. Dead right on a lot of issues. Dead wrong on others. I think his appeal is still very limited. He’ll have a role in shaping the issues, but his isolationist agenda is going to be a non-starter.

Fred Karger, Vern Wuensche and Tom Miller - Who?

Other names have been suggested, most of whom are probably not even considering running. However, the biggest wild card out there, I believe, is Sara Palin.

Sara Palin - You either love her, or you hate her. What I find very appealing is that she has learned not to waste time trying to appeal to those who have already decided to hate her. I think she’s sincere when she says she’ll wait and see how the race shapes up. I believe that if she deems all the other candidates unworthy, she’ll get in late in the game. She can afford to, and I believe she would be a formidable candidate.

Ultimately, the 2012 election is going to be about the economy. If people generally feel good about how things are going, Obama gets another term, if they don’t, the other guy wins. The Republican nomination process is all about who gets to be the other guy (or gal).

Maybe the indentured servant factory model isn't the wave of the future after all

2011-05-12T08:36:00.000-07:00

Here's the thing about cheap crap made by $2/day employees and prison labor; the people who make it, can't afford it. The unemployed ex-manufacturing workers in the U.S. have taken it off their shopping lists and people with money don't want it.

The model seems to be sputtering.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112728/brics-stock-crumble-barrons?mod=bb-budgeting&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode=

Apples, Oranges and Nuts

2011-05-04T22:11:00.000-07:00

Reality - When talking about "enhanced interrogation techniques" what is specifically being referred to is the water boarding of three individuals by the CIA in the weeks and months after 9/11.

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether this constitutes torture and whether or not such techniques should be used.

Juan Williams talking about enhanced interrogation on ORielly last night - "I can't support the gouging out of someones eyeballs or yanking out their fingernails."

This is why we can't all just get along. How do you debate somebody who just makes up stuff on the fly to support the conclusion they've already committed to?

Don't hack on the parade

2011-05-02T20:05:00.000-07:00

I sense a lot of Obama opponents are a bit anxious that the successful hit on Bin Laden could propel him to a second term. First, enjoy the good news. He made a gutsy call and it worked out well for all of us. President Obama is entitled to the kudos he's receiving. Second, this will not be a factor in the election.

President Bush, Sr had Desert Storm and the fall of the Berlin Wall on his resume. He still lost. Why? If people feel good about the economy, incumbent wins. If they don't, incumbent loses. I won't say nothing else matters, but it won't determine the victor.

So does this mean if you don't like Obama, you sabotage the economy? No. First of all, you aren't that powerful. Second, that would not be Republican or Democrat. That's just psychotic. If you're right about proper economic policy and Obama is wrong, he either comes around to your way of thinking and wins or sticks to his guns and loses. If it turns out the Keynesian Progressive model leads to economic vitality, I'll be shocked and a bunch of us have to accept we were wrong. On the bright side, wouldn't it be great to learn that maintaining a healthy economy is as simple as spending as much as you can, as fast as you can?

The point is, you don't have to participate in the ridiculous spin machine. Let reality do it's thing and speak the truth, even when/if it surprises you. And if the guy you didn't vote for and don't like is having a good day, don't be a jerk about it.

The Trump Card

2011-04-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

There are plenty of things, in my humble opinion, to find fault with Donald Trump over. For example his support for the extensive use of eminent domain and his seeming lack of a concrete philosophical base. However, Trump is getting a lot of things right lately, while his competitors, Democrat and Republican continue to display their cluelessness.

I don't know or care if Trump really ever believed whether or not President Obama was or wasn't born in Hawaii. A recent Pew Research poll indicated that about 62 percent of Americans still had doubts (this was before today's display by the White House). The administration had decided it was a non-issue. Most Republican candidates decided it was a non-issue. The press had decided it was a non-issue. The public wanted more clarification. The establishment essentially told 62% of the voting public that they weren't going to dignify their question with an answer. This can only be described with one word: Stupid.

Trump got them their answer. He delivered where even the Clinton machine couldn't. It took only 2 days from the time President Obama sent a request to Hawaii for the "long form" birth certificate until he had it in his hand, so it wasn't a matter of any kind of hardship or difficulty. He simply didn't want to do it until Trump forced him to.

Another area where Trump is crushing his detractors is in talking to the appropriate audience. He states the obvious; that China is manipulating its currency to our detriment; that U.S. policy, however well-intentioned, warm and/or fuzzy, has driven manufacturing jobs out of our country; that we provide defense for oil rich monarchies and dictators, free of charge, for the privilege of paying through the nose for oil while we refuse to develop our own resources.

It's not that the other candidates are not aware of these things. But saying them out loud might make you look less "stately" and diplomatic on the world stage. They're speaking to news editors, pundits and foreign dignitaries, not to the American public. This might work out okay during good times, but right now the public is looking for someone that will unequivocally and unapologetically advocate for the best interest of the United States. Let China look out for China and Saudi look after Saudi. We need leaders that are on our side. Maybe it's his TV experience that has helped him out in this area, but Trump is addressing the right audience. His rivals are not.

I don't know if Trump will run or not. I don't know if he'd be a good president or not. But he will be a formidable candidate if he wants to be. Any competitor that denies that does so at their own peril.

PFC Bradley Manning - An American Zero

2011-04-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

PFC Bradley Manning was recently transferred to a detention facility at Ft Leavenworth, KS. He is accused of providing volumes of classified military documents to Wikileaks. Manning has many supporters in this country. This is not unusual. There is always a segment of the population drawn to the underdog, regardless of what they've done or what they've been accused of or the facts of the case. We've seen people demonstrate in support of cop-killers, rapists, child molestors and tyrants. I'm no psychologist, but there seems to be an attraction for some people to anything unacceptable to the masses.

PFC Manning is a young man who was seeking attention and acclaim and, unfortunately, fell victim to a predator named Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. Manning was convinced that his actions would be regarded as heroic, and so he handed over documents that put actual heroes lives in real jeopardy. Assange is probably in the clear legally speaking, as he simply reported what was given to him.

Now Manning will spend most of the rest of his life in prison, while Julian Assange will spend most of the rest of his life in 5-star hotels, surrounded by adoring idiots, seeking their next victim. The tale of Bradley Manning is tragic and unfortunate, but there's certainly nothing heroic about it.

Will 2012 be the nastiest election year ever?

2011-04-22T14:54:00.000-07:00

One result of the explosion of social media and media in general is that more people than ever are engaged in conversation, debate, punditry and bloviating on the events and issues of the day.

This has illustrated a definite divide among Americans that goes deeper than disagreement on ways and means.

One one end of the spectrum are folks like myself that would like to live in a world where the government's role is limited to ensuring that individuals are not coerced or subjected to force by other individuals or groups as they go about their business.

On the other end are folks that believe the government should ensure that everyone has enough to eat, a place to sleep, clothing, health care and all of the basic needs of human life.

Those of us in the first group are not only opposed to the vision of the second because we believe it can't be done. We also believe that it's no way for a free human being to live. I wont launch into a lengthy debate of the merits of either view here.

The point is, when you get down to the core issue, there is no compromise, and we're getting closer and closer to finally getting down to the core issue. Do you want to live free or do you just want to live?

It would be nice if the folks in group 2 would actually engage in a debate of the merits of one view vs. another, but what I expect to see is more of what I've seen my whole life. If you are an individualist, you will be called cold hearted and greedy. You'll be characterized as someone who hates children, is under the spell of the rich, wants to kill old people, is opposed to clean air and water and is generally a horrible, terrible monster of a human being.

None of this is new, and it only influences the feint of heart, but I expect it to be exponentially multiplied this year due to the shear number of people with access to so many different outlets. Compounding the issue is that Americans are paying closer attention to the goings on of their government these days. We are at a turning point. It's time to pick sides. We may not settle the issue this cycle or the next, but soon and it's getting harder to pretend that there is no direct conflict of interest at play.

In any case there will be desperation and panic on one side or the other or both. That leads to outrageous behavior and speech. If nothing else it's shaping up to be quite an entertaining season.

The budget crisis - They still don't get it

2011-04-13T12:03:00.000-07:00

First Republicans and Democrats praised themselves for the bold new cuts proposed for the 2011 budget (roughly 1%). As it turns out it's only a cut if your starting point is the Obama proposed 2011 budget that was never acted upon. Spending for 2011 will be higher than it was in 2010 under the new agreement. It's neither bold, nor a cut.

Paul Ryan offered a glimmer of hope with a proposal to cut back on the proposed increases in spending over the next decade by about $6 trillion. This is still not an actual cut, but a reduction in the pace of growth, and it doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting past the Senate.

President Obama has his own plan, that he claims would reduce spending by $4 trillion over 12 years. That's about the same amount he had proposed increasing spending by just a few months ago. He plans on getting there, in part, by raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" and has redefined "millionaires and billionaires" to include couples with a combined income of $250k or more.

Both parties are trying to find ways to fund our enormous federal government at its current size or bigger. Even if they could find a way to accomplish this task (and they wont), it misses the point. Government is too big and too intrusive. It needs to be reduced in size and scope, not funded or financed. The obsession with maintaining the status quo, among both politicians and the general public will only succeed in the continuing erosion of most everyone's standard of living.

Here's hoping we get a clue at some point.

Putting the Obama birth certificate issue to bed

2011-03-28T16:16:00.000-07:00

Donald Trump caused a bit of a stir on the View recently when he suggested that President Obama put the issue of where he was born to rest by just producing his birth certificate. This sent Whoopie Goldburg into a tizzy, as she suggested that a white candidate would never be asked such a thing. Actually, many white candidates have been asked to produce their birth certificates, including McCain, G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. All complied.

It may be unwise of Mr. Trump to get into the issue, because even if a valid birth certificate is never produced, another thing that will never be produced is any conclusive proof that Mr. Obama was not born in the U.S..

It's entirely possible that the Obama team isn't complying with requests because they believe that the people harping on the issue are making themselves sound foolish and they have no desire to put a stop to that.

There is a very simple solution, however. I find it hard to believe that this is not already required, but evidently it is not. Since the law says you must have been born in the United States to run for President, why not just introduce legislation, effective in 2012, that says you must provide a valid birth certificate, or some conclusive proof of the time, date and location of your birth, to register as a candidate for President of the United States? Problem solved. Joke over.

Libya - Can we get on the same page?

2011-03-21T16:21:00.000-07:00

Although the President's rhetoric wasn't as strong as some would have liked, I think it's fair to say the military operation recently started in Libya was put together pretty fast. It was only a few weeks from the beginning of the protests to the beginning of cruise missle strikes.

It's true the mission remains unclear. We should come out and say Gadhafi is the target and regime change is the goal. But there is time to make that case and get it done.

I'm discouraged by those on the right, griping about how action should have begun earlier. It reminds me of a "Kids In The Hall" sketch where a restaurant patron wouldn't stop whining that he wanted his check 15 minutes ago. It just smacks of looking for a.reason to oppose the President for the sake of opposing the President. I didn't like it when the Democrats did it to Bush, and it's just as distasteful when Republicans do it to Obama. We've taken on the mission of protecting Libyan civilians. Our representatives need to do what they can to make it successful, not look for opportunities to score points. There will be time for that when the job is done. Yes, helping the President define the job would be part of helping to make it work.

Of course the far left is opposed to any U.S. Military action anywhere. That's par for the course. I don't expect that will ever change.

If you truly believe we should cease and desist in Libya, make that case. If you just don't like the way the operation is being conducted, fix it. Publicly whining sounds like you're routing for failure because it might suit you politically. What could be less American?

Who is "undisclosing" Wisconsin Senators location?

2011-03-03T18:23:00.000-08:00

Since Wisconsin Senators went to Illinois to avoid a vote on their budget, the media has interviewed and filmed them from what they refer to as an "undisclosed location". Why is it undisclosed? Of course they know where they are. ABC just had a photo session with them, again with the undisclosed location bit. Would the press extend such a courtesy to you or I?

I really don't care exactly where they are, but I don't like the display of coziness between the press and politicians in agreeing to keep any information from the audience. Are they reporters or public relations managers?

Palin and Huckabee Not Running In 2012?

2011-03-02T17:50:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both had their FOX News contracts suspended today. The contracts will be terminated if they don't notify the network that they are NOT running for President in 60 days. FOX is concerned about campaign finance issues. Interestingly, Huckabee and Palin were not suspended. I'm sure the network had the same conversation with all of them.

I assume Huckabee and Palin have assured their bosses that they are not running. It makes sense to keep the public guessing though. A potential candidate is a better draw than just a pundit. I'm not surprised that Palin isn't running. She's got a pretty good gig already. Huckabee does too, but he sure sounded like a candidate recently.

New Insight on The War on Terror

2011-02-23T18:53:00.000-08:00

I used to think that The War on Terror was a misnomer in that terrorism is a tactic. How do you wage war on a tactic. But recent events illustrate that terrorism is not just a tactic. It's a motis operandum, a strategy, an environment one creates and maintains to achieve and maintain control of a population. People who subscribe to this operating model are the enemy, and the U.S. is not alone in the fight.

It occurred to me that Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi is a true terrorist. He has ruled his country for over 40 years by demonstrating continually that there is no limit to his capacity for cruelty. He had the population in constant fear for their lives. A recent dispatch out of eastern Libya (not under Gadhafi's control as of this post) by a local man stated that, in the past, if the people of his town protested, they would simply all be killed and nobody would ever hear about it. The new technologies and services on the Internet enabled people across the whole continent to communicate and share ideas and frustrations despite government's all out efforts to stop it.

In the real War on Terror, Gadhafi, Mubarak and anyone else who governs without the express consent of the governed, has to be on the hit list. I'm not making the list. The White House isn't making the list. The list becomes clear when you realize that the freedom to communicate and associate are not things people will give up. They've had a taste of the liberation that comes with the free flow of ideas and it's spreading like wildfire.

Gadhafi is losing because he's lost the fear factor. His proposal: "My way or you die." was answered with "We'd rather die." The Internet is no small factor. Dying for your principals when nobody will ever know about it is noble, but not very compelling. A chance to go down in history for standing on your principals is another matter altogether.

With a clearer view of the enemy, the battle lines and the battlefield conditions, I now feel much more confident that the good guys are going to prevail. Now if we could just have a popular uprising in support of accounting and budgeting...

Nice one Peru

2011-02-22T18:21:00.000-08:00

From Al Jazerra English

1:55am: Peru becomes the first country to formally severe all diplomatic ties with Libya. President Alan Garcia said:

Peru is suspending all diplomatic relations with Libya until the violence against the people ceases.

Peru also strongly protests against the repression unleashed by the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi against the people who are demanding democratic reforms to change the government which has been led for 40 years by the same person.

The trouble with public sector unions

2011-02-21T16:06:00.000-08:00

The battle of the budget continues in Wisconsin with Democratic lawmakers hiding in Illinois to prevent a vote on a bill that would restrict collective bargaining by the teachers union to wages only. The idea is to give local authorities in charge of balancing the books, some flexibility.

It's tough to get an objective description of the issues involved. Most pundits will either suggest that supporters of the union are lazy, greedy and irresponsible or that opponents are mean spirited hate-mongers who want to destroy working families. I'm going to dispense with the emotional hyperbole and try to present a logical description of the actual dynamics at play.

Public employees have had the right to collectively bargain for around 50 years now. They cannot strike for a couple of reasons. One is public safety of course. The other is that they generally work in monopolistic enterprises. If Safeway employees go on strike today, I can go to Albertsons instead. If public school teachers strike, my children are denied services due to a dispute I'm not directly involved in. It gives the union a vastly unfair advantage if they are allowed to strike, hence they are not. Some teachers have gotten around this restriction by calling in sick in Wisconsin.

Over the years, public employee unions have gained the right to collectively negotiate not only wages, but other "working conditions". You might think this applies only to benefits such as health care and retirement. It goes much farther than that. Almost anything that happens in the workplace can be called a "working condition". This puts the union in a position to dictate the actual operational details of the enterprise and not just employee compensation.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that unions can and do make large political contributions. They have wisely chosen to favor one party over another (Democrats), which creates an alliance whereby unions help get their folks elected and their folks help the unions get what they want. The result is not a negotiation between two rivals, but a joint venture to capture as many tax dollars as humanly possible. Both parties look out for their best interest and the taxpayer doesn't get a seat at the table.

A simple fix would be to forbid unions from making political contributions. But, since the politicians would have to vote away a huge source of their own funding, that's not likely to happen.

However you feel about the issue, the reality is that Wisconsin and a lot of other states are in deep fiscal crisis. Either the taxpayers have to agree to pay more or the public employees have to agree to take less. It's not good guys vs. bad guys. It's employees and employer trying to deal with reality to reach an agreement everyone can live with. The status quo will not work. The terms must change and the system that lead to this mess must change.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

2011-02-16T17:16:00.000-08:00

As we prepare to raise the debt ceiling once again, and inflation begins to rear its ugly head, there seems to be a general awareness that we're in serious trouble, but no will to do anything about it. I'm not talking about politicians, but their bosses, the American public.

Our government is fixing to collapse under it's own weight, yet every proposed cut meets with shrill opposition. The real issue is the proper role of government. Is it to provide for the basic needs of everyone by confiscating as much wealth as possible and redistributing it to those people, causes, companies, organizations and projects it deems worthy? Is a society's progress directly proportional to the size and scope of it's government?

The actions and behavior of the general public seems to indicate that most believe that is the case. They still believe quasi-socialism can work. We just need to tweak it. The mandate? Make the budget issue go away, but keep the entitlements coming. Raise taxes on everyone that has more than me if you have to. It's just that easy.

The fiscal meltdown will not be the fault of the representatives. It's the represented that absolutely will not tolerate the actions needed to avoid it. Therefore we will not avoid it. A few years from now it will be Americans chanting in the streets, demanding higher subsidies on bread and a larger allotment of government cheese. I sure wish I were wrong, but I'm not. Like the man said, You can't stop what's comin'

Iranian warships heading toward Suez on "training mission"

2011-02-16T17:12:00.000-08:00

Cheering on civilian protesters is one thing. How will the White House respond to a direct confrontation?http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7763716/israel_enraged_over_iran_warships_cannot.html?cat=62
I hope we don't find out.

The night the lights went out in Georgia, lyrics analysis

2010-12-13T16:37:00.000-08:00

okay, I'm in a mood, so it's time once again for classic lyrics analysis;

here's the link to the lyrics

Now, I've probably heard this song 1,000 times or more, but it was going through my head for some reason recently and it finally struck me what a hypocrite the song's fictional author is.

Her brother is found on the back porch of a guy who's been shot dead. He just fired a shot. The guy had recently admitted cheating with the brother's wife. The brother had motive, opportunity and was found at the scene with a gun he had just fired. (this was before DNA and bullet tracing was available). The trial was quick and he was hanged.

As it turns out, the fictional author of the song is the real killer. She says "the judge in the town has bloodstains on his hands." and we're supposed to feel contempt for the judge because he rushed to judgment. Yet, the sister (our fictional author), who knew her brother was innocent, never piped up (at least not before he was hung) to say, "wait, it was me." We know she was at the trial because she gives us a first hand account - "he slapped the sheriff on his back with a smile..."

So, she's so devoted to her brother that she kills not only the guy who was cheating with the wife, but also the wife. But she's not so devoted that she wouldn't watch him hang for the crimes she committed.

This isn't a song about a corrupt judicial system. It's a song about a psychotic triple killer with no remorse.

The TV/Internet merger: I'm not buying it just yet.

2010-11-22T19:50:00.000-08:00

Oh, it's coming alright. In fact, it was evident years ago that at some point, everything you watch on television will be delivered through the Internet. You can already watch TV on your computer and even buy a new Internet capable TV that will let you stream movies from Netflix, watch shows from Hulo, catch YouTube videos and lots more. If you don't want to buy the new TV, you can still enable streaming Internet content with most new Blue Ray players, Tivo boxes and gaming consoles.

So why am I not taking the plunge you ask? Because it's too early to get in efficiently. A bit more than ten years ago, personal computers were in a similar evolutionary phase. I'd buy a new computer with 10 times the capability of the one I bought the year before, and the following year, I'd need a new one. The product wasn't just marginally improved year over year. It was a whole new machine, with new software and new capabilities. My competitors had it, so I had to have it. Eventually things progressed to where even a tenfold increase in download speed isn't a "must have". I can wait the extra 4 milliseconds and so I can actually keep a computer for a few years instead of a few months.

Now the entertainment media industry is in upheaval. The gatekeepers are about to lose control as more and more delivery methods and creative business models and alliances are coming to market. But the situation is fluid. Who knows who is going to dominate the marketplace, if anyone. It's tough to project which business model is going to win out. Do you want to have 11 months left in a paid subscription contract when the same thing or better becomes available for free? There is no compelling reason to make a move right now. There's nothing in the new media that I can't do without indefinitely. I fully expect that in the coming years I'll be able to surf the entire web, watch whatever show or movie I want, whenever I want, wherever I want, in high definition imagery and sound, for less than $100/month. But I can wait. I don't need another collection of outdated equipment. I finally got rid of my Zip drive, my Jazz drive, all my floppy disks, the old computers that I was saving "just in case" and the myriad of cords and connectors that went with it all. I'm not going to start a new pile. I can wait until they get it right.

Naturally some folks want the latest and greatest right now. There's nothing wrong with that either. In fact, if a lot of people didn't pay $1300 or more for their flat screen LCD HDTV's a few years back, they wouldn't be available for $300 now. Somebody's got to pay for all that research and development. So go nuts this Christmas. Take advantage of the deep discounts and get yourself some new tech toys. I'm going to wait for the next round, or maybe the one after that. In the meantime, real life is still available free of charge, without a subscription, and it's actually a lot less crowded outside these days.

You heard it here first...

2010-11-01T21:17:00.000-07:00

My political crystal ball says Hillary will resign before the next State of the Union address. She wont announce she's running in 2012 until after the base has run an extensive "draft Hillary" movement. Very Ceasaresk. Karnak has spoken.

Intrade Prediction update

2010-11-01T12:28:00.001-07:00

With 24 hours to go, the sampling of races I selected from Intrade is pretty much the same:

Patty Murray wins (Washington Senate)
Russ Fiengold loses (Wisconsin Senate)
Brown wins (CA Gov)
Boxer wins (CA Senate)
Buck wins (CO Senate)
Rubio wins (FL Senate)
Miller wins (AK Senate)
Paul wins (KY Senate)
Harry Ried loses (Nevada Senate)
Toomey wins (PA Senate)
Hickenlooper wins (CO Gov)

The only significant difference is that the spread between Patty Murray winning WA State Senate and Dino Rossi winning WA State Senate has narrowed to something like 56-35. That wouldn't be close if it were a poll number, but for an Intrade position, that's almost a toss up.

UPDATE - Intrade correctly predicted 8 of the above 11 outcomes. Harry Reid won in Nevada, Miller lost in Alaska and Ken Buck lost in Colorado. That's a pretty good showing, but I wouldn't call it amazing. A lot of pundits and regular polls did just as well or better. I'll test it again in future elections, but so far I don't see anything extraordinary about the predictive ability of the prediction market.

Putting Intrade to the test

2010-10-26T20:01:00.000-07:00

Intrade is a kind of stock market for predictions. You can bet real money on all kinds of things, including election results. It's much more objective than a poll or a pundits analysis. When people are asked their opinion or even for their objective analysis, they have a tendency to provide answers and insights that favor what they hope will happen, probably in hopes that they might influence someone in the audience.

With Intrade, your betting real money, anonymously. There's no audience to influence. You're not stating what you'd like to happen. You're making a statement about what you believe will happen. That doesn't make it perfect, but it does make it much more objective. How accurate is it? Let's find out. Note: if you visit the website, keep in mind the market prices don't reflect the predicted margin of victory, just the likelihood of victory. If 90% of investors believe a candidate will win by 4%, you're going to see a 90 - 10 (roughly) difference in price between the candidates.

Here's how Intrade sees some key, relatively close races: (I'll check again on Nov 1, then see how predictions jive with results after the elections.)

Note: I'm posting what I believe is the better known candidate in each of the races below and whether they win or lose.

Patty Murray wins (Washington Senate)
Russ Fiengold loses (Wisconsin Senate)
Brown wins (CA Gov)
Boxer wins (CA Senate)
Buck wins (CO Senate)
Rubio wins (FL Senate)
Miller wins (AK Senate)
Paul wins (KY Senate)
Harry Ried loses (Nevada Senate)
Toomey wins (PA Senate)
Hickenlooper wins (CO Gov)

That's a pretty good sampling I think. I should point out that personally, I don't like this as an investment vehicle because the spreads are quite wide on most contracts. Still, it could be a good forecasting tool.

Republican Party Establishment Still Doesn't Get It

2010-09-15T05:56:00.000-07:00

I had never seen Carl Rove in hysterics before. But, I think his performance on Hannity last night came pretty close. Rove is among many Republican Party elders that are upset over Chistine O'Donnell's win over career politician and liberal, Mike Castle.

Rove went into the traditional attack mode of throwing out a bunch of questions, designed to simulate accusations without really being accusations. It's a political maneuver used to try to tarnish a candidate without having to present any actual facts. Normally it's done by a party or campaign against its opponent. This time, the party is attacking its own. Both the Delaware state Republican machinery and the Republican National Senate Committee have said they will not support O'Donnell in the general election.

What's the beef? Well, Rove and his ilk are more about numbers and strategy than about principle. For many years, Republicans have ceded many districts and even states; not necessarily to Democrats, but to liberals. They made the decision that it's better to run a liberal Republican in some areas, than to run someone that actually believes in and will advocate for your core beliefs. After all, if your party has the right numbers, your party gets to set the Congressional agenda and the rules of debate. Who cares if half your members don't really support your efforts? The people care.

Rove and other Republican veteran power brokers believe it's a case of rookie candidates and voters who just don't understand the process and the long-term implications of their actions. Essentially, they're calling their own base stupid. What's really stupid is that the powers-that-be aren't grasping the very phenomenon that's put them in a position to achieve many victories in the Fall. People are tired of the back room deals and the going along to get along. They want representatives that will represent them. They aren't voting for a logo or a brand, they're voting for principles. The goal is to convince big government proponents that small government and individual freedom is better; not recruit big government Republicans. If that means you lose some races, you lose some races. Do a better job selling it next time.

Political errors have very real consequences.

2010-09-09T17:12:00.001-07:00

President G.W. Bush made at least two big political errors that have lingering consequences. One was to rely primarily on suspicion of weapons of mass destruction to gain support for regime change in Iraq. I believed then that it was a very bad gamble. There were plenty of other cases to be made that I believe the public would have gone along with, without assuming WMD's. The result is that the war effort in Iraq received much less support than it might have if we had not sold the whole thing on a 'strong hunch'. Obviously nobody had any concrete evidence, or they would have presented it. Even if you felt there were a 95% probability of being right, the consequences of that one in twenty chance are far too costly when the same goal could have been achieved using absolute facts.

The other was the temporary nature of the tax cuts. I understand the political motivation. That is pretty transparent. In order to get the votes needed, the sponsors softened the blow by promising a future tax hike. This may have gotten the legislation through faster, but proponents could certainly have sold the idea of tax cuts to the public during a recession. There was no real need to make them temporary. If it turned out later that taxes legitimately needed to be higher, Congress could simply make that case and do what they do. This way gives them the semantic cover to raise taxes without having to say 'raising taxes'. They're just letting the cuts expire.

Why can't we have that the other way around? How about we make all taxes temporary? Then we don't have to go about the messy business of tax cutting, we just let the tax expire. Imagine that. Advantage citizenry. Wouldn't that be a hoot.

There are other issues one might disagree with from the Bush administration, but these two stand out to me because you didn't need to have any particular expertise in anything to recognize that they were bad moves. President Obama has made similar mistakes in that they seem very amateurish for people who are supposed to be at the pinnacle of politics; politics being the art of influencing and implementing community behavior and standards. I suppose preceding administrations weren't much better. We get minute to minute coverage these days that just wasn't available then. The public analysis of politicians is now quite thorough and relentless. Politics in and of itself is not bad. It just seems a shame that we haven't held most politicians to a very high standard in terms of real communication and honest brokerage. Maybe the information explosion ultimately will lead us to raise the bar.

Thank you Rich Terrell

2010-08-22T21:04:00.001-07:00

I would have sent an email, but there are far too many Rich Terrell's in the world it seems. I saw an episode of Through the Wormhole on the Discovery Channel, in which Mr. Terrell expressed something I thought only existed in my crazy brain. The idea that the universe as we know it is really a computer program.

The beauty of it was that he used the same logic to come to the same conclusion, and he has a bunch of letters after his name so people actually take him seriously about such things.

The most obvious to me is that we humble, simple humans are only a few decades away from being able to create a simulated universe, complete with thinking beings. In cosmic terms, we haven't been around very long. It stands to reason that if we can do it, it's already been done. This doesn't require a super being, just the passage of time and the preservation and accumulation of knowledge and experience.

The other clue is quantum physics. When I was a kid we learned in math, that theoretically you can divide a line in half forever. As long as you keep zooming in, there's no reason you'd ever get to a point where you can't cut it in half anymore. However, that's not the case in real life. There is a point where particles can't get any smaller, units of energy can't get any smaller, time can't get any shorter. These are quantums. They "shouldn't" exist, but there they are. The presence of such finite quantities suggests something artificial. We probably were never expected to look that close. Another clue is the nature of elementary particles. They take on a specific form and location when observed and measured, and vague properties when they're not. This is similar to how your computer displays things. All of the pictures in your iPhoto library are there, but the file isn't expanded and the pixels aren't lit up until you decide to look at them. This is a major resource saver. There's no point using all that display energy if nobody's looking at it.

Almost nothing goes unobserved on the surface of the Earth, whether by humans or some other form of life. But in space, perhaps it is only the data that's recorded and transferred properly unless and until we "call up the file" by looking at it. The program runs, but doesn't display a particular frame until someone "clicks" on it by turning their attention to it.

That's a lot of computing power, but consider that all of the brains in all of the living organisms on Earth (and elsewhere?) have stored information about everything they've perceived and are perceiving. The system (aka the universe) likely would use this resource as a means of both memory storage and parallel processing. But what if the solar system were to blow up? A lot of information would be lost. That's okay. They system only has to present an observer with a solution that's possible given the existing data.

Anyway, it was refreshing to find that I'm not the only lunatic out there. Thank you Mr. Terrell, wherever you are.

In Search of the Moderate or Mainstream Muslim

2010-08-20T10:44:00.000-07:00

I've heard quite a bit about moderate, mainstream Muslims lately as we are told they should not be, in any way, connected to the Jihadist terrorists.

I have a couple of questions I would like to get honest answers to (with some evidence please)

Do moderate Muslims beliieve that woman are equal to men, legally speaking? Can you reference a commonly used bit of text or teaching that supports that, i.e. "women have just as much right to education, career, self-determination as men"?

Do moderate Muslims believe that church and state should be separate institutions and that government should be secular, serving all religions, and the non-religious equally?

What is the moderate view of honor killings?

Do moderate Muslims believe that ulitmately, Sharia law should be the law of the land?

Do moderate Muslims believe the Taliban, Al Quaida and their allies are murderers and their enemies? Have they unequivocally been condemned by the moderate Muslim community? Or do they believe they are working toward the right goal, using the wrong tactics?

Again, if you care to comment, please supply references.
Thanks

Synthetic life, the next gold rush?

2010-06-03T20:51:00.000-07:00

It's on! Genetic scientist Craig Venter and his team recently announced that they have successfully created a living organism using synthesized DNA designed on a computer and inserted into a yeast cell infrastructure.

The debate is already raging about what limits society, through government should put on such research and development. This is one of the cases where the debate is moot. The promise is too great. You can't put this genie back in the bottle.

An ambitious genetic scientist doesn't need Venter's research notes, equipment, support or government sanction. The general approach is already public knowledge and Venter has proven it can be done. That's all they need, and there's a lot to be ambitious about. Other scientists have been mapping genomes for years and lately have been literally scrubbing the ocean to find and catalogue new single celled organisms that perform potentially very valuable functions.

Living cells are like tiny little factories, but without the smokestacks. They produce all manner of chemicals, and genetic research can produce the code that instructs them in exactly how it's done. With a little more research you can code new functions and create living organisms that don't currently exist in nature. One could create organisms that create gas-tank ready fuels, eliminating the refinery process. One wouldn't have to mine for chemicals and minerals, just feed the bacteria, algae or mold and let them do the work.

There are real dangers, but there are also dangers in putting up road blocks and obstructions. This is not nearly as difficult as creating nuclear weapons. It will not be contained or controlled. Do we want to leave the development of this technology to Iran, Venezuela, China, North Korea? As I said, all the world's scientists, professional and amateur need is the knowledge that it can be done. They already have that.

The plus side far outweighs the potential pitfalls. Vaccines will be produced in hours instead of months. Raw materials can be grown instead of extracted. The garbage in our landfills could be used to feed organisms that produce valuable new products.

Whether the United States makes good use of this new knowledge or not, it will be put to use. We can be producers or we can be customers. That's the real choice.

Political Idiots - the Daily Double

2010-05-18T12:02:00.000-07:00

It's not rare to have a breaking story of a politician doing something stupid, even career ending, but today we got a bonus. Two for one!

First up, Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal had to address a story that appeared in the NY Times. The Times points out that Blumenthal has repeatedly referenced his tour in Vietnam and his feelings and state of mind upon returning. The only problem is, he never went to Vietnam. Blumenthal characterized his statements as "mis-speaking". If you had never been in combat in Vietnam, wouldn't you catch that the second it came out of your mouth? Here's what makes this one uber-idiotic. Blumenthal was considered a shoe in for the Democrat nomination and was riding a 70% or so, approval rating. This was such an unnecessary "mis-speaking", it makes you wonder if he's brain dead or a sociopath.

Not to be outdone, Republican Representative from Indiana, Mark Souder, announced his retirement today. The family values candidate was caught having an affair with a staffer; the staffer that regularly drove him to interviews at the Christian radio station. Souder laments that he can't stay in the race due to the "toxic atmosphere" in Washington. Souder has been a full participant in said toxicity, being among the first to call for the ouster of Larry Craig, another lawmaker who had allegedly sought gay sex in a public restroom. Here's a clue for aspiring politicians. The public doesn't want you to stop dogging each other for your outrageous personal behavior. They want you to NOT ENGAGE IN OUTRAGEOUS PERSONAL BEHAVIOR.

The common retort from guys like this and their supporters is "I'm only human" or something like that. As if they just got caught doing something everyone secretly does. Another note to politicians; No we don't all cheat on our spouses. No, we don't all lie about our accomplishments. No, we don't all embezzle, cheat, steal, seduce teen-agers, take bribes or engage in unsolicited tickle fights with our employees. Don't project your personal flaws on the rest of us just to make yourself feel better. If you know you have no self-control, do everyone a favor and find another line of work.

Can Hillary save the Democrat Party?

2010-05-12T18:10:00.001-07:00

In an interview with CBS for 60 Minutes recently, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to initiate the political distancing process, perhaps laying a foundation for a presidential bid of her own in 2012.

excerpt from ‘Interview With Scott Pelley of CBS 60 Minutes’, on the State Department website
NARRATOR: Right away she found that America is in a crisis of credibility.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You’ve got countries who are explicitly saying to me in private, “Well, look, we always looked to you because you had this great economy and now look, you’re in the ditch. And you’ve dragged other people into the ditch.”
QUESTION: Larry Summers, the President’s economic advisor asked this question, “How long can the world’s biggest borrower remain the world’s greatest power?” Is America in decline?
SECRETARY CLINTON: No, we’re not. But it’s a question that has to be answered and I happen to believe it’s one of the critical challenges before us. Our nation has to be strong fiscally at home in order for us to be strong abroad.

Whether you believe this signals a potential challenge or not, it’s an interestiing ‘what if?’. The difference between the Cintons’ (both of them) approach to politics and governing and the Obama approach is that the Clintons are politicians and Obama is an idealogue.

Idealogues are not necessarily bad. The fact that President Reagan would not budge on a number of issues due to adherence to a few rigid fundamental principals, turned out to be a very good thing for this country and for the world. However, it’s only a positive if you’re on the right track.

Obama has a vision for a new America. He has a specific agenda in mind and making it happen is priority number one. Clinton just wants to drive. If the Obama model doesn’t work, she’d have no problem piloting another one. It’s not a sinister thing. Some people are engineers and some are drivers.

The value, to a political party, of a non-idealogue driver is that he or she keeps the infrastructure that is the party, viable until a suitable idealogue attaches him or herself to your brand. The mandate of this type of governing is simply; do no harm. Gerald Ford is a good example.

President Clinton kept his party viable while the idealoges in Congress of the same party were cutting their own political throats. Clinton eventually went along with the Republican agenda, while strict adherence to the party line sent many Congressional Democrats packing. Clinton not only won reelection, but left office still popular, even after an impeachment.
Americans can forgive having a bad idea. They wont forgive insistence on pursuing a course that’s obviously not working. Most Americans are not idealogues. If you make their situation better, you can call yourself whatever you want. They’re not nearly as interested in your beliefs as in your performance.

If Hillary does decide to mount a challenge, she would do well to focus more on thought process and less on selling specific agenda items or visions of a new society.

Ancient Aliens?

2010-05-01T22:00:00.000-07:00

Have you caught the show Ancient Aliens on the History Channel? Of course, most folks, including myself would immediately start picking apart the alleged "evidence" and hypotheticals. But, I found it even more fun to run with the premise.

There are those who believe that aliens from another world helped in the construction of the pyramids. In fact, they speculate that the pyramids and many obelisks were actually power generation devices, used to send power to the mother ship, orbiting the Earth. They employed humans to build and maintain these devices, until they had the power they needed, and left.

Suspend your disbelief for a moment and let's just say it's all the absolute truth. Before you get all excited about joining the "brotherhood of planets" consider what that means. Some ship from another planet was traveling in our neighborhood and ran low on fuel. So they stop by the Earth, employ the indigenous hairless apes to produce enough energy for them to top off their tank, and they go on their merry way. Obviously they had no qualms about exposing themselves to the natives, so the fact that they haven't been back can only mean, they see no reason to come back. Even if they did return, they'd soon discover that we didn't even bother to write down any of the great technology they shared, making a third trip to our humble abode even less likely.

So, if the scenario they've laid out is factual, it only proves that among advanced civilizations in the cosmos, we are perhaps the least interesting in the eyes of the rest. But don't fret. The only real valid points made in the documentary were that no one has yet figured out how engineers thousands of years ago could have made the precision cuts and engravings they made and that they haven't found a good explanation for some of the features of the pyramids. It couldn't possibly be that an engineer that lived thousands of years ago might have had some knowledge that today's engineers don't have? Could it? Nah, must have been aliens.

Obama's Nuclear Draw-down. Dangerous or a Tempest in a Tea Pot?

2010-04-06T18:08:00.001-07:00

There are a lot of things about the way President Obama has conducted and crafted his foreign policy that might be deemed dangerous or weak. But, his recently announced new policy on nuclear weapons isn't one of them. All he's done is acknowledge military and political reality. The only thing that's really debatable is the presentation or spin.

In a nutshell he stated that he wants to draw down our stockpiles, pledged not to use nukes against nations that don't have nukes, even in the event of biological or chemical attack, stated that we will not develop new nuclear weapons, just keep the current ones well maintained.

Let's address the quantity first. The Bush administration drew down U.S. nuclear weapons from around 6,000 to around 2,200. Nobody raised a stink about that. Here's why. When nuclear weapons were all the rage, the U.S. and the (then) Soviet Union engaged in a nuclear weapons building contest. Now that we've had a few decades to think about it, from a military standpoint the huge overkill in nuclear arms production is a liability, not an asset. Nuclear weapons have to be maintained and guarded and stored. People have to be trained and paid to guard them, maintain them, use them and store them. If you have 10 or 15 times more nuclear weapons than you'll ever possibly need, you're tying up tremendous resources that could be better deployed elsewhere. A few dozen or even a few hundred nukes, strategically placed and well maintained, is plenty. The most hawkish military Commander in Chief still would have drawn down our numbers because the military would have asked him/her to. He or she just wouldn't have made a show of it.

As for the policy of not nuking non-nuclear states, that's once again a policy that likely would have been practiced anyway, if not stated. The rules of warfare have changed. It used to be standard practice to blow away civilians in an attempt to intimidate the enemy into surrender. Today, civilian casualties are no longer acceptable. If a regime commits an atrocity, even with millions of deaths involved, you go after the regime. It may result in civilian casualties due to the fact that you would have no time for warnings or evacuations, but if you kill everyone within the same city as the bad guy, you become the bad guy. I have no problem with a pre-emptive strike if such an attack is deemed even highly probable, and if the bad guy has nukes, well if it's us or them, they lose. The President also left himself an out here. The policy is subject to change as weapons capabilities change. In, other words, if a chemical or biological weapon and delivery system capable of widespread destruction surfaces, all bets are off.

The presentation here is a desire to create an incentive for regimes that don't have nukes, not to develop them, store them, hide them or take delivery of them. A hawk might have presented it a little differently; "We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons against any nation in possession of nuclear weapons." Same policy, different spin.

The drama surrounding the "new" policy is a political technique I like to call "pushing on a train". That's when you put yourself in a position to take credit for something that was going to happen anyway. In economics, you pass some impotent bill with a nice name like "The Restore American Growth Act" a few months before your top economic advisors tell you that historical stats indicate the economy is likely to recover. Presto! You're an economic genius.

A lot of pundits on the right have made a big deal over this policy announcement. I think they should save their capital for something more meaningful.

More info: Yahoo News

Geithner's statement is unacceptable

2010-04-01T07:36:00.000-07:00

Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner stated recently that the Obama administration is very concerned about recovering the jobs lost during the recession. He further stated that he expects the unemployment level to remain "unacceptably high for a long time to come."

In other words, they've accepted and are asking us to accept, "unacceptably" high unemployment for the foreseeable future. I guess what he meant to say was that the current levels of unemployment have officially been deemed acceptable.

Does technology equal progress?

2010-03-31T19:18:00.000-07:00

So now NASA is investigating the problems with Toyota accelerators. No kidding. They're trying to determine if solar flares may have somehow upset the electronics in the cars.

Of course, a few years back, if you had a problem with the accelerator, all you had to do is look at it. There was a cable running from the pedal to the throttle. It's either stuck or broken, or it isn't. The whole system was a half dozen or so mechanical pieces that were either obviously broken, or not.

How many hundreds of millions, dare I say billions, of dollars in research and programming/engineering time went into replacing this simple system (a few bucks worth of hardware) with high tech software? How many more millions will be spent trying to figure out what's wrong with it? Can one really say that the new system is an improvement over the old one, by any measure?

I saw a commercial the other day for a self-propelled lawn mower. Not just any self-propelled lawn mower; this one has a secondary handle that slides as you apply more or less pressure, causing the wheels to spin faster or slower. You can actually adjust the speed of the mower you're walking behind! Didn't we accomplish the same thing in the past by just walking faster or slower? Have we really gotten that lazy? "Sure, I'll walk behind this thing and hold the handle, but I'm not going to apply 5 or 6 foot pounds of force to it! I'm not Hercules!"

Audi will be testing a robotic car right here in Colorado Springs this fall. This car will drive itself right up Pikes Peak! A number of companies are working on self-driving cars. If they’re successful, one day, most people wont be familiar with how to manually operate a motor vehicle. Some type of emergency service like OnStar will be an absolute necessity, since you’d just be stuck if anything went wrong with the mechanics or the software. Yes, you’d in effect have to subscribe to your car, adding it to the ever-growing list of things you can buy, but will never really own. This is progess?

Coors has a new beer can that changes color when it’s cold. How else could you possibly know whether the beer in your hand is cold or not? Maybe next we could get socks that send out email alerts to let you know you’ve stubbed your toe.

Have you ever seen the old Saturday Night Live commercial making fun of a 3 bladed razor ad? It ends with some animation and the tag line “because you’ll believe anything”. Guess what? Gillette is coming out with a new 6 bladed razor for their “closest shave yet”. How close do we really need to shave? I think I could make do with 1980 level closeness for the rest of my life and be okay with it.

These are just a few examples suggesting more complicated doesn't necessarily mean better. How about making products that last longer instead of one’s that solve problems that don’t exist. Of course, the consumer is the driver. Money will flow into making more of whatever you buy today. So before you put that internet-ready, pickle jar safety coaster in your cart, ask yourself “Do we really need to spend any more man-hours on this one?”.

Time to get serious about Climate Change

2010-03-22T17:30:00.000-07:00

Our climate is changing. It would be highly irregular if it didn’t. I’m not a scientist. I don’t even play one on TV. But I’ve paid enough attention to the issue over the years to conclude that obsessing about man-made carbon emissions amounts to rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic.

Earthquakes have increasingly been in the news, which may simply be because they are occurring in populated areas, rather than increasing in frequency, but that doesn’t make them any less hazardous. The northern part of China is rapidly turning to sand, which is a problem for at least half the world, as the wind picks it up and takes it as far as the western U.S.. There’s a hurricane cycle due to hit the northeastern U.S. in about 5 years that has nothing to do with your S.U.V.. It’s just that time again. Yet, we’ve built massive skyscrapers right where history tells us a major storm could make landfall (somewhere in the vicinity of Coney Island). Nobody knows when the next big earthquake will strike in California or Yellowstone, just that it will be devastating when it does.

We may not be able to prevent nature from taking its course, but we need to get better at predicting it so that we can take evasive or adaptive action. The first order of business is to take politics out of it. There’s a lot of money riding on the “carbon is the root of all evil” scenario. But any analysis of climate and geological trends that doesn’t take into account the activity of the Sun, the rotation, revolution and tilt of the Earth and other system-wide dynamics is a massive waste of time and resources.

Government would be within its purvue to examine and prepare for contingencies, including warmer climates, colder climates and geological disasters. While considering input from objective, comprehensive research is logical, advocating for one unproven theory over another is not. Real science is not subject to a vote or an opinion poll. The truth is what the truth is. Convincing people that you’re absolutely right when you’re not is not virtuous. It can be disasterous.

The carbon debate has become so polarizing that I don’t know if we can get back on the right track or not. It’s just as likely we’ll all be mounting solar panels on our sub-compacts about the time the glaciers start advancing or Yellowstone erupts.

Guns at Starbucks

2010-03-09T17:00:00.000-08:00

Starbucks recently decided not to ban patrons from wearing their holstered guns into their coffee shops. This has upset many folks who are evidently, afraid of handguns.

One woman on a television news interview asked "If I go into a Starbucks with my child and he asks, Mommy, why is that man wearing a gun? How am I supposed to answer that?" Really? That's a tough question? How about, "Because good people carrying guns discourages bad people from using theirs."

How are we supposed to take the uber-left seriously when they suggest that children will be traumatized by the sight of a law abiding citizen carrying a holstered hand gun? If that hypothetical question really scares you as a parent, maybe you should hire a nanny, because the questions get a lot harder than that.

In pursuit of intelligent design

2010-03-05T16:48:00.000-08:00

The Texas public school system is currently mired in debate over updating public school textbook standards. Among the issues is whether or not intelligent design should be discussed in science class along with evolution.

I don’t know that the question of intelligent design has even been pursued enough in scientific terms to warrant a chapter in a textbook. But it has always puzzled me why science has ignored the question. I’m not a scientist, but I’m a big fan of science; good science. Good science means you don’t rule out what you can’t rule out.

Let me be clear. By intelligent design, I don’t mean omnipotent being design. I mean that at least some of what we perceive as reality may have been instigated by a sentient being or beings. The problem with the religious pursuit of the possibility is that it starts with a conclusion and then seeks supporting evidence, ignoring anything contradictory. The problem with the scientific pursuit of the possibility is that it doesn’t exist.

I think its intriguing to speculate that the universe may be a program, designed and implemented by real beings. If there’s a code behind it, we may be abe to crack it. But to come at it from the right direction you have to consider it as something deliberate, not just random. The advantage of thinking in those terms is that you can approach a problem from the standpoint of the designer. Look at how some parts of the system work and extrapolate how others within the same operating system, authored by the same individual or group, might work. Then of course, you have to test your hypothesis. Another aspect of getting into this mindset is that you don’t just look at how a particular part of the system works, you ponder why. What purpose does it serve in the larger picture?

I think intelligent design could be a productive scientific pursuit if done right. First rule: no magic. Even computer code has parameters that can’t just be ignored. A reality that is much bigger than we may know is still reality. It may afford more possibilities, but it’s not magic. The main divergence from eliminating intelligent design is that you assume everything has some purpose. It may just be entertainment, but whatever it is, it’s not an accident. Second, if you come to a new conclusion, you’ve got to prove or disprove it. No jumping to conclusions. Just like any other field of science, you have to carefully design experiments to test your hypothesis and accept whatever data comes out of them. Third, you don’t get to use the old cop-out that “some things are just beyond our understanding.” It’s okay to not know what we don’t know, but that doesn’t make it unknowable.

There are several assumptions in the religious pursuit of intelligent design that have no place in a scientific pursuit. There’s no basis for the assumptions that an intelligent designer(s) is, or are superior, immortal, all-knowing or has (have) our best interest at heart. We know very little about the design itself at this point (if it is a design) never mind the nature or motivations of the author(s).

If proponents of intelligent design would like it to be a serious part of school curriculum and scientific pursuit, it must be an honest, objective and fearless pursuit. The truth is what the truth is. It doesn’t matter how you feel about it. That fact is just as true for "top scientists" as it is for the Pope and the Dali Lama.

The lesser of two evils?

2010-02-08T18:44:00.000-08:00

This is a continuation of a discussion on Facebook. I've got a bit more to say on the subject so I thought I should start my own thread.

In a nutshell the debate is whether it's best to vote for your favored party, even if the candidate is not a strong advocate for your basic principals, to avoid a victory by the other party. I submit that it is not.

It's been said that "party trumps person". I'd say that ideas and ideals trump both party and person. Parties and people come and go. Ideas, both good and bad, linger on. That's the real battlefield.

If more people believe that individual freedom, with all its risks, will lead to a better quality of life than central control, they will support individuals that promote individual freedom over central control. Simply convincing them that party A is good and party B is bad may win an election, but does not advance the cause of the war.

Some progressives openly admit that they are progressives. That means they are working within the system, to change the system, to one where we collectively, through our government, provide for everyone's essential needs (as determined by the government). A progressive Republican is no more appealing to me than a progressive Democrat, and I'll support a Democrat that convinces me that he or she is ready, willing and able to work to defeat the progressive movement.

If we do all we can to educate and influence people with regard to the basic principals and merits of individual freedom, and the people reject it, we lose and the consequences will be dire. That's the risk you run when you step into the arena. But it's better to fight and lose than to not fight for fear of losing. As someone who was fodder for bullies in my youth, I can attest to that. I brought misery upon myself by avoiding the fight, rather than engaging in it. Don't settle for "less wrong" because you fear "more wrong". Take wrong off the table.

Don't Care, Shut Up

2010-02-02T19:04:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not trying to insult my readers. I'm just suggesting a new official policy in regards to gays in the military.

We have a tough situation in Afghanistan. We're trying to wrap up Iraq. Iran is still being run by a lunatic who may soon have nukes.

On the home front, the government is frantically trying to jump start the economy before its fiscal situation turns into total chaos.

Yet, we continue to pay top elected and appointed officials to spend critical man-hours worrying about whether or not the guy guarding the motor pool in Kabul might be gay. It seems to me we have bigger fish to fry.

If working next to an openly gay individual causes you emotional stress, I don't care. Shut up. Do your job.

Reid's game changing statement

2010-01-10T07:08:00.000-08:00

A new book, due out Tuesday, called "Game Changer" contains a quote from Senate Majority leader Harry Reid in which Reid says he's impressed with Obama and that America could be ready to elect a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wants one."

I'm not sure if that statement is more offensive to black Americans or the white Americans who he implies would not be "ready" to vote for a dark skinned American with a more Joe Six Pack tone.

The official reaction has been predictable. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, have accepted Reid's apology and are playing down the statement. Barack Obama, the self-appointed spokesperson for all black Americans, has declared the case closed. I guess that's that.

You may recall that when former Senate majority leader Trent Lott tried to say something nice about a 500 year old man with one foot in death's door by saying that the country might have been better off had Strom Thurmond won his presidential election bid (the comment was made at Thurmond's birthday dinner), he was forced to resign amid much public outrage. It was a poorly thought out statement, given that Thurmond had supported segregation back in the day.

There is obviously a much different standard for Democrats, even among "black leaders". You can't take Reid's statement as anything other than racist. After all, it suggests that most African Americans are not qualified to be president, due to their skin color and voice inflection. However, as long as you tow the party line, any statement can be excused. Recall Joe Biden's comment during the campaign about how "clean" Obama is; like a clean black man is a novelty, at least in his mind. He's now our vice-president.

This really might turn out to be a "game changer" though. It is becoming more transparent that racial slurs are only outrageous if you oppose the liberal agenda. They are acceptable if you support it. I don't know if that policy will stand. Reid's already facing horrible poll numbers at home (60%+ disapproval) and his opponents in his own party might just take this opportunity to replace him, at least as leader. Further, more and more black conservatives (yes, they do exist) are feeling comfortable speaking out. They already didn't like the direction Reid is helping take the country in. Now, there's blood in the water.

The myth of the African-American "unimind" was already on shaky ground. Maybe this incident will blow it out of the water for good. Then we can finally get to debating issues as individual-Americans. That would be a good thing.

The Decline of Religion in the US

2009-12-21T17:35:00.000-08:00

According to Pew Research the fastest growing religious affiliation in the US is "no religion". The percentage of unaffiliated Americans has risen from 7 percent to 16 percent in just one year. What's behind this shift?

Religion is a product. If you want to expand your market share, you have to deliver what your customers want. What do religious customers want? Answers. Answers that will actually help them in their daily lives. The old stand-by's still work: Treat others as you would have them treat you. Honesty is the best policy. However, you don't need religion to abide by those. Believing that a whale can swallow a man whole, or that spinning a wheel several times a day will bring you good fortune, hasn't produced a lot of measurable results.

The question then becomes, Do you really have to buy into a pre-packaged dogma to be a good person and live a fruitful life? More and more people are answering; No.

Some of the old traditions from major religions actually did make good sense and may have saved lives. Things like not eating pork, occasional fasting and those types of acts of faith have actually been proven to have health benefits. But now we have logical explanations for those benefits. Improperly cooked pork and eating too much don't kill you because they displease God, they're just not healthy.

If religion is going to make a comeback, they have to come up with a better pitch than the promise of heaven if you say enough Hail Mary's or Lord's prayers, or the threat of hell if you don't put enough dough in the collection basket. Religion is in dire need of some creative innovators. They need new ideas that produce real benefits for 21st century members. I'd give some examples, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. Try praying on it.

Diversity: What does it really mean?

2009-11-30T21:31:00.000-08:00

I just caught a snippet of a commercial espousing the virtues of diversity and it occurred to me just how bass ackwards the whole concept has become.

Suppose you have three people in an office. One likes hard rock, one likes hip hop and one likes country music. Each hates the other two types of music. That's diversity. They may agree to tolerate the other types so that they may have their turn to select their music, but a general mish-mash of the three would satisfy nobody.

Everyone pretending to like everything is not diversity. It's conformity. Conformity breeds mediocrity. The pursuit of one's passion breeds excellence. You can't excel at anything if you adopt the mindset that everything is just as interesting as everything else.

Diversity in a society is a healthy thing. Allowing others to indulge their likes so long as they allow you to indulge yours is tolerance. A willingness to try new things is good. Being compelled to accept everything as equal in value is not.

Maintaining diversity doesn't require convincing everyone that everything is great. It just requires that everyone accept that you don't have to rid the world of something just because you don't like it. For example, if I live to be 5,000 years old, I will never understand why some people will pay $2,500 or even 25 cents to go see Barbara Striessand in concert. However, I don't feel compelled to put a stop to it, unless I were forced to attend such a concert in the name of some convoluted diversity training.

Diversity also means that you don't define someone by a single aspect of their character. I may get along great with a big country music fan in other areas that we agree on. Once I know a whole lot more about somebody, I can assess the pros and cons and determine the extent to which I can tolerate or enjoy their company.

Of course, diversity is often used in terms of race and sexual orientation. Disliking someone because of their ethnic make-up is stupid. Pretending to like someone because of their ethnic make-up is equally stupid. Hating someone, or denying them equal rights because they're gay is dumb. Expecting me to march in a parade in celebration of their gayness is just as dumb.

If you want to celebrate diversity, be yourself. Let others be themselves. If someone else being themselves is really getting under your skin, leave. If it's your house, ask them to leave. If you're in a situation where neither of you can leave and you can't come to some mutually acceptable accommodation, well, that's when diversity gets entertaining for the rest of us.

Are women getting a raw deal in the U.S.?

2009-11-12T17:43:00.000-08:00

The discussion on the O'Rielly Factor, in the culture warriors segment, started out as whether or not conservative women were under attack in the media. Both women expanded on the idea and made the case that women in the U.S. of every political brand, face a tougher time than men in the way they are scrutinized and judged in general. I agree, but I think a good deal of it is self-imposed.

Before I get too far, please don't shoot the messenger. This is not how I believe things should be. It's how they are. When people attack or praise an individual, they do so in a manner that's optimized for that individual. In other words, they try to push your buttons. How do you get under a woman's skin? Criticize her clothes, her hair, her physical features. Professional women wear a wide variety of clothing in a rainbow of different colors from day to day and from person to person. Professional men generally wear the same uniform; slacks, shirt, jacket and tie. The big expression of individuality among men is the tie, and that's usually red, blue or yellow. There just isn't much to criticize.

Of course, I'm generalizing. But generally speaking men don't care much about their hair either. You're not going to traumatize the average guy by criticizing his doo in front of the whole office. Remarks about guys' weight and/or physical appearance don't carry nearly the impact that the same remarks about a woman would make.

Men don't face this type of criticism because it's simply not that effective against them. They face different types of attacks. If you want to denigrate a man, you call him a wimp, say he's not good with money, or with women. More generally, you imply that he is not in control of his own destiny or area of responsibility.

If women don't want to be subjected to superficial judgments, it's up to women to place less emphasis on it. "Society" doesn't tell women how to dress or what to look like. For the most part, other women and gay men do. If you don't want to take their direction, just stop. As long as you seek the approval of the fashion Nazi's, you are at their mercy. Superficial attacks can't hurt you without your full cooperation.

From health care to slavery

2009-11-07T10:14:00.000-08:00

One thing I've found very discouraging amid the uprising of some of the citizenry against government bailouts and takeovers is that many still don't seem to grasp the core issue. As they protest one bunch of programs, they express a different wish-list of other things the government should do in terms of directing the behavior of individuals and markets. We're on our way to hell in a handbasket and most people are concerned about the brand of the handbasket.

Consider this; if you make well above average earnings, you're already working about half the time for government when you add up all the various taxes and fees. If you make average wages or lower, you're not a threat to the game plan. Most of your earnings are going to subsistence. You don't have the time or the resources to do much more than maintain, maybe a bit of recreation, but nothing that would constitute game-changing activity.

Many of the very wealthy are working with our top government officials to create their own little Utopia. As they're "feeling your pain", being very compassionate, "fighting for the little guy", they're traveling the world with their entourages attending various conferences, forums, summits, think-tanks, staying at the finest of hotels, enjoying the finest of foods, wanting for nothing and taking several "well-deserved" vacations every year.

It didn't come about with the Obama administration. It's been in development for decades. First one divides people into interest groups, highlights everything negative, convinces folks that nobody "deserves" any misfortune or misery in their lives and that it's up to the government to eliminate it. At the same time, demanding relief for yourself is very selfish. Your concern should always be for "others" (everyone except you). So while your personal quality of life may be on the decline, it would be horrible of you to bring that up when so many others will obviously be helped by all the lofty new public assistance programs, safety regulations and planet-saving policies.

All this has come about in a democracy. The people have successfully been sold on the idea that security and mere survival are more important than individual freedom. We voted for this. We are creating a far better world...for the less than one percent of the people who happen to be in charge. The rest of us are increasingly becoming worker ants; expendable labor providers. Government's takeover of health care is the final nail in freedom's coffin. We have tasked the government with taking care of us. If you have kids, you know that with dependence comes submission. "As long as your under my roof....". We're about to get everything we demanded. All it will cost us is our selves. Congratulations.

Presidential down-time

2009-10-29T20:24:00.000-07:00

It hadn't occurred to me before, but when I heard Bill O'Rielly once again defending this President and Presidents past for taking recreational time, it really hit home that these guys really don't work that hard.

I had been in agreement, not having given it much thought. After all, he's the President of the United States. That's a very demanding job right? Then I thought about when the last time was that I had 3 free hours to go golfing, take in a show, play some hoops. I took the family on a weekend trip to visit my son in Kansas recently. That was our first family "vacation" in 20+ years. There's no time during the week and rarely a weekend that I don't put in a few hours at the shop. But that only takes away from time I need to spend working around the house and getting other things done.

The top dogs in Washington D.C. seem to have a tremendous amount of down time. When they are working, they aren't exactly shoveling coal. It's mostly speaking, strategizing about how best to manipulate the rest of us and delegating any real work to their extensive staff.

They don't have to sweat things like mortgage payments or grocery bills and all this "down-time" is in addition to the many vacations they take every year. When they retire, which can be as little as 8 years into their career, it gets even better!

All in all, I'd say it's a pretty sweet gig.

The Incredible Shrinking Universe?

2009-10-20T21:25:00.000-07:00

I'm going to get all sciencey again for a few minutes. I just watched an episode of the Universe series on Discovery channel. It never ceases to amaze me how so many geniuses can often miss the coolest implications of their own conclusions.

Okay, here's the Cliff Notes version: Galaxies come together in clusters, over time the clusters cluster into super-clusters. Eventually, they merge into one big super-galaxy, but the various super-galaxies continue to move away from each other so that, in umpteen bajillion years or so, if you were in our supergalaxy and had no record of the past, as far as you could tell our supergalaxy would be the entire universe. You would not be able to detect the others. They would be too far away.

While they commented on the possibility that future sentients might not be aware of the real size and scope of the universe, they seemed to miss the distinct possibility, or extreme probability, that neither do we. Especially given the recent discovery that our universe seems to be getting pulled toward something ultra massive beyond the cosmic horizon.

Why would one assume that we are at the beginning of such a cycle? It seems more logical that what we know as the universe was once part of something much larger and that when our neighborhood becomes this "supergalaxy" it too will separate into clusters which will go their own ways.

No need for panic though. For one thing the time spans involved are unimaginably long and for another, there really is no limit to how small a universe can get. Everything is relative.

The Big Bang Blown to Bits?

2009-09-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

A study released in 2008 revealed what appears to be a movement of galaxy clusters toward a point beyond the visible universe. The phenomenon has been dubbed Dark Flow.

Side note: whenever cosmologists come across data that doesn't jive with currently held theory, they simply put the word "dark" in front of it and attribute to it whatever mysterious properties they need to, to make the math work. Hence we have "dark matter", "dark energy" and now "dark flow". These mysterious entities save the scientific community from having to reevaluate their basic premises.

The Dark Flow seems to be converging on some kind of object or force that is over 46 billion light years away. This seems to present a problem for the Big Bang theory of the beginning of everything. If the universe is only 14 billion years old, and nothing in it can surpass the speed of light, how can there be a massive object 46 billion light years away?

Another problem: none of our physics takes into account any input from gigantic objects outside the known universe. If it's acting on one group of galaxy clusters, it's affecting everything in what Douglas Adams called "the general mish mash". And if there's one, there's a good chance there's a lot more. What other forces, objects, energy could be entering and affecting our system that we've been totally unaware of?

Scientists should be excited about this find. When a good scientist sees everything they thought was true thrown into disarray, they see a chance to dispense with a falsehood and acquire truth; a great trade! Yet, I haven't seen any blockbuster headlines about this, just a short story in Popular Science and a few posts on the web.

Hopefully, this will finally break down some mental blocks within the cosmology and physics worlds. The purpose of science is not to defend currently accepted formulas and theories through the use of mental gymnastics. It's to learn the truth. How about setting aside the 11 dimension approach, just for a while, and taking a close, objective look at what's actually going on. Even Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a 12 year old, you're probably wrong." or words to that effect.

Ted Kennedy's death; the week the world stood still

2009-08-29T13:41:00.000-07:00

For the past 72 hours and for who knows how much longer, the news media has focused almost exclusively on the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. Even when they bring up another subject, it's only to somehow connect the topic to the Senator's passing. How will it effect the health care debate, the auto industry, the price of rice in China?

I didn't know Ted Kennedy. I'll take the word of those who did that he was a fantastic human being. I didn't like his politics and I've never been into celebrity worship, so all this attention seems very odd to me. Even FOX News, not exactly a liberal media outlet, has been on 24 hour Kennedy watch.

The discussion about his replacement in the Senate is not fostering questions like "Who could best deal with Massachusetts' failed medical insurance program?" or "Who can fix the budget mess?" or more generally "Who is best qualified to find solutions in a crisis situation?". Rather, the speculation is more about which Kennedy would be willing to take the job. Who can perpetuate the air of majesty that surrounds the Kennedy phenomenon? If that's what Massachusetts wants, so be it. It just seems very bizarre.

I caught a few minutes of the memorial service on two separate occasions. Both times, the speaker was an aide or friend, not a professional performer, yet they told tales of breaking into song whenever they got together with the Senator. This seemed perfectly normal to them, in fact, they demonstrated by belting out one of their favorite tunes. Personally, I was reminded of Larry Hagman's interview on a night time talk TV show, where he related that he and whoever happened to be hanging out at the mansion at any given time, would often hold impromptu parades on the beach for no reason. It's not bad behavior, but it seems indicative of someone who lives in a world very detached from that of most of us. It seems a bit creepy to me and would not prompt me to want either individual in charge of anything that might in any way have a significant impact on my life.

The fact that the major media outlets are assigning far more importance to the passing of a 77 year old man who was in poor health, than I assign to it myself just points out how very different I perceive the world around me as compared to those who think they are providing me with useful information. If I'm the only one that feels this way, the major media outlets have nothing to worry about. However, if a lot of other people see the situation as a bunch of aristocrats emoting for the cameras, opportunity is knocking for their replacements.

Are we negotiating with terrorists?

2009-08-27T17:35:00.001-07:00

The Obama administration has decided to re-investigate the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the CIA in obtaining information from terrorists like those involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. The question is, why?

I don't think many Americans are outraged that the masterminds of the September attacks may have been sleep deprived, water-boarded, or even had their lives or their families lives threatened in a bluff to obtain information about more attacks. Obviously the administration is not responding to some big public outcry. So what's going on?

Is it possible that the administration has some kind of line of communication to the terrorist hierarchy? Is this part of some deal to avoid future attacks? Is the administration relying on the good word or Al Qaida for our security? Naaaa, there must be some rational explanation for their behavior. I hope it comes to light soon.

There's no such thing as nothing

2009-08-24T21:39:00.000-07:00

Space, time and matter continue to amaze scientific minds. Space and time in particular. Where did space come from? Where did time come from? What existed before time began?

The mystic nature of these questions is based in a flawed perspective. The answer could be stated "It just doesn't matter" because without matter, the other two don't exist. To make this case I have to include in the term "matter" as used here, all types of particles, energy and radiation; anything that is not space or time.

Conceptually speaking, you can't have no apples until you have at least the concept of an apple. Concepts are things. You can't have no thing before you have a thing.

Time is a description of the relative motion of things. Even a single thing requires energy, which means something, no matter how small, is in motion relative to something else. No things = No time. The only place no thing can exist is in no time. We don't live there. Never have, never will.

Space is a description of a volume. To have volume it must envelope something. Otherwise, it's not space, it's just a point. Even a point needs some context. No thing = No space.

Space/Time is not some mysterious rubber sheet-like entity. It's just the relative motion of objects in a given area.

Space and time are characteristics of matter. Separating them from the physical is like pondering the meaning of inside and outside with no container as a reference. They are positions relative to nothing. Totally meaningless.

Could the information explosion erode the power of spin and celebrity?

2009-07-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

Some have said that journalism is dead or dying because it has become saturated with the opinions of the broadcasters. While that's not a value added situation at present, it could very well evolve into one as the number of broadcasters explodes.

Take the case of Susan Boyle. She was an unknown, solitary woman living a very modest lifestyle. Then she sang in front of a worldwide audience and instantly became a star. She was not groomed, she didn't choose the right stage name, she didn't "pay her dues". In other words, the content providers didn't create her, they found her. How many more Susan Boyles are out there?

What if you didn't have to be a billionaire, or even wealthy to create and broadcast commercial quality information? What if sites like YouTube, MySpace, Blogger, Facebook and other free venues, allowed talent and wisdom to bypass the gatekeepers? As more individuals command the attention of more people, politicians and hollywood stars would garner less of it. They'd have to make every appearance count.

In such an environment, an aspiring politician couldn't afford to be vague and leave him or herself lots of "outs". If spin doctors couldn't count on speaking to millions of people, every day, they'd have to be more concise and more precise. There would be more than a handful of reports on any particular issue, there would be countless volumes of information from countless sources, and people wouldn't be married to any one of them.

Holding people's attention would require more than a contract renewal with the network. One would have to be consistently good to maintain a career.

For content providers this could mean a lot more short term or piece-meal contracts with producers. When you have an enormous number of suppliers to choose from, tying up your broadcast time and resources on exclusive committments makes sense in only rare cases. There will be premium content providers that can command lucrative broadcast contracts, even among the freebies, but they'd have to do better than "Big Brother 12" or "Rock of Love".

This is not necessarily bad for producers either. You wouldn't be contractually obligated to be productive at any particular time, or for any particular duration, beyond one project at a time. Currently, artists are pressed to produce x number of albums over a time span. What if that doesn't happen to sync up with their artistic metabolism? We get "contract filler" instead of their best work.

We are a short time away from going from 150 cable channels to thousands of internet channels of the same or higher broadcast quality. We are just as close to being able to carry all that content around in our pockets. It may not be a year, or even five years, but likely within 10 years. There is a tremendous amount of talent in the world that has never caught the attention of the tiny number of gatekeepers between the individuals and the rest of the world. Not only will the gates be thrown open, the whole wall will come down. It may sound like "Tower of Babel" in the short run, but it's a good thing in the long run.

The End of Days

2009-05-26T16:36:00.001-07:00

You've probably heard scientists speculate that the most crucial point in the development of an intelligent society, universally speaking, is just after they learn to split the atom. They gather that a great many of them learn to release great amounts of energy before they learn how to properly control it and hedge against disaster. This would lead to the extinction of such societies.

I think there's another crucial point, that has nothing to do with atom splitting, that occurs before then. One that we've already crossed. The more communal a society becomes, the less "survival of the fittest" goes on. After all, we'd be pretty cold-hearted beasts if we allowed people to suffer and/or die, if we could prevent it. But it goes beyond just keeping people alive. We lower the bar in education, to make it more fair. We insist on equal opportunity for all, regardless of ability. We attempt to "level the playing field" economically by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We elect people to high office based on how nice they are and what logo they sport, rather than any kind of competence for the job they seek. Fierce competition is frowned upon because it makes the losers feel bad. Striving for excellence has been replaced with striving for order and mere survival.

There are already signs that this has lead to the dumbing down of the population as a whole. We accept as fact, just about anything the media's favorite go-to experts put in front of us. We have the ability to transfer thousands of generations of knowledge to and fro at a moments notice, but we're too busy watching cat videos to be bothered. We actually believe that spending more than twice what the government takes in and borrowing 8 times revenue, will lead to a robust economy. It must be true. The experts told us so. We take steps to make our most common energy source more expensive because it's leading to catastrophic global warming, as the average global temperature drops. We stuff ourselves with carbs because the food pyramid says to, while we scratch our heads at the "obesity epidemic" and the increased rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. We see images, provided by Hubble, of what look to be galactic offspring of larger, older galaxies, but the differing "red shift" tells us that they must be billions of light-years apart. Who you gonna believe? The theory or your own lying eyes?

As we continue to accommodate the lowest common denominator, the species will get increasingly stupid. This may well result in our own self-destruction due to nuclear annihilation, but it wont be because we knew too much.

We Don't Need Another Hero

2009-04-15T18:58:00.000-07:00

For years, a certain constituency of Americans has been vastly under-served and under-represented. While they may disagree on a number of issues, the members of this constituency agree on a few fundamental things. One is that massive government debt will be a severe burden on future generations and that it is immoral to attempt to improve our short-term circumstances by knowingly jeopardizing our children and grandchildren. Another, related idea is that it is not the role of government to shield us from the consequences of misfortune or poor judgment, but to uphold our rights as we sort it out ourselves. It's a constituency that believes government's role in the life of the individual should be limited, as should it's budget. Issues thus far not involved in this coalition include abortion, gay rights, global warming and other hotly contested subjects that are left for another venue and another group.

This constituency has been left asking "Who will champion our cause? Where's the next Ronald Reagan? Who will defend our position?" Well, on April 15th 2009, they stopped asking and started defending themselves.

The problem with putting your fate in the hands of a political party is that they are really not sets of ideas, they are infrastructures for accomplishing a task; winning elections. As a party, they don't promote a limited scope of ideas or single issues, they adopt a number of issues and positions based partly on commonly held beliefs and partly on political expediency.

The Republican Party has spoken up for limited government and fiscal discipline, but has not lived up to the hype. Also, people who believe in capitalism, limited government and fiscal restraint, but don't tow the party line on other issues are ostracized. The same dynamic takes place in the Democrat party. You have to buy the whole package.

Whether you're liberal or conservative; capitalist, socialist or communist, you have to admire a group that refused to give up when a leader failed to emerge. The followers have become the leaders. This is in clear evidence as conservative politicians and pundits are now falling all over themselves trying to connect themselves to this movement.

I would caution members of this coalition not to allow it to get hijacked by a political party or to try to expand it to cover more issues. This is a unique movement of individuals promoting a specific set of ideas upon which they agree. At stake is whether future generations will work for the state or the state will work for them. Other issues can wait for another day, another rally, a different coalition, a different movement. No one who believes in ensuring the freedom of our descendants need be excluded because they also believe in something else. If we protect and respect each others individuality, we can work everything else out in time.

Obama's new Afghanistan strategy

2009-03-27T08:27:00.000-07:00

President Obama today announced his new strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Quaida.

As someone who has not been a big fan of the administration to date, I must say I didn't hear anything, policy-wise, that I didn't like.

The President is continuing to increase troop levels, with an emphasis on training. The goal is to build up and train the Afghan army and police until they are ready to handle their own security. There will also be funds provided by the U.S. for things like schools and infrastructure for Afghanistan. I do believe in the strategy of "give them something to lose." when it's done correctly. Mr. Obama also stated that the U.S, Afghanistan and Pakistan will engage in continuing talks and strategy sessions regarding security as well as economics and long term stability. He emphasized the need for civilian efforts as well, saying we need an "army" of agriculture specialists and engineers to not only erradicate the poppy production that fuels terrorist funding, but to find viable, alternative cash crops. This is something I have suggested in my own blogs in the past.

He seemed to have a real grasp on the danger posed by instability in the region and of the clear and present danger posed by Al Quaida and its allies. That was refreshing to hear.

The one thing that was a bit annoying about the presentation was the multiple referrals to Afghanistan being "denied the resources necessary due to the war in Iraq." Mr. Obama has won the election. He's the President. It's okay to acknowledge that we actually accomplished something good in Iraq and it wasn't a complete waste. Oh well, that's just politics. History wont pay much heed to snide remarks in the long run, just results.

I do like the strategy that was laid out today. Let's hope the execution is as good as the plan.

SNL News - No Joke, Feb 7, 2009

2009-02-08T07:03:00.000-08:00

There was a lot going on in D.C. this week. The debate raged over the stimulus package and some key Obama nominations went down in flames. You'd expect the writers on Saturday Night Live would have some great material for the SNL News segment at the President's expense.

Here's what they came up with: Seth Myers reports that two Obama nominees had to withdraw because of tax problems and President Obama says "I screwed up." The punch line from Myers? "That was your screw up? This guy broke the world" (picture of George W. Bush).

They couldn't bring themselves to lampoon our Glorious Leader. Instead, they tried to make him feel better. These are strange days indeed. Particularly at NBC, where an entire network has become a cheerleader for a political agenda. We're used to comedians and news outlets being cynical of, suspicious of and sometimes even hostile toward our politicians. I've never seen anything like the partnership that seems to have been reached between NBC and this White House.

It's sad to see the poison has spread to otherwise talented comedians. If praising the powers that be in the highest of terms were funny, I'd say go for it. It's not. It's pathetic.

Is Yellowstone about to blow its top?

2009-01-02T22:45:00.000-08:00

Photo by Austin Post, courtesy of USGS

Scientists are puzzled by the recent spurt of seismic activity in Yellowstone. Swarms of tremors in the park are not that unusual, but the number and proximity of this event definitely is.

James Pethokoukis did a Splunk search and discovered that during the entire decade of the 80's there were 128 Yellowstone area tremors measuring 2.5 or greater on the Richter scale. There have been 30 in the past four days centered under and around Yellowstone Lake alone, some measuring as high as 3.8. The number of 2.5 or higher tremors in the Yellowstone Lake area for the entire decade of the 80's was 4. I did post a comment on the article asking the author why he did not include data from the 90's. I haven't got an answer to that one yet.

The AP reports: "Several hundred quakes centered under the northern end of Yellowstone Lake have now occurred since Dec. 26. No damage has been reported. Earthquake swarms happen fairly often in Yellowstone. But scientists say it's unusual for so many earthquakes to happen over several days. Yellowstone lies mostly in northwestern Wyoming and is the caldera of a volcano that last erupted 70,000 years ago. Scientists have not concluded what is causing the earthquakes."

From LiveScience.com: "Scientists wonder if the shaking might presage a larger event. This month's swarm is the most intense in this area for some years, scientists said. It is centered on the east side of the Yellowstone caldera, a giant basin created in a colossal eruption some 620,000 years ago. Researchers have long predicted that the Yellowstone supervolcano will eventually erupt again, with devastating consequences for much of the United States. Half the country could be covered in ash up to 3 feet (1 meter) deep, one study predicts. But those same researchers say nothing suggests such an eruption is imminent. They point out, however, that Yellowstone seems to blow its top about every 600,000 years."

The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory is a bit more conservative: "The December 2008 earthquake sequence is the most intense in this area for some years. No damage has been reported within Yellowstone National Park, nor would any be expected from earthquakes of this size. The swarm is in a region of historical earthquake activity and is close to areas of Yellowstone famous hydrothermal activity. Similar earthquake swarms have occurred in the past in Yellowstone without triggering steam explosions or volcanic activity. Nevertheless, there is some potential for hydrothermal explosions and earthquakes may continue or increase in magnitude. There is a much lower potential for related volcanic activity."

This story may not have stirred my interest so much had it not been for the 2005 BBC/Discovery Channel docudrama, "Supervolcano Caldera". Being in Colorado, I'm not close enough for a super-eruption to kill me instantly, but not far enough away to avoid eventually freezing to death, starving to death or at best, living the rest of my life in desperate squalor. Still, it might be better than living through the constant drip, drip, drip of ever increasing socialism.

This will likely turn out to be just a seismic oddity that will be of great interest to scientists in years to come. Still, for the rest of us, it's worth keeping an eye on for now.

A dark cloud over dark matter?

2008-12-27T20:22:00.000-08:00

Astronomers working with the Chandra X-Ray Observatory have announced the results of new research that they say confirms the existence of dark energy. They speculate that the findings could lead to new insights into the beginning and perhaps the eventual end of the cosmos. But, there's a fly in the ointment. Its name is Halton Arp.

The universe started with a big bang and is constantly expanding. That expansion is accelerating. We know this because the redshift of the light from far away cosmic entities tells us how fast they are moving away from us (remember the train whistle analogy in high school). The model has run into some problems over the decades, such as the fact that there wasn't enough matter to account for galaxies staying together and that there was no explanation for accelerated expansion. Don't panic. New forms of energy and matter were called into being to fix those problems: dark energy and dark matter.

The expanding universe model is no longer open to debate. It's an established fact and indisputable....or is it? A man named Halton Arp has a different idea. He has done extensive and very convincing research aimed at demonstrating that the redshifted light from far away objects is not a measure of velocity, but of age. He proposes that galaxies occasionally eject matter, which may become a new galaxy. The new galaxy is formed of newly formed particles, as a result of the explosive expulsion, which are lower in mass than their older counterparts. The particles in the new galaxy increase in mass as they age. It is the difference in the mass of the particles between the parent and offspring galaxies that accounts for the difference in redshift.

Mr. Arp has produced volumes of research, including observational evidence, that I will not go into here. Please visit the site for more detailed information.

The importance of the proposal is that, if it is correct, everything we think we know about the cosmos suddenly changes. A galaxy that is observed alongside another that has a much higher redshift would be assumed to be far away from its apparent neighbor and rapidly accelerating under the current model. Under Arp's model, the higher redshifted galaxy would be adjacent to, and the offspring of the other galaxy. The currently accepted relative positions and motions of all far away cosmic objects would suddenly be thrown into disarray, along with any research based on them. You can understand why the scientific community in general is not clamoring to support Arp's work.

Whatever the truth is, either Arp is wrong or the scientific community at large is wrong. History has proven that it is indeed possible for the broader scientific community to be dead wrong, even in the face of compelling evidence, for decades and even centuries at a time.

"But there is research, even brand new research that supports the dark energy/dark matter scenario." When you establish a false premise as an absolute truth, any observation you make must be made to conform to your premise. The research being done into dark energy and dark matter is heavily dependent on redshift being an indicator of the relative location and velocity of the objects being studied. If those "facts" are not facts, much of the data derived from them is meaningless.

I'm not a physicist or an astronomer, but I do believe in Occum's Razor. When faced with two plausible possibilities, the simpler one is usually correct. When you have to develop new particles and new properties of existing particles to explain what you are observing in the context of your established premise, check your premise.

Algae, Solar Power and the Electric Car

2008-12-07T19:04:00.000-08:00

The lobbyist for the algae to fuel industry will be on Capital Hill this week, trying to convince lawmakers that their industry should be included in any comprehensive, long term energy strategy. They've got the support of the airline industry behind them and at least one company, Sapphire Energy, has actually produced a viable fuel.

Ascent Solar passed a major milestone recently when the Department of Energy officially certified that their thin film photovoltaic cells achieved nearly 10% efficiency at converting sunlight to usable power. Ascent hopes to have commercially available building products, incorporating their cells, on the market in 2010.

The electric car has gotten a lot of hype recently, but there is one major problem I haven't heard anyone address yet. No matter how much range they get and at what efficiency, people are inevitably going to overdrive their charge. What do you do when you're stuck on the side of the highway and out of juice? With gas powered vehicles you can at least grab a gas can and hitch a ride. I've heard of no counterpart to the gas-can for the electric car. Before they can go mass-market, they need to come up with a portable device one can carry to a charging station or outlet. You would charge the device with enough juice to get you at least 20 miles or so and return to your car with it. I suppose an alternative would be the emergence of an industry based on cars or trucks driving the highways and byways with enough power to sell stranded motorists a quick charge. But what if one doesn't happen to be patrolling your area? It's not an insurmountable problem. In fact, it's probably a simple fix. I'm just surprised none of the egg heads at the automobile companies have though about it yet.

Who's to blame for our economic situation? I blame Star Trek!

2008-11-29T19:31:00.000-08:00

In a free market environment, people try to better themselves by finding ways to create value for others. That is, they create something, be it a product or a service, that is of more value to someone else than it is to them. Then they trade. Some ideas succeed. Some fail. It's an evolutionary process of natural selection that brings to market the things people most want at prices they're willing to pay.

In the United States today, we increasingly look to the government to provide the things we want. We also look to them to take the pain away from trying and failing. We've subverted the evolutionary process. Even politicians who once championed capitalism and limited government have gotten on the bandwagon. The government now owns stakes in banks, insurance companies and soon, the auto makers. In exchange for the cash infusions, government will have a say in how the companies are run, who they hire, what they produce and how much they'll make. There is no longer a debate as to whether or not the government should ensure everyone gets health care. There's just some disagreement as to the terms. Worrying about the national debt is not even on anyone's radar in this new paradigm.

How did we get here? Well, I blame sci-fi, at least in part. Science fiction has the ability to stir our imaginations. Some of the nifty devices used on shows like Star Trek have actually been produced and are in every day use (automatic doors, "communicators"). There have been many positive influences. But one thing most every popular science fiction drama has in common is a view of the future built by the government. Nobody uses cash in Star Trek. Everyone simply does their duty and is happy to do it. We see the dozen or so folks who get to go on the occasional adventure, but I can't help but wonder about the other 400 who simply do their jobs, day in and day out, and never get paid. All their needs are met by the Federation. Once in a while a "capitalist" type will appear on an episode, but they are backward, goofy, greedy and usually ugly comic relief.

The Stargate series is no better. The government is engaged in inter-gallactic trade and diplomacy on the taxpayers dime. Not only does the general public not know anything about it, they have no direct access to any of the benefits or technology. Yet the government forces that carry on this clandestine operation are the heroes.

There wasn't much mention of the common man in Star Wars, outside of the bar scenes, but there again the main characters who were engaged in private commerce were depicted as selfish, greedy, unreliable and eventually saw the error of their ways.

We have been sold a vision of a Utopian future without free markets, without capitalism, without the free association of independent individuals. Of course the message is subtle and packaged with lots of explosions and drama sprinkled with comedy, but it's there and it's effective.

We are reaching for Never Never Land; a future that will never come to pass because the fact is that an economic system based on resource allocation determined by an elite group, even a democratically elected elite group will never achieve the efficiency and genius of a system based on resource allocation by the cumulative effects of free individuals making voluntary decisions in a free market.

If we truly want to go where no man has gone before, we're not going to get there in a government chartered bus.

What's the next phase? Reinstate the Draft?

2008-10-27T22:28:00.000-07:00

I'll save the preface for the novel. Since this is blogworld, I'll just give you the trailer.

I believe what Biden was referring to in his statement that the world will "test" Obama and it may not be immediately evident that his response is right, means they're planning on reinstating the draft. They have the solution. Now they just need a crisis. If I had to take a guess, I'd say center stage will be Indonesia (again, I'll save the why for the novel).

Why the draft? We've got to instill in the young'uns a sense of duty to country, a cause bigger than themselves, discipline, respect for authority, etc. You can't run an efficient collectivist state with everyone running around looking out for themselves all willy-nilly. But what about those who are opposed to violence and the military? No worries. They can sign up for mandatory community service. They'll still get uniforms and serve society as directed by their superiors.

It will be sold as an essential for national security as well as a jobs program to "get the economy back on track". Education credits will be part of the package as well as helping to re-establishing traditional values in the young people.

Think I'm nuts? Maybe, but just for yuks, bookmark this and check back around June of 2009.

RIP Capitalist America

2008-10-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

I don't think I'm being melodramatic when I say we're witnessing the end of the United States of America as a capitalist country. The recent action of our government, lauded by both major parties, reveals a total lack of faith in the free market. They all say they hate to do it, as they drive the knife in deeper.

Instead of investigating and prosecuting the culprits in the sub-prime loan debacle, taxpayer money was used to bail them out. The government took control of the two largest mortgage companies in the country, the company that insured them and is now taking ownership in the banks. They already control your utilities, your access to information, in some places, even your trash disposal. No worries, you can still go to Walmart and buy something nice with the allowance you'll be left after taxes. Barak Obama is 14 points ahead in the polls with just 3 weeks to go and has made no secret of his plan for wealth redistribution. A liberal controlled House and Senate are chomping at the bit to help him implement it. Not that John McCain is any kind of champion of free enterprise. At best he may have slowed the train down a bit.

Next the government will take control of health care. Why? Because the American people are screaming for it. Once your neighbor's premiums and benefits are directly tied to your personal behavior (through nationalized health care) there is no limit to the regulation and restriction that can be justified in the name of the greater good.

Politicians have been dividing us into groups and buying our votes with more and more promises of free stuff. We've been lapping it up like faithful mutts. Now we will get our just deserts: A new world order. A system in which failure is not allowed is a system in which excellence is not possible, and for the foreseeable future, that is the new American way.

Second Presidential Debate - Who Won Debate '08 Belmont?

2008-10-07T20:42:00.000-07:00

Belmont University's Debate on October 7th, 2008, held in Nashville, TN had a clear winner.

John McCain won this won handily in two catagories. On style points, he had Obama on his heels the whole time. McCain's answers were clear, concise and included plenty of jabs at Obama. Barak seemed like a politician trying to kill 90 minutes.

But McCain also won in another catagory: Most outlandish new economic proposal. He suggested that he will direct the treaury to buy up "bad mortgages" and renegotiate them with the home owner, or more accurately, the current resident. Merry Christmas!

This may well get him some votes. But lets look at the Freakonomics at play here. It would actually benefit you, if you believe that McCain will be elected to not only get behind on your mortgage and make as little money as you can get by on, but it would also behoove you to do whatever you can to diminish the perceived value of your property. After all the governments going to forgive your current mortgage in favor of one at the current appraised value. You want that appraisal to come in as low as possible. For Pete's sake don't fix anything! In fact, you might want to throw a baseball or two through your own windows, stop mowing the lawn, park a car on blocks in your driveway, or better yet front lawn, create a few paint chipped areas, whatever you can do to make your home less appealing.

Obama's policies of tax increase on higher incomes, mandated insurance programs and a wide assortment of spending initiatives will strangle an already struggling business community. McCain's Christmas in November to home buyers will decimate an already decimated real estate market. Choose your poison.

The health care solution. Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

2008-10-06T21:08:00.000-07:00

Ladies and gentleman, I've asked you here today because opportunity is knocking once again. The public is clamoring for affordable health care and the politicians are pining to give to them. Everyone is looking for a system that will enable each participant to contribute $5 and draw out $500 and by golly we're going to give it to them.

First, we'll get legislation passed that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. We don't want to have the government provide the insurance directly. That would look too much like socialism. We've got to dress this thing up so it looks like a free market. We'll have private insurers sell the policies. They'll have to cover everyone, regardless of income or pre-existing condition. The government will provide subsidies to those who can't afford it. In order to reduce the risk to insurance companies we'll set up a Government Supported Private Entity, a Health Care Insurance Funding Authority. We'll give it a catchy name like Hannah Fay.

Hannah will buy up policies from the insurers. The insurers will simply sell policies and administer claims, which will paid by Hannah, through them, to the providers. Hannah will bundle the policies together and sell bonds backed by the premiums to raise operating capital to pay claims and subsidize more low income policies. We'll sell the bonds to a new kind of financial institution, which we will help create: Health Care Investment Banks. These HCIB's will bundle the bonds and sell shares in them. We'll call those Health Care Backed Securities or HCBS's. These HCBS's will be sold to other financial institutions, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and the like. The risk will be spread so thin, it'll hardly be noticible.

Our roles? Advisors, consultants, investors. Keep away from the cameras. Stay out of the news. I know what you're thinking. This can't possibly work. Well, that depends on your definition of work. There will be Congressional oversight, but don't worry about that. Politicians are elected on emotion. Most of them wouldn't know a proper balance sheet from the supply side of a mule. Just make sure they get their due in contributions. As for the Wall Street boys, the important ones know the game. They'll get out in plenty of time. Their replacements will be lulled in by huge salaries and bonuses. It's kind of like executive hot potato. It'll be many years before anyone figures out the HCBS's aren't worth the paper their printed on and the health care system doesn't actually have any money. I'll have you out well before then.

Alright, we've got work to do. Set up meetings with your respective politicians, activists and friendly media and let's start leaking this idea out there. Remember, don't attach your name to anything. Present it as something you heard from someone else that you think could be worth looking into. Let the camera junkies do the rest. This meeting never took place. Good luck everyone. This could be the greatest thing since Cap and Trade!

What's Russia Up To?

2008-10-05T23:00:00.000-07:00

Was Georgia just a test? The behavior of Russia in the aftermath of its invasion of that country is anything but conciliatory. Now Russian state television is airing a documentary promoting the idea that the U.S. government was behind 9/11. Why would they go the extra mile to stir up anti-American sentiment among their own and around the globe?

If Georgia was a test, the Russians have to be very encouraged at the results. The west made a lot of noise, but in the end, did nothing. The world is facing an economic slow down. US forces are spread thin, Russia has made a bundle on soaring oil, but prices are dropping and the whole world is looking for alternatives. If they were dumb enough to make some sort of outlandish land grab, now would be the time. I'm confident they're dumb enough.

I'm not well versed enough in the current geopolitical situation in their neighborhood to have any idea what they have their eyes on, but my "spider sense" is tingling. Maybe they'll just go after the rest of Georgia. Maybe something bigger. Ukraine? Poland? Alaska? I just hope our spooks are working over-time on this.

Bi-Partisan Robbery

2008-10-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

A parade of senators, Republican and Democrat are congratulating themselves and each other tonight for passing the $700 billion giveaway to "save the economy". They did throw the common folk a bone in the form of some tax relief. I guess that makes it all okay.

You may be unfamiliar with the meaning of some of the terms and phrases being tossed around in reference to this crisis. Let me clarify some.

"Sub-prime mortgage" - Loans made to people for more than they could possibly pay back, secured by assets that are now worth much less than the loan.

"Mortgage Backed Securities" (MBS) - Essentially, shares of the above mortgages, sold to banks and investment institutions in large bundles.

"The credit markets are clogged" - The banks have no cash. They spent it on these MBS's which had been carried on the balance sheet as "cash equivalents". The problem is, nobody wants to buy them so they aren't really cash equivalents.

"We must free up the credit markets" - We're going to buy these shares of subprime mortgages at a price pulled out of thin air by Henry Paulson.

"We will sell these MBS's back to the open market to redeem the taxpayers' investment" - We're going to sit on these things until the heat is off.

"Doing nothing is not an option" - Doing nothing would cause the markets to take their natural course, exposing the whole convoluted scheme that caused this mess. Politicians would be voted out. Lawsuits would be filed. Voters would be very angry if the truth were to come to light. Best to let it fester for as long as possible.

Yes, Republicans and Democrats have come together in an unprecedented manner to cover their collective behinds. Some voted against the bill, but only after its passage was assured. No member of either party made a serious effort to put a stop to this. I for one will no longer vote for the most competent stooge or the lesser of two evils.

Let me make this absolutely clear for those of you who haven't yet caught on. Your money will be given to banks, so that they can loan it back to you. You will pay your money back to the bank with interest. After the shareholders, employees and execs get their cut, some of the remaining net will be paid back, not to you, but to the government who brokered the transaction. They are, at this moment, on national television praising themselves in the highest terms for pulling this thing off (assuming it passes the House) because they are now 100% convinced that we are indeed, just as stupid as they've always hoped.

The Day the World Didn't End- No Bail Out, No Worries

2008-09-30T08:15:00.000-07:00

Well, we were told two weeks ago that we were days, maybe hours from a total collapse of the world's financial systems if we didn't immediately cough up $700 billion to overpay for bad loans. The bill failed and the world continues to turn. The market is actually up 450 points today, bringing the day net reaction so far to a 3% drop in the Dow, which, given current economic conditions, is probably still a bit over priced.

Maybe traders believe a bail out is inevitable. Maybe the reality is that credit's going to be tight for a while, some companies will fail, some wont, but we'll get through this with or without a raid on the treasury.

Pundits continue to spew that the public just doesn't understand. The public understands, they just don't care. The bank that's been raising their rates and putting the squeeze on them for months is begging for a bail out. Excuse me for not panicking. Alternatives have been put forward. Some have suggested offering a capital gains and income tax holiday on homes purchased in the next six months. That actually makes sense. It's lack of home sales that's at the base of the problem, so stimulate home sales by increasing the potential profit margin. It wouldn't cost the government a dime, since they weren't going to see any tax revenue from unsold homes anyway.

We have to clean up this mess before we rebuild. This is not 1929. Information, ideas, resources and talent flow more freely now than at anytime in history. We are well prepared and able to deal with a market downturn. As long as the system is perceived as fair, just, transparent and consistent, we can weather this storm and come out stronger. If the government steps in and changes the rules every week, all bets are off.

Thanks Nancy!

2008-09-29T18:20:00.000-07:00

Just when it looked like the Republicans had caved, Nancy Pelosi saved the day by insulting them on national television. Twelve Republicans that had stated they would vote for the bail out, changed their minds and voted against it. Maybe it was the wrong reason, but it was the right decision.

Administration officials are petrified that the the current financial system may collapse. I hope they're right. We need a new one.

Congress may yet cobble together a more politically acceptable raid on the treasury, but the political atmosphere points to gridlock, at least for a little while. This mess needs to be brought out into the light of day. The people need to know what Washington has been up to for the past couple of decades. If it takes a few years of hardship to clean house in DC, so be it.

The Deed is Done. Bailout Agreement Reached

2008-09-28T16:32:00.001-07:00

Well, it looked as though Congressional Republicans were going to step up and stand on principal, but as it turned out, they moved a couple of commas around and pretended they looked after your interests. The bailout agreement has been reached and $700 billion tax dollars are about to be given away.

Of course, the healthy banks aren't going to participate. Better to absorb the loss than face the tax and equity consequences of participating in this rip off. The government will get bogus paper, issued by the now government owned Freddie and Fannie, by giving cash to the most incompetent lenders in the market. One of the stipulations in the bill is that the government renegotiate the loans that back this paper. In other words, they've been ordered to take steps to immediately devalue the investment they just made. If you are a mortgage holder and are not behind, you keep the deal you have. If you are in default, you get to negotiate a better deal. What do think that will do to the mortgage market? The feds get warrants in the companies that do participate (again, the weakest in the industry) and they'll have you believe we're all going to come out ahead on this venture.

They may be able to hide the losses since they now will own both the issuing authority and the bogus paper they issued, but you will NEVER see a return on this investment. Recall the Savings and Loan bailout was supposed to cost us around 50 billion dollars. In the end it cost 150 billion and that involved hard assets. There are many more middle men in this deal. Lawyers are going to make money. Taxpayers are going to get squat.

It was all designed to hide the fact that the government essentially ordered the give away of homes. Obama said today that the whole mess "started on Wall Street". Wrong. Wall Street is where it ended. They were the patsies intended to take the fall from the beginning. It started in DC. Now they're all laughing, all the way to the re-election campaign. They not only got away with it. They're going to be hailed as heroes for it.

The Community Reinvestment Act's Role in the Economic Upheaval

2008-09-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 as a response to discriminatory lending practices of banks and investment institutions. It was apparent that being a minority automatically lowered your credit rating and something had to be done to address it. The act tied the performance of banks in meeting the lending needs of the communities they served to access to deposit facilities and approvals for mergers and acquisitions. Mortgages could be insured through and sold to government sponsored entities, The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and The Federal Housing Finance Agency, (Fannie Mae).

In 1995 the bill was revised to encourage more lending to low and moderate income borrowers. Freddie and Fannie were permitted to hold back just 2.5% of their investment outlays as collateral, vs the 10% requirement for banks.

The scheme as a whole set up a system whereby I could make a loan to you today, sell it to Freddie later, and be off the hook should you default on the loan. This of course encouraged lots of new lending, lax standards and less effort on validating borrowers claims on income, employment and assets. Institutions that were not covered under the CRA saw the massive amounts of cash flow being generated and followed suit, even though they had no implicit guarantee of a government bail out should things go south.

The pickle we're in now isn't the result of increased lending to minorities. It's the result of across the board lack of due diligence in lending encouraged by a bogus guarantee against failure. The problem was real, but the solution was flawed. Instead of developing real anti-discrimination standards that could be objectively measured by comparing approval rates of individuals in similar income, and asset brackets, discrimination was determined by how much money you invested in a particular neighborhood. The proponents tried to dilute the risk by having government sponsored entities buy, repackage and sell the loans in the market. I guess the idea was that if it all came crashing down, one could blame greedy Wall Street investors, since that's who the ball would ultimately be passed off to.

It's a government mentality similar to the thinking behind Social Security and soon, government health care. Of course the math doesn't work, but by the time the general public catches on, it will be "too big to fail". They'll get on board a massive government cash infusion (which will ultimately cause rampant inflation) and everything will be hunky dorey (at least until the authors are long gone).

I hope we learn the lesson that injustice and incompetence cannot be remedied by simply throwing money at them. Real, objective, measurable solutions must be developed that actually address the problem.

McCain's "Read My Lips" Moment is Upon Him

2008-09-27T10:10:00.000-07:00

Conservatives and Capitalists have had a tough time embracing John McCain. There is a general feeling that he either doesn't really understand or doesn't support their general principals. He was able to sway many with his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, but what's going on right now will overshadow all of that.

McCain has made a great show of waving a pen around and stating that he will veto any pork barrel bills that come to his desk and "make the authors famous". Yet he's about to be a party to the biggest pork barrell spending bill in the history of the universe: The federal bail out of failing banks.

Democrats tend to stay loyal to their nominee regardless of how they vote or what kind of trouble they get into. Conservatives and Capitalist within the Republican party are conservative and capitalists first and will not support a Republican they view as ignoring their core beliefs. You can ask George Bush Sr. about that one. After his famous "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" pledge, he was convinced to sit down with Democrats and hammer out a new tax increase plan. His second term was gone as of that moment.

Conservatives and Capitalists will not vote for the Democrat. They will either vote third party or not vote if this bail out thing passes with McCain's support. Yes, we would rather see the country fall into depression than see it abandon free market principals just because things got tough. We're funny that way.

If McCain doesn't throw himself in the path of this bailout and do everything in his power to stop it, this election is over as far as he's concerned. If he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand his base. Depression doesn't scare us. Obama getting elected doesn't scare us. Being in any way connected to the nationalization of private enterprise is something we simply will not do.

Who Won Debate? Not Us

2008-09-26T22:07:00.000-07:00

Okay, maybe not a great debate, an adequate debate? Alright, let's just call it a debate. If you were firmly in the corner of one candidate or the other before tonight, I doubt you heard anything that changed your mind. If you were on the fence, it depends on what your priorities are.

I think McCain scored points on national security. He repeatedly used the phrase "Senator Obama just doesn't understand...", and at times made a pretty convincing case.

Obama did seem to be on the defensive more often than not.

Neither candidate scored any points with me on the economic front. Both agreed that a multi billion dollar bail out was absolutely necessary. It's a familiar refrain from those who pay lip service to free markets in good times. When things get tough it's always "I firmly believe in free market principals, but......." Followed by a big but.

McCain could have been the populist hero if he had gone to DC and simply squashed the whole bail out on principal. Main Street isn't afraid of facing the consequences of letting nature take its course. It's the suits who are petrified. McCain and Obama both came across as just another couple of suits. Ironically, McCain talked about how important it will be to reign in government spending as he simultaneously proclaimed his optimism and gratitude that a bi-partisan mass raiding of the treasury will soon be passed. Obama conceded he might have to scale back or delay some of his other social engineering projects until this one is done. Yes, we are about to elect yet another leader of the largest economy in the world who has no clue as to how it works and no faith in its ability to adapt.

Back in the USSA!, Will the Bail Out Fix the Economy?

2008-09-22T06:03:00.000-07:00

Congress is about to approve at least 700 Billion dollars in government spending to bail out the banks and investment houses. Rules were waived to allow Goldman and Morgan to change their status to Bank Holding companies and access 24/7 "emergency loans" from the fed within just 5 days rather than the normal 30.

Several thoughts come to mind immediately. First, the blatancy with which the feds have totally dispensed with the rule book tells me they are in absolute panic and the situation is far worse than they're letting on. Second, do you really think that once they give these ailing corporations a giant cash infusion, these banks are going to turn around and make that money available to the general public? They're going to pay off their strategic network partners so that after the whole house of cards comes falling down and it's time to rebuild, they'll be in good standing. Next, what does the federal government do when the airlines and the auto companies come looking for a hand out? How about the truckers and anyone else that is in dire straits right now or in the near future?

The feds are scrambling to rebuild a perception of normalcy, probably because if there is a run on deposits, there is no way the banks or the FDIC will be able to cover it. They've all borrowed against and committed money that doesn't exist and if things don't turn around, everyone is going to know it. If it get's bad, triple and quadruple digit inflation is not out of the question as the treasury starts printing money as fast as the machines can handle.

In the best case scenerio, the economy has a quick recovery and the federal government experiences a net loss of a couple of hundred billion dollars. Even that puts the "drop dead" date for dealing with things like social security and medicaid much closer than it was a few weeks ago.

....to thunderous applause

2008-09-16T20:46:00.000-07:00

In the beginning there was much liquidity. Credit was loose and easy to come by. Home buyers were able to get loans well beyond their income level’s ability to repay. No matter, housing prices were going up. You just refinance every few years until you sell.

Then the buying slowed down. Housing prices fell. Interest rates adjusted. Borrowers fell behind. Many walked away or foreclosed.

The mortgage broker made money. The firm that made the loan and resold it made money. The firm that bought that loan, packaged it with other loans and resold them, made money. At the banks that bought the packaged loans and financial instruments tied to them, executives made money. Even the ones who were fired, walked away with big paydays. Even the borrower got use of the home and/or any cash received from the loan they couldn’t repay.

So who lost? The taxpayer. Just as we were seeing the light at the end of the tunnel in government spending in Iraq, the feds stepped up and bought out Freddie, Fannie, then AIG. Now they’re enacting a plan to take the garbage off the balance sheets of the banks and dump it in the lap of the taxpayer. The nation’s financial system is being nationalized...and Wall Street cheers as perhaps the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world comes to a successful conclusion.

The politicians aren’t card carrying communists. They’re just in fear of their jobs, their legacy, losing the approval they so cherish.

Allowing the financial markets to reap the fruits of their misbehavior and poor judgments would have been ugly, chaotic, caused years of calamity and harship and would have been justice. Lessons would have been learned that would not soon, if ever be forgotten. We would have survived. We would have come out stronger. What have we learned now? That practicing good judgment, paying your bills on time, living within your means, generating real value for an honest profit is for chumps.

To the small business person who is making it in this environment, without a government bail out, at least you should recognize that you have outwitted and outperformed the best and brightest at Shearshon, Merrill, AIG, Freddie, Fannie and a host of other Wall Street legends. The government may not recognize your accomplishment. In fact, you’ll be paying the bill for this mess. But for what it’s worth, I salute you.

Where do we go from here? It’s hard to say. The universe rarely unfolds the way I'd like it to, but that doesn't mean you can't spot opportunities. In a few months, the government will have a bunch of real estate on its books that it's going to want to unload in a hurry. Unlike commercial ventures, they'll go as low as they need to go to get them sold. Similar to the RTC situation in 1991, there's going to be a fire sale on real estate. If you've got some cash in the closet, take advantage. Recall that in the early 90's, once the RTC unloaded its inventory, the market recovered quite rapidly. Then again, looking out twelve months is tough business these days when the rules are subject to change without notice. Who knows? They may decide to regulate home prices next near, or next week.

In any case, capitalism may be out as a national economic policy, but as a personal lifestyle choice, it's always available. Just be aware of the changing nature of the environment.

The Mixed Message of the Fringe

2008-09-14T19:56:00.001-07:00

I must say after viewing the pilot episode of The Fringe, I think FOX has a winner here.

The premise is intriguing. Science and technology have accelerated to the point that amazing discoveries will be made, or already have been, by people totally beyond the control of any government agency. In theory, a genius in his garage could come up with new science and knowledge that could make him or her the most powerful and/or dangerous person on the planet overnight.

It's both plausible and disturbing. Not just from the view that powerful new science could end up in "the wrong hands", but that the public could be convinced of the need for tight government controls on knowledge, information and research and development resources.

It's a real dilemma. More freedom = less security. More security = less freedom. Are you more afraid of science "in the wrong hands" or an overbearing government?

Personally, I prefer to take the chance that bad guys might get hold of dangerous knowledge, and instruct the government to control, pursue and contain the bad guys, not the knowledge.

Dumb and Dumber? Biden says Clinton might have been a better pick.

2008-09-10T14:01:00.000-07:00

Less than 24 hours after Barak's now infamous "Lipstick on a pig" remark, Joe Biden emerged from the media shadows to tell a townhall forum crowd that not only is Hillary immensely qualified to be the President and/or Vice President "Frankly, she may have been a better pick than me.".

Clearly Biden was sucking up to Hillary supporters, but what he said was that his boss' first presidential level decision, the choice of vice president, was a mistake. This after Obama went to great lengths to convince people that his decision had nothing to do with any personal animosity toward Hillary or the fact that she's a woman. He maintained he thought long and hard and picked just the right guy. The guy he picked disagrees.

The McCain campaign has to be loving this. The hits just keep on coming. They need to be careful though. At this point they should switch gears and focus on the McCain message rather than continuing to spotlight the opposition. If they keep trying to hammer on Obama's campaign for its mis-steps, they run the risk of becoming the bullies. Nobody likes a bully.

When your opposition is in self-destruct mode, don't get involved. Just go about your business and let it happen. Are the McCain folks sharp enough to do this? We'll see. This election is still wide open.

The Obama Campaign, How the Wheels Came Off

2008-09-09T18:19:00.000-07:00

Before the conventions Barak Obama held a slight lead in tracking polls. Although is VP pick was a total dud, he did manage to get a slight bounce out of the convention, but it was very short lived. With McCain''s surprise pick of Sarah Palin for VP and a television audience for his own speech that surpassed Obama's, the McCain Palin ticket is now leading by an average of 2.5% according to the RealClearPolitics.com average of major polls.

The next two months is a total uphill battle for Obama. His pick of Biden for VP disclosed a "run the clock out" strategy that depended on gaining and holding a lead after the convention. The big speech at Invesco was the crescendo. That's his wheelhouse; giving a well prepared speech to an enthusiastic crowd. Now the only major public events left are the debates, a forum he doesn't do nearly as well in.

If McCain had chosen Romney or Huckabee, I think Barak would have been in like Flynn. Biden could have played the pit bull at his debate and I think he would have come across looking stronger than either of those guys. Regardless of where you stand on the issues, Romney and Huckabee are not good sluggers in a debate format. With Palin, Biden's in a no-win situation. She's a fighter, the crowd adores her. He's in a box. The VP debate will be a non-event.

So it all comes down to the Presidential debates. Unless McCain makes a major gaffe, I've got to give him the advantage here for one simple reason: He has a sense of humor, Barak doesn't. This is a format McCain is very comfortable in after decades in Congress, and he knows how to take and throw verbal punches without losing his cool. He's also got a lot less to lose. Barak is trying to create a great story. McCain already has one, win or lose. If Barak looks desperate, he's through.

It doesn't help that clowns like, until recently unknown comic, Russell Brand (evidently the spokesperson for the Global Community) are out there making total asses of themselves in the name of Obama. The host of the MTV video music awards implored America to "elect Barak Obama for the sake of the world." before going on to make some very nasty, crude comments about Bush, Palin and Palin's daughter. Expect a lot more of that kind of thing. The Democrats made a strategic decision many years ago to embrace any loud and obnoxious group or individual and bring them into the fold. They represented votes the other side wasn't going after. Now they're stuck with them. If they sense this thing slipping away they will come out in droves. It should be very entertaining.

It all adds up to another case of the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All they had to do was not come across as radical loons and they blew it. They invested heavily in losing the Iraq war and somehow thought the sluggish economy would give them cover to raise taxes and implement new, massive government spending initiatives. As if that wasn't enough, they came out square against new oil exploration while gas was peaking at $4/gallon. Now they're rubbing more salt into their own wounds by viscously attacking one of the most popular political figures to come on the scene in my lifetime. They could have just said "good for her" and went after McCain. But, emptier heads prevailed, and the rest is history.

I always worry, at each election cycle that this country may take a hard turn toward socialism. After watching the events of the past couple of weeks unfold, I've been sleeping pretty well lately.

Death of a Status Symbol

2008-09-03T21:56:00.000-07:00

Back in the day, the guy with the cell phone was cool. Having a car phone was super-cool. In fact I remember a guy I used to work with that had a phone with him constantly and the antenna conspicuously mounted on his car. We later found out that both were phony, but it points out the status that having a mobile phone used to provide. Then came laptops and blackberries. I guess the notion was that you must be important if you need to be "in the loop" at all times.

Now that information tech has become all-pervasive, things look a little different. I saw a man at the grocery store the other day with a Blue Tooth in his ear, take a call while he was checking out. The feeling that came across me wasn't so much admiration as pity. The poor guy can't have a moment to himself in the grocery store. Information technology was supposed to be liberating. You could work from anywhere. Even the beach! Well, as it turned out, in many cases that just means your break isn't really a break and your day off isn't really a day off. We aren't getting extra time at the beach, we're just bringing our work with us when we go.

Of course, this loss of "me time" is self inflicted. You certainly can use technology to your advantage. But when you can no longer enjoy the sanctity of your own car, whose advantage are your really serving?

I think the new status symbol is the guy or gal who walks into the room without the cell phone, or the blackberry; someone who plugs in when and if it suits them, rather than being at someone else's beck and call 24/7. If you want to use technology to improve your quality of life, make it your servant, not your master.

Thank TABOR!

2008-08-30T20:47:00.000-07:00

Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been much maligned, mainly by government officials and employees, for restricting their ability to raise revenues and mandating cuts in economically challenging times. However, when you compare the situation in Colorado to other states, our fiscal position is much stronger due to these restraints.

New York State is currently running a deficit between 5 and 6 billion dollars. The legislature has thus far agreed to cuts that amount to about $427 million. Hardly a solution. California's situation is far worse. Their deficit is at about $15 billion and there currently is no plan to fix it. Colorado's budget is in balance. While many people are unhappy about the cuts necessary to keep it that way, if our government had been spending like drunken sailors over the past 17 years, a balanced budget would be a fairy tale right about now, as it is on both coasts.

TABOR forces government to set priorities and make difficult decisions on an annual basis. They cannot promise the world and leave it to future generations to work out how to pay for it all. The welfare of a constituency is not directly proportional to its governments ability to raise and spend revenue. Find another way to get votes.

Sarah Palin, McCain's VP Pick

2008-08-29T07:51:00.000-07:00

Barak and the Democrats put on a pretty good show in Denver. Although I disagreed with the general assessment of Hillary's speech (I thought it was pretty ordinary), Bill and Joe Biden did very well and Obama himself did a good job. His speech hit some points that weren't exactly on par with his previous campaign. He talked about eliminating government programs and personal accountability and responsibility. That was new and directed at mainstream America. He came out of the convention with a 6 point lead in the polls. McCain would have to make some news to get back in the race.

Make some news he has. He didn't play it safe and pick a Romney or a Huckabee for his VP. He went all the way to Alaska and selected 44 year-old, mother of 5, Sarah Palin. just 48 hours or so earlier, many Hillary supporters had capitulated and accepted Obama as their candidate. Suddenly, they're back in play. Palin, of course, will not appeal to those for whom liberalism trumps gender, but many in the Clinton camp are more concerned with breaking that "glass ceiling" than with universal health care. The pick will also stir up a demographic that has been largely inactive to this point: Republican women. There are activists and politicians at the national level, but at the grass roots level, Republican females have been kind of a "women's auxillary". Now they have a player in the game.

It's an interesting system we have. McCain and Biden come from the dynamic of those who spend decades working on their political careers, who may someday get a shot at the big prize. Obama and Palin represent an infusion of new genes in the political pool. Nobody would have bet on Obama for a presidential nominee 5 years ago and Palin was nationally unknown until very recently. Suddenly, if McCain were to win the presidency, she could very well become the Republican heir apparent. Both campaigns are a mix of fresh faces and the old guard.

It is refreshing to know that, no matter who wins the next election, the winning streak of "two old white guys" has finally come to an end.

Blankets over Greenland - Dumbest Idea Ever

2008-08-23T09:18:00.001-07:00

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/lab-books/greenland/greenlan d-guide1.html

the technology was developed to preserve ski hills. That makes sense to me. Perserving the ice on Greenland...not so much. I know, I know, we're all going to die if the fertile soil under the ice of Greenland is actually exposed and useable again, but it's okay. I've had a good run.

A better and easier idea might be to deal with the fact that the ice on Greenland is melting. Maybe come up with a life plan that doesn't depend on Greenland remaining covered with ice. Besides, in reflecting the sunlight, and thereby the heat, from the surface of Greenland, you're just redirecting it back to the atmosphere, where it will travel to some other part of the world and "global warm" somebody else. Isn't that a politically correct no no?

Obama Biden Ticket

2008-08-23T08:26:00.000-07:00

Barak Obama's campaign did a great job of building up hype for the VP pick. Between the text message thing and making the world wait until Saturday morning, he had pundits everywhere on the edge of their seats.

The actual announcement was a bit anti-climactic. If you were looking forward to some bold new agent of change, I don't think Joe Biden was what you had in mind. It's a "do no harm" pick, that is, if he can hold his tongue for a couple of months.

From McCain's standpoint, Biden kind of neutralizes the whole cranky old man thing. McCain can get ornery sometimes, but Biden is just plain mean toward folks that don't see things his way, especially the "little people".

It is an interesting development that the biggest headliners at the convention, other than Barak, will be Hillary, Bill and now Joe, all three of whom have said that Obama is not qualified to be president, one of whom even called it a fairy tale. Now all three are eager guests in his church. Add that to the fact that Jesse Jackson actually had to apologize to Barak for a racial slur and you can see how the tables have turned on the established leadership. However, it's not really a "throw the bums out" dynamic. The old guard isn't going anywhere. They just have a new leader.

The Government and Education - video

2008-08-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

This vid pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

BBB Alert - Relentless Car Warranty Calls

2008-08-18T18:21:00.000-07:00

The phone rings, the automated voice on the other end reminds you that your auto warranty is about to expire. Both consumers and local businesses have been inundated with these auto warranty calls. The companies are using automated dialing programs that call every single number (including cell phones and unlisted numbers). It doesn’t matter if you own a vehicle or not.

The messages give information that you can be removed from their calling list by pressing a number. However, the calls continue to come. Consumers have reported waiting for a human representative and asking to be removed from the list, only to receive more warranty calls. At least 4 or 5 different firms are calling with these warranty offers.

Some company representatives have become combative and rude when asked to put a telephone number on their “do not call” list. They often refuse to give any information about the firm they are working for as well. Other consumers who have reached a representative are barraged with questions about VIN numbers, Social Security numbers, birthdates, and other sensitive information before the agent will tell the consumer anything.

The BBB of Southern Colorado office was plagued by auto warranty calls as well, receiving upwards of 20 calls a day.

The BBB reminds consumers that you do not have to give out information to unsolicited callers. A legitimate company will give you full information, including a telephone number, address, and why they are calling.

Persons besieged by these warranty or other unwanted telemarketing calls are encouraged to register with the Colorado No Call List and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) National Do Not Call Registry.

Consumers may not be aware that they can add or remove their residential, wireless, or fax telephone numbers.

If a company continues to call you after being asked to remove you from their calling list, you can file a complaint with the No Call agencies.

Colorado No Call List 800-309-7041 www.coloradonocall.com

FTC National No Call Registry 888-382-1222 www.donotcall.gov

The True Face of the Enemy is Revealed

2008-08-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

It's not the communists, the Muslims, not even the radical ones. It's not even the "secular progressives". Communists, extremist Muslims, Born Again Christians and progressives can all live peacefully in the same apartment building in most any city in the U.S. . The real battle is, and always has been, the rule of force vs. the rule of law.

The motley crew described above could co-habitate in downtown Chicago because in the eyes of the court, they are equal. No one can initiate the use of force on another with impunity.

The re-emergence of Soviet-style Russia illustrates the face of the rule of Force. Putin is no longer President, but he's still The Man. He still controls the goons. The Politiboro has given him and Russian defense and intelligence agencies the license to kill. That is, they are authorized to kill anyone who is deemed a threat to the country (like nosey reporters, people investigating the death of said reporters and unworthy political candidates). Russia has not only overrun Georgia in a very well planned out "rope a dope", but has actually threatened Poland with a nuclear strike.

The Russians are certainly not extremist Jihadists, but the underlying principal is the same. Instill fear. Rule by force. I've always thought the leaders of the Jihad are more gangster than religion. In Russia, gangsters also rule. The economy is largely controlled by an organized crime organization known as the Russian Business Network.

Rule by force cannot coexist with rule of law. Rule by force requires that there be those who are above the law, who are the law. The time is coming when the world will have to choose one or the other. Most of the world will choose not to choose, giving the upper hand to Rule of Force by default. Fortunately, history has shown it's not always just a numbers game.

The question at hand is, do we accomodate the Russian's desire for more territory and more control in the name of some semblance of order and non-confrontation, or do we call them out? I'm not saying launch the missiles...yet. I mean actions like those taken by Poland, announcing that they will house a missile defense shield, forcing the Russians to put their intentions on display. Maybe demanding that Russia be booted from the G8 or we leave the G8. We should take deliberate actions with no pretense that this is all some kind of misunderstanding, but that we fully recognize the game they're playing and we will not allow it.

We need to make clear to the citizens of Russia who have put Putin and company on a pedestal and turned them into rock stars, exactly what the stakes are here.

The Bad Guys Still Don't Get It

2008-08-13T20:29:00.000-07:00

Iran's feeling froggy. Russia is flexing its military muscles again. It seems as though Putin and Pals are taking advantage of economic sluggishness in the West, as well as relative disunity, combined with windfall profits from good 'ole black gold.

Evidently, they believe that their failure to dominate the world in the past was due to insufficient military might or funding. Now they've got some money, built and bought some new toys and are chomping at the bit to make a new play for top dog.

The end result may take a while to play out, but it will be the same. A "smack-down" of epic proportions. Neither Russia nor Iran has the economic capacity to keep pace with the West in the long run. They are one-trick ponies. Oil will only take them so far for so long. Free markets and free people are not negotiable. We'll spend every last dime preserving them, and when we run out, guess what? We'll make more.

The difference is in what we're playing for. Russia and Iran seek the greater glory of....Russia and Iran. Freedom loving individuals seek to be left alone to do their thing to the greatest extent possible. The latter is a much greater individual motivator.

Where China goes from here is an open question. At least they seem to realize the future lies in economic policy and strategy, not in military show-boating. Like lawyers, a strong military is something you have to have because everyone else has one. It is not the means to achieving prosperity. They are a means of protection, not of production.

Axe Body Odor Study - "People Stink"

2008-08-08T07:02:00.001-07:00

Perhaps the best example of the power of mass manipulation is not any government conspiracy, but high heels. Somehow, marketers convinced women that they should walk around with sticks under their heels, and they've been doing so ever since.

Another premise that the general public has bought hook, line and sinker is that no human being should ever have to be subjected to the smell of another human being. The latest study was sponsored by, or course, a deodorant and body spray company. It measured odor "intensity" and suggests that now that smoking is out in bars and clubs, the odor of human is more prevalent.

Of course people should wash, wear clean clothes and not smell of aging bacteria, but the "odor of human" has only become a putrid thing due to the successful efforts of Madison Avenue. These are the same folks who suggest that the minute you feel the least bit uncomfortable you take a bubble bath, some pepto bismol, a pain reliever, some anti-depressants, it really doesn't matter what. Just buy something.

How much of the world's resources go into the attempt to reach the now established Utopian state of constantly feeling euphoric and smelling only pre-approved flowery smells while looking like Angelina Jolee or Brad Pitt?

Deja Vu, the Carter Era and the Obama Era

2008-08-06T21:04:00.000-07:00

The similarities are almost spooky. Energy prices are high. People are worried about scarce commodities. The economy is struggling. These are all cyclical issues and not surprising to see come up again. The eerie similarity between the Carter Era and the Obama Era is in the response to these issues.

Carter, the media, the left, hollywood and much of the public believed the answer to our woes was to turn down the thermostat, wear heavier clothing, use less stuff, essentially, get used to a lower standard of living.

Obama, the media, hollywood and interest groups are now recommending that we inflate our tires more, tune up our cars, drive less, drive smaller cars, wear sweaters, sort our garbage, consume less, essentially, get used to a lower standard of living.

It's similar to Mexico's approach to their economic woes. The government openly admits they don't discourage illegal immigration to America, because subjecting people to the incompetence of their government would be inhumane. They want to have power, but don't want to be expected to produce results.

It didn't work in the 70's. It wont work now. We certainly could just throw up our hands and lower our expectations and our quality of life, but this is still America. We just don't want to, and we don't have to.

It's ironic that the author of "The Audacity of Hope" is promoting hopelessness. Of course, those who do propose that we all make do with less regularly jet around the world in private planes, vacation all over the world, have at least one yacht, wear $3,000 suits and get $400 haicuts.

We aren't going to conserve our way out of this doledrum. We can be more efficient, but we will always want more, better, faster, cooler stuff. It's how we're wired. It's what we do. What we need from the government is to enable the free market and free people to make our wishes real. Just get out of the way.

McCain VP Choice - Steve Forbes?

2008-08-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

Most of the names I've heard mentioned for McCain's choice of VP are "do no harm" choices. They aren't likely to get anybody real excited, but they wont cause a lot of controversy. Rice would be an exception, but he's not going to call on her because she's too close to Bush and doesn't want the job.

One that hasn't been talked about much, but that I believe would be a home-run, would be Steve Forbes. Some points to ponder:

Conservatives and Capitalists would be ecstatic. They've been reluctant to jump on the McCain bandwagon up to this point. With Forbes on the ticket, all that goes away. While the left would paint him as the ultimate corporate insider, I think most Americans concerned about the economy would be receptive of a very successful CEO.

He's been thouroughly vetted. He's run for president himself, has his own magazine and is a regular on TV once a week. Nothing about Forbes' positions is going to surprise or shock anyone. He can certainly hold his own in a debate and he's been speaking in public since he was able to talk.

As far as special interest influence, he's untouchable. He has more money than God. What are you going to bribe him with? Knicks tickets? I don't think so.

He compliments McCain well. Both have the "maverick" image going for them. Together they would present a ticket interested in actually solving problems and getting things done as opposed to "winning the news cycle"

I don't expect it to happen. I'm sure McCain's advisers are looking for a fresh face or a swing state pick. Sure would be nice if competence counted for something, but in politics, it rarely does.

A Bit of Persuasion for Domestic Drilling - Tell Congress to Vote

2008-08-04T18:02:00.000-07:00

Although 70% of Americans favor more domestic drilling, the leadership in the House and the Senate wont even let the matter come up for a vote. Perhaps they need a "bit" of persuasion.

Here's the idea: Send your Representative and Senators a small drill bit in the mail, with the message "drill already!" Send one each to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as well.

You can find your Congress persons contact info Here.

I'd recommend a very small bit (1/16" or smaller). It will make the point without alarming anybody and you can tape it to your letter and mail it with a first class stamp.

Pelosi and Reid are protecting their party members by not having them record a vote against domestic drilling just before an election. They need to be reminded who they work for. Let's drill the point home.

You Can Send 12 Million Illegal Aliens Back Home

2008-08-03T17:43:00.000-07:00

They said it couldn't be done, but it's being done. The Center for Immigration Studies reports that the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has declined by 10% over the past year, and that the vast majority of them returned on their own.

Stepped up enforcement, id requirements and employers more reluctant to take a chance on hiring illegal workers have simply made hiding out in the US less attractive.

Many people had suggested that tougher immigration enforcement measures were a waste of time and that there was no way anyone was going to round up 12 million illegal immigrants and send them all home. It appears that isn't necessary. All you have to do is make going home and coming in the right way more comfortable than staying here and hoping you don't get caught. At the current pace, the illegal immigrant population would be insignificant in 10 years.

Here's the article from Newsmax:

Study: Illegal Aliens Are Leaving the U.S.

Amid alarmed cries that the illegal immigration problem is spiraling out of control, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has actually declined since last summer — and many who have left have returned home on their own.

A report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), based on Census Bureau data, estimates that the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. has gone down by 11 percent through May after peaking in August 2007.

That means the illegal population has declined 1.3 million since last summer, from 12.5 million to 11.2 million.

“The estimated decline of the illegal population is at least seven times larger than the number of illegal aliens removed by the government in the last 10 months, so most of the decline is due to illegal immigrants leaving the country on their own,” the report asserts.

The CIS maintains that stepped-up enforcement rather than the sluggish economy is leading to the decline in illegal aliens, which began before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate.

The report points out that the fenced portion of the U.S. border has increased significantly in the past 18 months, the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled in recent years, and the number of detention beds used to hold illegals has more than doubled since 2000.

According to the CIS, the evidence “indicates that illegal immigrants respond to changing incentives and that many would return home on their own if they felt enforcement was a real possibility.”

The CIS also notes that when Congress failed to pass legislation last summer that would legalize illegal immigrants, the illegal alien population began to decline almost immediately.

If that decline were to be sustained, the illegal population would drop by one half in the next five years, according to the CIS.

The organization concludes: “It is sometimes argued that illegal immigrants are so permanently attached to their lives in the United States that no amount of enforcement would ever make a large share of them return to their home countries. The findings of this report . . . contradict that.”

The Christian Science Monitor in an editorial attributes the “success story” disclosed by the CIS study to “Washington’s wake-up call last summer to beef up enforcement, from plugged leaks in the border to cracking down on employers who hired illegal workers.”

The Monitor adds, “John McCain only reluctantly came around to the ‘enforcement first’ idea last year while Barack Obama opposes it. Perhaps this study will make them true converts.”

McCain vs Obama, The Home Stretch

2008-08-03T07:55:00.000-07:00

As the presidential race enters August, there's been a change in the dynamics. Obama had been enjoying a lead ranging from 4 - 8 percent over McCain since June. Now polls show the race at a dead heat. What happened?

Obama is basically employing the same strategy he used in the primaries. He's staying vague, focusing on emotion and implyint that any serious criticism of him is based on race. He's trying to run out the clock.

The problem is too much clock and McCain is not Hillary. Obama had enough political capital to carry him from January to June in the primaries. He was able to turn criticism of him by the Hillary campaign into embarrasing retractions and apologies from the Clinon campaign.

He does not have enough political capital to coast from August to November. He's at a tie at this point. He's no longer the new guy. It's not about making a good first impression anymore. He actually has to change minds. To do that, you have to say something new and different. Additionally, McCain's response to accusations of racism is not apologetic, it's angry. Obama and his campaign are the ones apologizing for the insinuations or "clarifying" their statements. He's having to spend more time explaining that he didn't mean what he said than on his campaign message.

McCain has his own challenges. He's managed to get people to take a more critical look at Obama, but they are also going to want answers from McCain. His recent changes in position have made many in his own party a bit nervous. On the plus side, when he does change his mind, like on offshore drilling, he clearly states that he changed his mind rather than trying to insist his position hasn't changed when it clearly has. However, what he needs to learn and express is the difference between a senator and a chief executive. The President of the United States is not a member of any Gang of 14 or Group of 10 consensus building club. An executive has to be a product champion. There are issues and principals one doesn't comprimise on. He has shown that capacity on winning in Iraq. Now he needs to demonstrate it on energy policy, taxes, reigning in government spending, particularly earmarks. The Democrat base is far more forgiving of pragmatism than is the Republican base ("read my lips..."). If they're not convinced their candidate will forcefully defend their ideals, they'll sit this one out and wait for the next election.

Neither candidate has this thing in the bag. It's going to be a daily slugfest and should be fun to watch. With more media outlets and recording devices than ever in the history of US presidential campaigns, it should be the best reality show on TV.