You Will Bury You

Okay, if you think the outlook from the Whitehouse has been unduly gloomy, they've got nothing on this guy:

If you're inclined to believe Igor Panarin, and the Kremlin wouldn't mind if you did, then President Barack Obama will order martial law this year, the United States will split into six rump-states before 2011, and Russia and China will become the backbones of a new world order.

This sounds a lot like someone I've written about before, but I can't find the post. I'd like to think this fellow is wrong. There are certainly those who hold the opposite view:

But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration.

"I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP.

I can. Though America has proven quite resilient in times past, I don't think any country is immune to collapse if enough people are no longer interested in keeping it together. They don't even have to consciously work for it, just stop espousing the ideals that have held us together thus far under the guise of "enlightenment" and the cracks will start to appear.

They're already appearing.

Is Obama Bad News For New Business?

James Manzi in City Journal examines the question of how Obama's tax increases may impact those considering startups. I discuss Manzi in another blog, The Making of a Company.

What A Difference A Year Makes

I had my yearly heart exam yesterday. You may recall that I was less than pleased with my experience last year. This year was entirely different.

The office I work with seems to have found their own echocardiogram technician and purchased more advanced equipment. This guy was quite good, and there was no discomfort. He never even asked me to hold my breath.

I also got to see my cardiologist right away instead of waiting a week. The verdict? My leaky valve is less leaky than before. We're not sure why, but we'll take it. Everything else is unchanged, and since that means we're not getting closer to the point where we'll have to do something dramatic (ie. valve replacement surgery) I'll take that as well. In short, it was a good visit.

But they did notice it's been six years since my last cholesterol test. Since I hadn't been fasting, they had me come back in this morning for a blood test. Ever since my bad experience with a first aid class, I've struggled with anxiety attacks whenever blood or surgery are discussed. Just thinking about the test this morning got me feeling a little light-headed last night.

But I was fine this morning--right up until the phlebotomist started getting out her equipment. My head started spinning, and even though I knew it was just anxiety I couldn't quite push it back into place. Katheryn, the phlebotomist, noticed right away and asked me if I was okay. I explained the situation and she went immediately to work putting me at ease.

She moved me into one of the exam rooms where I could lay down, and then talked me to through a relaxation exercise while she prepped and drew. She even used her infants needle, though I don't think the pain itself would have been a problem. As it was, she is quite good at her job, and it was relatively painless and over very quickly. I've had phlebotomists who had to go deep sea diving to find a vein, but not Katheryn. She got it first try and I hardly felt it.

Afterward she gave me some orange juice to help me shake it off. She assured me that I'm normal, and we all have our irrational fears to deal with. And she offered to be my phlebotomist regardless of who needs the work done. All things considered, I may take her up on it. She was good at her job, whether it be phlebotomy, bedside manner, or psychology.

Driving in to work afterward I noticed a slight tingling in the fingertips on the arm she'd drawn from. That was enough to launch me into another anxiety attack, and I nearly decided to pull over and park for awhile. But I decided to push through it and instead distracted myself. I was able to get to work just fine.

All done for another year.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Taxes

According to ABCNews, it is the duty of everyone making over $250,000 a year to keep making as much money as they can so that they can pay higher taxes. Well, they don't quite put it that way. They just call it a "dodge" to purposely make less than that to avoid the extra taxes.

So I wonder what they call it when a large number of Obama's cabinet picks made that much money or more and just simply didn't pay their full share? Which is the greater sin in their eyes?

According to the poll results, though, most Americans don't think there's anything wrong with "dodging" taxes legally. Good for them.

On a related note, Roger Simon emails to Instapundit:

“Why don’t we nominate everyone for the Obama cabinet? That way everyone will have to pay his or her back taxes and the IRS will be spared zillions in personnel, lawsuits, etc.? It might even lead to a balanced budget.”

And We Voted For Him Last Year...

From the DC Examiner:

As the nation faces its most severe recession since 1982, President Barack Obama apparently wants the American people to forget that he promised he would give them earmark reform if they elected him president, even if he had to go “line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” It’s time for Obama to keep his promise.

However, administration officials - including Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag and White House chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel – have been calling the earmark-laden spending bill needed to keep the federal government operating through September “last year’s business.” Only in Washington can a spending bill that requires the president’s signature today be yesterday’s business. Although the $410 billion bill contains nearly 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion, White House officials say President Obama will sign it anyway. Americans, Orszag says, should just “move on.”

No sir, I will not move on. You promised that no bill would be signed if there was pork in it. You didn't put a statute of limitations on that statement. Keep your promise.

Meanwhile, some Obama voters are expressing their regret.

The Blame Game

Obama blames Bush for the economy. The Wall Street Journal blames Obama:

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

The Obama administration has been decrying greed at every opportunity. And yet their policies seem to be counting on it. They seem to think that American business will continue pursuing taxable profits at all cost regardless of how high their taxes are or how difficult the business environment becomes.

All those "smart people" in his cabinet, and not a decent economist in the bunch. Or, if there are, they're simply figureheads to make it look like Obama is getting good advice, even if he's not taking it. More paranoid people suggest that he's purposely trying to destroy the economy and the free market system so that we will all become dependent on the government. I hope they're only paranoid.

Earn Ben Stein's Money

Sometimes I think Ben Stein is too good for Yahoo! Finance. Today he posted a column about how to survive the recession. The bottom line is to get out there and work hard, work smart, and be more valuable than the other guy who is waiting for the government to bail him out:

But to expect that ‘government' is a fairy godmother who will rescue you from your problems over any long period is just fantasy. Here's the good news: This country will be rescued by each of us doing what we can do in our own individual sphere of action as government works in its sphere of action. There are roughly 142 million men and women in the labor force. Their ingenuity, flexibility, energy, and confidence will make more difference than anything government does on an individual basis -- which is not to take away a thing from the effects of good policy.

In the free society, we rescue ourselves.

His commenters range from agreement to complete disregard. I'm encouraged by the latter group. If there are enough of those idiots around who expect the government to help them then I might just have a shot at surviving. They shouldn't be too difficult to compete with.

Laying Down Groundrules

Entertainment is everywhere these days, and as parents we need to be careful what our children are exposed to. My kids are still pretty young, but already we need to keep a close eye on things. But how do we keep an eye on our kids and still show them we trust them?

Well, these parents seem to have struck a decent balance:

Evan Spencer wanted to play “Call of Duty: World at War.” So he asked his dad.

Hugh Spencer wasn’t initially thrilled about the idea of his son playing the World War II-based game. “I’ve never really enjoyed first-person shooter games,” he confesses. “They’re just not my favorite aesthetic.”

But the elder Spencer agreed to his son’s request, on one condition: Evan would have to read all four treaties from the Geneva Conventions first. And then, agree to play by those rules.

An important piece of information is glossed over here, but his son had to ask to play the game. That implies that the parents have established control...but that they're still open enough to their children's requests that they feel okay about asking rather than just going behind their backs...well, much. The son did admit eventually about having played the game at a friend's house first. But still. He seems to have sensed that the game would be controversial but still trusted his parents enough to give asking a shot.

The father agrees to do an interview, in which the reporter asks how they keep tabs on their kids' playing habits and wonders if the dad plays, too.

I have hopeless hand-eye coordination, I don’t play anything (laughs). One thing is that you listen very carefully. We do actually monitor what they play quite extensively. It’s not a serious monitoring and we have to trust them, but I think the fact that they actually ask us about ratings (shows) that they’re carrying through on what we’re trying to do.

Did you catch that? He and his wife "listen very carefully". I've already noticed that with my kids. If they're interested in or excited about something it'll come up in their conversations with each other, even if they never talk to us about it. Parents can't be too wrapped up in their own lives to not be paying attention to what their kids are doing and saying.

You mentioned that your son is “relentlessly reasonable” and outlined his reasons for playing the game. How did he present his case?

...He presented the merits of the game as being good as a game, in terms of interactivity. He did actually ‘fess up and say that he’d played over at a friend’s house but hadn’t played it very much. He knew that the violence wasn’t too graphic. And he said that he really liked the fact that he could play online with his friends and they got to work cooperatively, and he enjoyed that. …

I felt that I had to take this request seriously. So I looked at the game … I didn’t play it, I looked at the box at the store and thought about it, contemplated it … and said “OK, you can get it.”

Again, they're showing trust in their son. When he says the game isn't too graphic the parents believe him. I don't know the game personally, so I can't speak to that, but it sounds like they have standards to measure by. And it sounds like the kid didn't just asked, but asked in a respectful, thoughtful way. The dad picked up on that and took the request seriously. In return, when the dad raised the "Geneva Convention" stipulation, the kid took it seriously.

But I think the main thing was that I didn’t want (Evan) to go into a scenario that was clearly in violation of that, and you slaughter a bunch of prisoners. They usually don’t set up the scenarios in that way, so it was more just to have that discussion and to have that basic check.

So, he has to play by all of those rules?

Well, sort of. Whether he actually incorporates that … I don’t think he actually holds up the page, but he’s aware that there are things called “Rules of War.”

It seems to me that this is metaphorical, really. Don’t just mindlessly go in and do anything in life, but think about the rules and moral implications of your actions, even in play. Is that what you were getting at here?

Yeah. I didn’t expect him to paste the thing by the console. He’d get killed immediately, checking his notes! (Laughs.) It was more like, give it some thought, particularly because it’s based on something real.

Bingo. Dad recognizes the difference between reality and a game, and hence so does the son. I think this dad handled the situation beautifully.

What would you advise other parents wrestling with this whole violence-in-games issue?

You really have to take a deep breath. I think every parent has to (do) what they feel is the responsible thing. I think it has to be informed — that’s the main thing. The other thing … you’re being judged on the level of these discussions. And the more decisions you make that seem arbitrary, the less they’re going to listen.

This dad gets it. I hope I get it as well as he does when it's my turn.

You're Looking For WHAT?!

Since I started actively looking for a new job I've received some rather odd emails from various recruiters, insurance companies, financial advisory companies, and scammers. I got one yesterday, though, that really caught me by surprise. It was a legitimate job inquiry from a recruiter looking for someone with C++ experience. I wasn't sure why anyone would be recruiting ME for a C++ job, as I don't have that much experience with it, and what I have is over four years old now.

But I glanced through the job description anyway for curiosity sake. Then my eyes hit the educational requirements: College Degree in Music. MUSIC?! That would explain why I came up on their search. It turns out it was for a developer position with a company producing music notation/playback software.

I have to wonder how many people came up in her search. I know of at least one other musician-programmer--possibly two--from my graduating class. I'll bet we're not that odd a combination, really. Still, it was interesting to see someone actively looking for someone like me. It made me wish I had more C++ experience.

The position is in Greensboro, North Carolina, which was also an eye-brow raiser. One of my favorite writers lives there.

Obama's Power Grab

One wonders if Obama knows that he's a one-term president. What if he's decided to be the "sacrifice play" to get the winning run over the plate?

According to Orson Scott Card, that may very well be the case. Obama's recent move to place the census under the control of the White House has been amazingly under-reported, even though if the same things were done under George Bush it would have been decried for the blatent attempt at a coup that it is.

First, he explains how the natural migration of the population from Rust Belt states to Sun Belt states is already turning formerly conservative states into swing states. But that's not enough. Obama wants to clinch the deal:

But no, the Left wants to go after the Census itself. They want to "adjust" the Census by adding "estimated" numbers of uncounted homeless, poor, and illegal immigrants.

This is functionally identical to the practice of the old Democratic Party machine in Illinois, where dead Democratic voters in Chicago turned out in large enough numbers to counterbalance all the Republican votes downstate.

Now it won't matter how many voters there are. If the Census has been jimmied to give Democratic-leaning states more congressional seats and more electoral votes than the actual count of real people would justify, the Democrats will have their "historic realignment" without having to actually persuade anybody new to vote for their candidates.

And Obama has set himself up to rig all future American elections, not through any democratic process, but by fiat. Just like a dictator.

He recommends you lobby your state government to protest this move.

I'd prefer to think that this couldn't be true. But quite frankly I can't see any other good reason why the census should be under the control of the White House. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Though I do think "fix" is the operative word here.

Newsflash: Obama a Good Speaker

I was nearly impressed with Obama's Non-State of the Union Address last night. I almost fell for the rhetoric and believed he can turn things around and introduce real (and positive) change in Washington. But then I remembered that this is the same person who approved funding to save Pelosi's Mouse and yet told us last night that there are "no earmarks" in the stimulus bill.

(Technically, he's correct. Nothing was in the bill that couldn't have been reviewed before the vote. It's just that they purposely made it as difficult they could to review the bill before the vote. It's still dishonest, and it's still pork. Call it whatever else you may.)

He also told us "The U.S. does not torture." Technically true. But he reserves the right to do so if we deem it appropriate.

He told us "...the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." A lot of critics are pointing out that it was a German who invented the automobile, but that misses the point entirely. When I heard that statement I asked myself "Why not?" That's like saying we have to dump more money into innovations around the light bulb just because we invented it. If someone else can make it better and/or cheaper, then let them do it. Why keep us enslaved to outdated technology?

No, seriously, I say "the nation that invented the automobile should be looking harder for the technologies that will revolutionize the automobile or render it obsolete altogether.

He wants to spend more money while cutting the deficit. He wants to get that money by taxing the rich, while cutting taxes on "the rest of us". Nice idea, but let's see the details.

He wants to go through the budget line by line and remove wasteful spending. Good luck with that one. The president does not have a line-item veto. His budgets are the beginning of the funding process, not the end. Any budget he submits will have to pass through Congress, who will simply put back in everything he wanted to remove. They are the ones who put them in there in the first place.

He wants to reform health coverage in a bi-partisan manner. So? The Democrats have already proven they don't need the other party to do what they want. Even if Obama is serious about coming up with a moderate plan I doubt Pelosi and Reid are. If socialized medicine is what they want, that's what we'll get.

He wants to improve education and increase the number of college graduates. That sounds good on the surface, but he is once again forgetting basic economics. If the number of college graduates increases we run the risk of surplus (especially if those grads are not in the areas needed). When there is a surplus of something competition increases and the cost of it goes down. So unless the demand for college graduates also increases, all he will really be doing is driving down income and devaluating the college degree.

If college graduates get paid less, then that pushes the threshhold of what they will accept down as well. They'll start looking for work in jobs formerly filled by high school graduates or even dropouts. Employers, who look for the best they can get for the least they can pay, will start raising their standards--because they can get what they ask for. Do we really want a college degree to be a requirement to drive a truck or build a house? That just pushes those who formerly held those jobs into lower-level jobs. The entire working population takes a step backward in pay, tax revenues fall, taxes go up higher on the rich, more rich sell their business rather than see more of their money disappear, and more people are out of work looking for lower-paying jobs. It's a nasty cycle.

Education is a good thing, but making it universal just makes it unimportant.

He spoke about expanding benefits for our soldiers, but last I heard he planned to cut the military budget. So that means we'll have well-cared-for soldiers who lack the equipment to fight and the means to deploy. Are we turning isolationist? We'll see what he really submits, but I'm dubious about this one.

The bottom line is this: everything he said sounded good. But he's already shown us time and again that what he says and what he does do not always match up. He claims he wants transparency, and yet he swears all the military leaders to secrecy regarding his budget. And he's also proven that he either agrees with or lacks the guts to oppose Pelosi and Reid.

If he's not willing to cross his own party then it really doesn't matter what president tells us. We may as well put Pelosi on the platform and let her tell us what to expect for the next four years. I'm waiting for him to prove he's not just the official spokesperson of the Democractic Party.

Forgetting to wait for Pelosi to officially introduce him doesn't count.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner!

I've been thinking about what to do with my various and disparate blogs. I seem to be getting more of them, not fewer, and the quality (yes, that's presumptuous of me) and quantity of all are suffering.

You see, I have three blogs, and a fourth in the works. That's just plain nuts. If I were a full-time professional blogger I could maybe keep up with that many. I'm not, and I can't. So I've made the following decisions:

1) Body Polytick, my political blog, will be merged into this one. It fits the "potpourri" theme, and I've learned that I just can't resist the urge to pontificate on political matters from time to time. You'll probably notice that I've already imported a bunch of political posts into here. For those of you who don't like politics, or just don't like my politics, I'm sorry. Start contributing to my tip jar and I'll be more inclined to cater to your personal likes. ;-)

2) The Making of a Company, a new blog I recently started to track my progress on starting my own business, will slow down, and may disappear altogether in time. My progress on setting up my own business is likely to be slow, and I can't really afford to try filling in the gaps. I could use that time for better things.

3) The Joy of Making Things is a new blog (so new I've yet to post to it) I'm starting. It's focus will be to discuss the joy and satisfaction of doing things yourself. Like creating funky Excel spreadsheets to manage your budget. Or building a playhouse. Or writing a book. It's a blog celebrating the fun of doing things, of trying things, of surprising oneself with what you can do.

4) This blog will continue, and with the inclusion of my political blogging, will likely be updated more often. I'll certainly try.

5) I would like to make some money at this. Not a lot, probably, but a little to fund some of my other hobbies would be nice. So I'll be adding advertising soon, and setting up a tip jar. This is not an appeal for cash. I'm just saying that if you like what you're reading and feel like it's worth something to you, you'll have options to encourage me.

And there you have it. All my changes in a nutshell. Stick around! Look around! I hope you'll like what you see.

Just Who IS In Charge?

President Obama is scheduled to give his State of the Union address tonight. I will probably watch, but I'm not sure why. He is not in control of the economy. He wants everyone to think he is. He talks like he is. The reality is different.

If Obama were really in control then careless posturing by Sen. Chris Dodd about privitizing banks wouldn't send stocks into a tailspin.

If Obama were in control they wouldn't have passed an enormous spending bill so complex that no one was able to read it before having to vote on it.

If Obama were in control his administration wouldn't feel the need to respond to criticism from Rick Santelli.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have to hit the road to drum up support for his programs. The press would be doing it for him.

If Obama were in control he wouldn't have been caught off guard by so many of his cabinet picks being sunk by various corruption charges.

If Obama were in control we would not have so many Democratic members of Congress under investigation for various corruption scandals.

But the fact of the matter is either that the Obama who we voted into office in November is NOT the Obama who took office, or he is completely unable to do his job. Neither one is acceptable.

But the fact of the matter is this: there is no one clear voice from Washington calling the shots. There is no clear leadership. Obama is going one way, while Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Schumer are going their own ways. Tim Geithner is falling flat.

It's almost as if none of these people have met to come up with any coordinated plan. No one is in control of the message. It's almost as if they are purposely trying to break the economy down further.

I'm not one of those conspiracy theorists who believes that they're doing this on purpose in order to keep us scared enough to accept further hidden social restructuring (even Schumer was surprised by some of the provisions in the stimulus bill and vowed to roll them back). The thought has crossed my mind, but 2010 is not that far away. If they don't want to get thrown out of office they need to show clear progress by then. They would be foolish to dig themselves too deep of a hole.

But if they don't get their act together that is precisely what they will do. And they can ignore or belittle Santelli as much as they like, but they're failing to recognize what he started. Yes, HE may be a former commodities trader--a so-called poster boy for everything that went wrong with the economy--but his frustration is universal. There are a lot of people who are upset with how things are going and what the Administration is doing about it.

I am one of them. I am NOT a commodities trader. I'm a business systems analyst. I bought a house three years ago right before the top of the bubble. I had mortgage brokers encouraging me to buy bigger houses, but I knew what I could afford. I didn't bite. I didn't gamble on an adjustable rate mortgage to get more house. I knew what my budget was, and I knew how much of a house payment I could handle. I paid 20% down.

I save close to 15% of my income each year. I pay my taxes without complaint. I do not carry a balance on my credit cards. I live within my means. In short, I am responsible.

And I've had it with the government propping up all the irresponsible people. Because of all the irresponsible people I'll be losing my job soon. I am not happy about that. I am not happy to see nearly $800 billion dollars--only about 10-20% of which is actual stimulus--added to the public debt in my name, while the bulk of it is actually to appease Democrat supporters and advance socialistic agendas. Frankly, the mortgage rescue is the least of my concerns.

I'm concerned about a government that seems to have lost its mind. I'm concerned about an administration that can't control its message or its people. I'm concerned about a future that not even the people who sold us this stimulus mess will go on record saying will get better soon.

And that's probably why I don't want to listen to Obama tonight. I'm already depressed. I don't need to feel any worse.

Clinton Thinks Obama Doing Fine But Needs More Optimism in Message

From ABCNews.com:

Former President Bill Clinton gives President Barack Obama an "A" grade for his first month in office, but tells ABC News that Obama needs to put on a more positive face when speaking to the American people about the economy and must keep pressure on Republicans who try to obstruct his plans.

I'd argue on the "A" personally, but then I'm not Bill Clinton. But Clinton continues...

"Look, the American people, I think, know the president has tried to reach out to Republicans," Clinton told ABC News' Chris Cuomo. "And it takes two to tango. I think there are some of them who really believe that just-say-no politics is good politics.

"It was -- briefly, only briefly -- in the '90s. It isn't anymore," he added. "So, sooner or later, I think if he just keeps chugging along, just keeps the door open, invite 'em to every economic conference, invite 'em to every meeting, eventually, he'll start getting some votes" in Congress.

You're forgetting something, Bill. Add "listen to them and use their ideas" and you'll have a winner. Just inviting them isn't going to do the trick if they still feel it's only for show.

On the other hand, even that is more than the Congress Democrats have been doing.

Stimulus and Rescue Backlash?

From Mark Whittington at Associated Content:

The markets are not reacting very well to Barack Obama's latest spending plan, which is to spend about seventy five billion dollars to rescue people who can't pay their mortgages. CNBC host Rick Santelli believes he knows why.

Rick Santelli, who also an experienced investment strategist and trader, put it simply that the government would be promoting bad behavior by subsidizing mortgages given to people who ought not to have had them to start with.

Rick Santelli went on to compare what is happening to America under Barack Obama to Castro's Cuba and to suggest a kind of "Boston Tea Party" anti spending revolt. Rick Santelli's impassionate speech on CNBC brought cheers on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, from where he was reporting.
...
More importantly, Rick Santelli's attack on the Obama mortgage bailout scheme seems to reflect a growing disquiet over President Obama's spending schemes, which started with the stimulus package, and will now not only include a bailout for mortgages but also a new bailout for the car companies and perhaps even a second stimulus. That disquiet has been manifest in recent days by protest rallies in Seattle, Denver, and most recently in Mesa, Arizona.

I think a lot of us are getting fed up. Yes, one can use the economy as an excuse to do almost anything. And the Obama administration has. But they are not acting like anything they're doing is actually going to help. It's as if they want to wreck the economy.

Perhaps they do, so they can use it as an excuse to push even more rubbish disguised as stimulus.

A poll on Instapundit asks if I would join in any protests should one be called in my area. I said no, that I'm not the protesting type, but I'm starting to reconsider.

Update: More from Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO's The Corner:

I think people are hungry for someone who is fed up with the way things are and who seem to believe in something enough to know there in an alternative worth fighting for. Some of the voices may be far from perfect, but Americans are looking for signs of the life of an alternative. And so if a representative pops up — someone who appears to have roots and energy, folks will cheer them on in the hopes there’s a candidate here. Maybe not a presidential candidate, but a leader of some sort. Someone who can offer a vision of something other than a culture of bailout.

Today, Rick Santelli was that sign of life.

People are fed up with the administration.

Bear in mind that this administration is barely a month old.

Censorship?

According to Instapundit, the article I quoted yesterday about the response of students to Obama's visit has been significantly changed to eliminate any critical statements.

Yes, heaven forbid we show that our education system has actually been doing what we've paid it to do--teach our kids to think.

And A Child Shall Lead Them

Phoenix's East Valley Tribune has a story on high schoolers who watched Obama on TV while he was at their school giving his address on housing relief, and gave their impressions. Some interesting points:

"Overall I think it's a good idea, but he's not addressing the issues of the economic crisis," said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. "The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country."

Daudfar thinks Obama's plan is backward and deals with the "less important stuff" first. "Bailing out businesses" and "providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses" should have been first, he said.

"If businesses can't afford to hire people, then people won't be able to work and pay off their mortgages," he said. "It's kind of like putting money into a funnel."

Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama's plan sounds good but questioned how Obama can want to rely on "people's responsibility" when that is "what got us in this economic crisis in the first place."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Even though I don't support him, I think it's cool he's here," said Miller, 18. "I just don't believe all the things he's telling us. His goal is just too big and broad."

Good...respect for the position, but critical evaluation of the occupant. There is hope for the future.

The students also questioned why Obama chose their school for his speech since he wasn't talking about education and wondered how much money the district spent on beautifying the campus while district positions and services are being cut.

And they say no one is teaching critical thinking any more.

Who Is Blocking Investigations?

I have no idea how this is supposed to stimulate the economy:

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

So far no one is claiming credit for the provision.'

Snuck in by whom? It’s not entirely clear. “I intend to get down to the bottom of where this comes from,” Grassley vowed. “And quite frankly, it better not come from this administration, because this administration has reminded us that it is not about business as usual, that it is for total transparency.”

Maybe not this time. When I inquired with the office of a Democratic senator, one who is a big fan of inspectors general, I was told the RAT Board was “something the Obama administration wanted included in this bill.” When I asked the White House, staffers told me they’d look into it. So for now, at least, there’s been no claim of paternity.

Somehow I think this just the tip of the iceberg of bad provisions we were forced to accept in the name of saving the economy. More and more it's looking like the bill was a trojan horse for fundamentally changing our government. This seems like "change" intended to dash "hope".

It would be beyond ironic if the Democrats actually DO what they ACCUSED Bush of.

Freedom of Speech Under Fire?

(hat-tip Instapundit) An Oklahoma City man gets pulled over for having sign on his vehicle reading "Abort Obama, not the unborn". The policeman confiscated the sign and informed the man he was now part of an investigation. Internal Investigations later returned the man's sign. But next the Secret Service show up at the man's house and ask to walk through the house to make sure the man wasn't part of any hate groups.

Somehow I don't think anyone would have looked twice if it had said "Abort Bush". The double-standard here is quite sad, and disturbing as well.

Motivation, Efficiency, and Corruption

Ben Stein raises some good points about the "excesses" displayed by leaders of various companies in America:

We all want efficiency and frugality. But banning highly productive means of travel such as private planes is simply misguided. We all want people to work. But keeping them from having face time at large gatherings with their colleagues -- in essence, keeping them from being well-informed -- is a step away from productivity. And kicking the towns that accommodate these meetings is just plain cruel.

I hadn't thought about it from that angle where the automakers were concerned, but making Wells Fargo cancel its Vegas retreat for its top loan officers struck me as heavy-handed--and clueless about how business works. Did anyone stop to consider how much money those being rewarded made for the company in proportion to how much was being spent on rewarding them?

While I'm sure that level of productivity has its own rewards, I'll bet the yearly Vegas trip was at least part of the movitation for a lot of them. Take that away, and chances are they're not going to work as hard next year. How does that help the bank? How does that help its investors? How does that help its depositors?

I'm willing to bet that the amount of money they would have spent on the retreat is less than 10% of the value of the loans these people wrote. And yet if they're 5% less motivated to perform next year? In a year when people are less motivated to take out loans? It could spell the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Let's not forget that these people are the TOP money-makers. Not only do these people make money for the company, their example (and the subsequent rewards) also serve as a motivation for the other loan writers who didn't make the cut this year--but could next year if properly motivated. Cutting the rewards for the top loan-writers doesn't just demotivate them, but the entire company.

I'm against wasting taxpayer money as much as anyone. But micromanagement of bailed-out companies--by some of the most notoriously bad money-handlers in history--is not the way to economic recovery.

Such political witch-hunts are counterproductive. It also keeps attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess: the government. Every time we start figuring out who the real enemy is they simply point at Wall Street and yell "There's your enemy! Not me! They're wasting millions of dollars!"

And then they sit down to add billions more pork into the Stimulus Bill to help stimulate their next campaigns. And take retreats to Virginia and the Caribbean.