Monday Roundup

Real incentives for real people: Why pay your mortgage payment?

Should you keep paying your mortgage?

If you have significant equity in your home, absolutely.

If you don't, it's getting harder to answer that question, especially when our government keeps giving people who owe more than their homes are worth so many reasons not to pay.

Global Warming caused by statisticians: October hottest on record because it was September!

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Deal Reached on Iraq

The final draft of the agreement, reached after months of negotiations, is designed to meet Iraqi concerns over its sovereignty and its security needs as it continues to grapple with a diminished but persistent insurgency.

It provides for the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and gives Iraq the right to try U.S. soldiers and defense contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base. It also prohibits the U.S. from using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran.

Proponents of the security pact with the Americans, including al-Maliki's interior and defense ministers, say a continued U.S. military presence is needed until Iraq's nascent security forces are capable of taking charge of security in the war-devastated nation.

Washington Post: We're not baised, we just lack diversity:

It pains me to see lost subscribers and revenue, especially when newspapers are shrinking. Conservative complaints can be wrong: The mainstream media were not to blame for John McCain's loss; Barack Obama's more effective campaign and the financial crisis were.

But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo.

Lacking diversity and creating a hostile work environment! We're the Liberals! Let us do for the country what we can't even manage to do where we work!


Remember Iceland? What a REAL economic crisis looks like.

India Lands Probe On Moon: NASA Considers Outsourcing?

Seriously, this is cool news. I wish them continued success with their space program.

Roundup

Obama is considering Hillary for Secretary of State? Well, to be honest, it would be a much more important role than vice president. I'm neutral-to-slightly-positive about the idea. I think of the Democratic candidates she was most likely to get it right on diplomacy.


First female four-star general takes command. Just remember who appointed her. While Democrats talk about equality for women, the Republicans have been quietly achieving it.


Now for something really important: America abuzz about the Obamas' choice in dogs. He promised his daughters a dog if he won. Now they have to pick one.

Speaking of his daughters, I suspect they're the real losers of this campaign. Perhaps, being younger, cuter, and...let's face it, Obama's daughters, perhaps they'll fare better in the media than Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter. Those poor girls got utterly savaged at an age when such things can leave lasting scars. Bush managed to keep his daughters out of the spotlight--when they weren't pushing themselves into it. No matter what Obama may or may not do, let's leave his daughters alone, okay?


Obama may want to curtail the effect of Lobbyists, but he's probably alone in his party on this.


Obama to meet with McCain on Monday. I wouldn't expect anything significant to come from this. After all, Obama will meet with anyone, without preconditions.


Newsweek makes the case for bailing out the auto industry. I'm inclined to favor the "let them hang" crowd, but the reality is the economy really can't stand that big a shock right now. The auto industry food chain is much larger than most people appreciate, I think. It might not be a bad thing to postpone the inevitable for a few years.


Stephen Green evaluates the president-elect's administration thus far and is less than thrilled.


Jules Crittenden believes Bush didn't get the memo that he's a lame duck.

Indeed, if anything it appears he'll live on indefinitely as a useful bogeyman.


More on the "plot to demonize Bill Ayers". Frankly, is there anything they can do he hasn't already done to himself? The man is a demon, even if he's retired, toothless, and trying to indoctrinate the next generation. How can a former bomber who feels he didn't kill enough people be anything other than a demon? We're hunting Osama Bin Laden, but we're giving Ayers free air time to pump his book. Where is the justice in that?

...and that's enough for one day.

Veterans Day

I didn't post about it this year, though I intended to. But, ultimately, everything I thought about saying has been summed up pretty well by a series of cartoons over at User Friendly:

Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday

God bless our veterans past, present, and future.

We have an Air National Guard base in town, and living near the flight path we regularly get flybys from the A-10 squadron based there. Every time I see one I give a mental salute. It's not just for them, but for all veterans, and for one in particular.

I miss you, Dad.

Human Interest Story

James Lileks, one of my favorite bloggers, also works for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. He has an online blog there, too, in which each Thursday he presents a set of cartoon mysteries that were originally printed in the paper in the late 1940's. He withholds the solution, of course, until the regular commenters have a chance to guess the solution.

Today's cartoon came from an idea sent in by a reader to the comic's creator. He checked on the name and the woman is still alive. So he called her up. She's likely about 75, but she remembers it well.

Like most such interviews, I felt a bit stupid and rude – interrupting someone’s day to ask questions about a sixty-year old cartoon strip seemed a bit forward, and I expected “oh, my, no, I don’t remember that.” But she knew exactly what I was talking about, and told me the tale in that cheerful and familiar voice of small-town Minnesota ladies.

Kinda cool story, however brief. This is one of the reasons I like James Lileks so much. He isn't just infatuated with the past, he respects it. Even when he mocks elements of the popular culture you can tell he does so with a bit of wistful reverence. And when he runs across actual participants, like Bernice, he gets down-right fan-boyish.

In short, I'd be perfectly comfortable sending him to hang out with my mother. I know she'd be in good hands.

Not-So-Good Economic Predictions

Don't count on the economy improving very quickly. According to Forbes.com:

The recession will continue until at least the end of 2009 for a cumulative gross domestic product drop of over 4%; the unemployment rate will likely reach 9%. The U.S. consumer is shopped-out, saving less and debt-burdened: This will be the worst consumer recession in decades.

They summarize a series of articles, all pointing to things getting worse before they get better.

Have a nice day!

Climate Change Vs. Global Warming

Scientists have released a study that suggests that Global Warming may be reducing the effects of regular shift in Earth's orbit that would normally result in an ice age.

Scheduled shifts in Earth's orbit should plunge the planet into an enduring Ice Age thousands of years from now but the event will probably be averted because of man-made greenhouse gases, scientists said Wednesday.

They cautioned, though, that this news is not an argument in favour of global warming, which is driving imminent and potentially far-reaching damage to the climate system.

So we should fight Global Warming, but not too hard too soon? They're very careful not to say.

Your Actions Shout So Loudly I Can't Hear What You Say

The Anti-Prop 8 Tantrum continues, this time at the LDS temple in New York City. What cracks me up is not the fact that they're demonstrating, but the sheer level of ignorance shown by the protestors.

For example, one demonstrator is holding a sign that reads "If you can have three wives, why can't I have one husband." Uh....we can't have three wives, doofus. The government outlawed that a long time ago and stripped anyone who refused to comply with voting rights and property.

People claim that opposition to gay causes stems from ignorance at best, so perhaps they might try NOT being ignorant themselves?

Another sign: "Did you cast a ballot or a rock?" I'm willing to bet that none of the LDS members in New York voted on California's Prop 8, for or against. It's like...illegal or something.

Another sign: "Church of Mormon", with the second M crossed out. Again, your ignorance is showing. We're The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But then it's only imperative that everyone else be fully informed on gay issues, not the other way around. I get it. Try "Book of Mormon" next time and you'll be closer.

These people are not helping their cause. But, to quote Levar Burton, you don't have to take MY word for it. How about GayPatriot, referring to a recent video of the protests:

Here, they try to prevent a reporter from interviewing an elderly supporter of the proposition. They don’t just harass this old lady; they pull the cross out of her hands and stomp on it.

Yeah, I get why people are upset. But, what explains this childish behavior? Didn’t their mothers teach them to be kind to old people? Why this refusal to understand their opponents? Why this insistence on silencing them? Do such people deserve the privilege of state sanction of their unions?

Where are the gay organizations condemning such conduct?

The gay movement needs some adult supervision right now.

As Instapundit points out, "At least it wasn't a Koran" they stomped on.

A common criticism about the amount of money donated to the Pro-Prop 8 groups is that the money should have been used to help the poor. Well, I'm sure the anti side spent a lot of money, too. I don't begrudge them that, frankly. But if all the money and time being funneled into these protests were donated to the poor it would not only significantly help the poor, but probably do much more to help their cause than these protests.

Compare these two conjectural headlines:
A) 10,000 Gays Converge on Mormon temple to Protest Prop-8
B) 10,000 Gays Converge in South Central LA to Help Clean Up Neighborhood

Just a thought.

Update: GayPatriot has more thoughts here.

Life Imitates Art

A pair of artists in Pittsburgh have found a way to get their work into Google Maps Street View.

No Vote For You!

I've been considering a series of posts outlining my various positions on issues surrounding same-sex marriage and the response to the California Proposition 8. I haven't gotten around to it yet, and may not at all. But there's one issue I can't ignore. Many protesting the results insist that religion should never play a role in politics.

What country do you live in?! Obviously not this one, as--if that were true--we'd still be a Royal Commonwealth. Your lack of historical knowledge is amazingly acute and you should be sent back to elementary school.

But all that aside, the notion is utterly ludicrous and dangerous. To imply that there should be any test to qualify for voting is fascist, not democratic. I may not like how people vote, I may not like why they vote a particular way, but to state that any particular way of reaching one's conclusions is wrong is anathema to the very principles this country was founded on.

This idea is forwarded by small-minded individuals who simply cannot endure the idea that anyone would disagree with them. The most common excuse I've heard to justify this idea is that "I come by my opinion based on logic and common sense, while religion is irrational at best, and hate-mongery at worst."

For one thing, that is only an opinion. You see the logic in your opinion, but it does not necessarily follow that your logic is irrefutable. Chances are you only refuse to hear counter-evidence.

For another, logic can be used to justify nearly anything. For example, I could (and do) present the following argument: Prove to me that there is no God. What responses might you give? You've never seen him? *Buzz* So? Borneo exists regardless of my lack of personal oggling thereof. And there are at least a few people who claim to have seen God.

How about many of the claims of the Bible being refuted by science? Does that disprove the existence of God, or just prove either the incompleteness of science or the failure of the Bible to state religious beliefs in scientifically verifiable terms? Either way, that fails to really address God's existence.

Please don't even bother raising the argument, "Well, if there was a God, why does he let so many bad things happen?" That's simply a ludicrous way of saying "If God were God he'd agree with me!" I would posit that if God is God he's got a totally different perspective on things that none of us are likely to grasp without a similar frame of reference.

You might get farther arguing "If God is God, why are there so many different religions, and why does he allow them to do such terrible things in his name?" But ultimately it's the same argument as above. You think you know how God should work, as if his perspective should somehow match yours. That only questions the nature of God, not his existence.

If someone has some really good, solid, verifiable proof that God does not exist I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, I can logically argue that without proof that God does not exist, it's completely logical and acceptable to assume that He does. It is also logical to assume that God has a plan for what He is doing, because we have no proof to the contrary.

And if that is accepted, then it logically follows that God's plan includes an opinion on how we should behave. Prove otherwise. Now here you might have some rational ground for bringing up the multiplicity of religions and their contrary beliefs. However, for every argument here there is a counter-argument. Ultimately you can no more disprove the idea of "commandments" than I can prove their veracity--though there is evidence on my side. Eventually it all returns to the idea that God, for whatever reason, wants us to operate on faith, whether we like it or not.

So perhaps it is not incontrovertable for me to say that "X is a sin", but it is also not incontrovertable for you to argue "no X is not, because there is no sin, because there is no God." Logic insists that there is at least a chance that I am right. Therefore there is also a chance that you are wrong in claiming I am irrational.

Are you willing to bet your presumed eternal soul that I'm wrong? I'm already betting mine that I'm right. If you're right, then really, what does it matter how I behave? If there is no God, then man is the only moral authority. So who is to say that you are any more right than I am? Oh, sure, society has its conventions, but then on the question of gay marriage, who is the one overturning convention?

In fact, in the absence of God, the only moral authority--at least in America--is majority rule. And what has the majority been saying so far about same-sex marriage? Like it or not, until you convince a majority to support it, you at the very least cannot question my right to oppose it.

But to get back to my point, you cannot exclude religious people from the political process simply because you believe we are irrational. For one, you cannot irrefutably prove that we are. For another, the law of the land only insists that you be eighteen years of age and a U.S. citizen. Until it says otherwise, that is the only grounds on which you can refuse political franchise.

For my part, I don't care if a person flips a coin, listens to a rock, prays to satan, or numerologically calculates the ideal candidate based on his middle name in choosing how to vote. That's their business. I may not like the result, but I'll defend their right to do so until death. The minute we claim one method is superior to another and therefore grounds to disenfranchise anyone we are on very shaky ground.

For all the charges of hate and bigotry against "my side" of the issue, I would never attempt to deny anyone on "the other side" the right to vote on the issue. On any issue. Should someone seek to amend the Constitution to acknowledge satan as supreme lord of the universe I would still insist that every legal voter be allowed their vote.

I'm just funny that way.

Lobbyist Recant?

(From MSNBC.com) Obama administration may have changed their rules on lobbyists working for the White House.

During the campaign Obama said lobbyists would not work for his White House. Now they can work there if they haven't lobbied in the last 12 months and don't work on areas of policy where they lobbied.

I'm neutral on this. If the best people for the job are disqualified for having been lobbyists, then this is good. If not, it's just changing one's mind for no good reason.

Afghanistan: WWOD II

MSNBC reports on some early plans here.

If means what he says--and doesn't botch the victory in Iraq--I may be able to back him on this. I do think the focus on Bin Laden is misguided and could lead us into trouble with Pakistan, but we'll see.

Madeline Albright on the Diplomatic Environment

(via Huffington Post) Madeline Albright has posted her thoughts on the challenges Obama faces on the international scene. Interesting reading.

You Got a License For That?

Classical Values has some interesting thoughts on marriage and licenses that lends credence to the idea that government should get out of the marriage business in the first place:

Well, licensing is, after all, a government restriction. When people speak of marriage as a "right," they really are not speaking of a right to marriage, but a "right" to a marriage license. Yet true rights (such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion) are not -- and by their nature cannot be -- subject to licensing.

If marriage were treated as a right, it would not be subject to licensing.

In the normal scope of things, activities that are licensed -- cutting hair, flying planes, driving 18 wheelers, practicing law, medicine, etc. -- are not rights at all, but occupational choices that require training, which are regulated by the state.
...
I'd hate to think all this fuss is over a desire for official state imprimatur, but I worry that it is. Like almost everything else (soon including the auto industry), marriage is seen as something you get from the government. Maybe it would be better to see it as something that the government cannot interfere with, the way genuine rights are.

Afghanistan: WWOD?

(as in What Will Obama Do?)

Michael Yon has some advice for the president elect. If he meant at all what he said about Afghanistan, he would do well to heed it. Yon was right on Iraq, and knows that part of the world better than most, except maybe Michael Totten.

Obama and Gun Laws

It appears that Obama's administration will immediately seek to pass gun restrictions.

I think this would be a bad idea. Far too many people still remember his remark about bitter people clinging to God and guns. Can he attack the latter without people assuming he also plans to attack the former?

Or is this all just a ploy to help stimulate the economy?

Recycling Mythology

Have a spare Zeus laying around? Recycle him!

But seriously, Popular Mechanics has an article detailing five myths about recycling in America. There's both good and bad, so read the whole thing.

It's Not Even History Yet...

...and yet the revisionists are already at it.

From MSNBC news:

President-elect Obama and his wife, Michelle, arrived at the White House for a visit, his first since last week's landslide election victory.

Perhaps an Electoral College landslide, but the popular vote was close enough to make "landslide" a difficult case to make. Or are we no longer paying attention to the popular vote now that it's no longer convenient.

Furthermore, what does that little bit of info, even if true, have to do with the story at hand. Obama was elected president. We know what. The news is that he's meeting with Bush today for the first time. Period. Editorializing in the first paragraph of the article is just plain bad journalism.

At least the Washington Post can admit they're doing a poor job...if after the fact.

ePresident-eLect

President-elect Obama has a transition site: http://change.gov/

I have little idea what's on it yet, but it at least looks like he's off to a good start on his promise to make more information available.

One thing that Instapundit, Overlawyered, and Coyote found is that he is calling for teenagers and college students to perform mandatory community service:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

Same-Sex Marriage

One not-entirely-overlooked aspect of this election was the number of initiatives to block same-sex marriage in several states, including California.

For the record, I do oppose it on religious grounds, just like our President-elect. I don't necessarily view it as any worse a sin than adultery, for example, but it is a sin none-the-less. And until someone can prove to me that there is no God, I intend to continue viewing it that way. And therefore I'm opposed to anything that would encourage and normalize sin.

That said, I also oppose it on political grounds. While many proponents may not intend such consequences, the "progress" on that front so far has not just opened up marriage to gay couples, but has also resulted in the government telling religions what they can and can't do. Such laws have already resulted in religious-oriented adoption agencies closing down rather than be forced to adopt children to same-sex couples. It's only a matter of time before similar efforts result in churches being forced to accept and even perform same-sex marriages.

That is completely wrong, if not unconstitutional. If someone sued an adoption agency that only dealt in Asian children to force them to accept children of other ethnicity I'm sure it would raise an uproar. So why can't an agency have control over which parents are suitable for the children they are helping?

Why can a woman choose to end the life of her baby but not have control over what kind of upbringing her child will receive if she gives it up for adoption? That doesn't make any sense.

And how can you force a church to recognize or perform an act it views as sinful, especially when there are other options available? I'm sure they could find a church that would perform the marriage. Why force one particular one to do it?

How is allowing prayer in school unacceptable while forcing same-sex marriages on a church acceptable? Where does freedom of religion end and freedom from religion begin? And vice versa?

From a strictly sectarian, political view I could accept gay marriage so long as it was never used as a lever to force churches into accepting something they view as unacceptable. But since not only can no one guarantee that it would not be used in that way, but actually IS being used that way, I have to say no. They're forcing me to say "not one inch" when I normally might have been willing to grant an inch or two.

Glenn Greenwald feels that the recent defeats are wrong, and that the new administration needs to respond by overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. That's his perogative, I suppose. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were him, though. The democrats are perfectly fine using the individual desires of special interest groups like the gays to get into office, but not so good about actually delivering on their promises once there.

After all, once you've lost your lever for controlling that particular group, then what are you going to do? You might very well lose them to your opposition. Instead, if they can keep putting them off indefinitely while acting sympathetic, they can sew up that voting block for years to come.

One last point. California was an interesting case. The people of California already voted against same-sex marriage once--and quite strongly. That vote was overturned by legal challenge. So Californians expressed their will again. No same-sex marriage.

The homosexuals of California do not seem to understand that when you live in a democracy you sometimes have to accept that the majority do not want something you want. Live with it. The majority elected Obama. I'm living with it. I'm not looking around for a judge to overturn the election.

What if the situation were reversed? What if the first time California had approved gay marriage? And what if the judiciary then overturned that decision? Would you accept the ruling then? You can't have it both ways. Either the voice of the people trumps all or it does not.

Based on the lower margin of approval this time around, I suspect it's only a matter of time before California accepts gay marriage. I'm sure its proponents will view it as some grand, wonderful evidence of right prevailing over prejudice and hate. But you know what? Someday the shoe will be on the other foot. Something they believe is immoral and a threat to their way of life will be imposed on them in the same manner.

Whatever mechanism you use for getting your way can and will be used by someone else to get theirs. If you believe that people of religion should sit down, shut up, and stay out of your way, then why didn't you sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way when we went to war in Iraq? Or banned government funding of stem cell research? Or re-elected George Bush?

You can't have it both ways. Our system of government allows for opposition on any and every issue. Sometimes you'll get what you want. Sometimes the answer is no. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. If you don't support that system it will be replaced by something else. You may find you like that one even less.

More Emanuel Speculation

One thing is certain: Rahm Emanuel is a controversial pick:

Rick Moran - Emanuel Posting Could Mean War with GOP

You could probably write a book using all the stories and myths about Emanuel’s ferociousness, but some who know him best say he has mellowed a bit on the Hill and that he is an excellent choice for Obama’s chief of staff. For all his partisanship, he has successfully worked with Republicans when he was in the Clinton White House, most notably on the North American Free Trade Agreement. One Democrat said of him, “He’s got a deeply held set of views, but he also understands to get things done you have to compromise.”

Glenn Reynolds, however, thinks Emanuel is more to shield Obama from his own party:

Emanuel will serve as Obama's hatchet-man and Dr. No, but the main targets will be Congressional Democrats and Democratic interest groups. Obama realizes that he's promised a lot more than he can deliver, and Emanuel's job will be to stave off all the claimants who -- as they realize that too -- will try to get to him before it's too late. Obama can stay the good cop, while Emanuel will be the bad. Republicans flatter themselves if they think they'll be the focus of Emanuel's attentions; they'll be an afterthought.

Timothy P. Carney is concerned with Emanuel's ties to Wall Street:

Four elections later, after getting rich in a brief stint in finance, Emanuel is the favorite congressman of Wall Street, measuring by campaign contributions. In the midst of a financial crisis that President-elect Barack Obama blames on Wall Street’s greed and excessive influence in Washington, Emanuel is once again headed to a perch of power in a Democratic White House, this time as chief of staff.

As for me, perhaps I don't know enough about what the Chief of Staff does, but it seems to me that he controls more how the White House runs, not what it works on. And for that I suppose Obama should have whomever he wants. They're supposedly good friends, and Obama trusts him. And in Washington it probably doesn't hurt to have a strong, trusted fighter watching your back.

Hopefully this doesn't indicate the start of a trend, though.

Update: Over on HuffingtonPost, Emanuel is essentially getting the nod from former chiefs of staff on both sides.

"He was just very well organized," said Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff and Emanuel's ex-boss. "He knows the White House inside and out and now, obviously knows Capitol Hill. So he has all the qualities you basically need to be a great chief of staff. Part of the job description is you have to be an SOB to be a chief of staff, you have to have somebody who makes the tough decisions... There are decisions the president ought not to make that the chief of staff has to. My sense is Rahm will do that."
...
Fellow speaker Ken Duberstein, who served as chief of staff for Ronald Reagan, echoed many of Panetta's points. ..."He will run a White House staff that is very disciplined," said Duberstein, "but his challenge will be with the president's outreach and building coalitions on the Hill, saying no to the president elect's most important constituencies and keeping the White House on a schedule."

Believing in Change Goes The Other Way

It seems more than a few people are convinced President Obama will change the gun laws:

Mr. Nelson said sales at his store had risen about 30 percent since Mr. Obama declared his candidacy. “People are concerned about overreaching legislation from Washington,” he said. “They are educating themselves on the Internet.”

“Clinton was the best gun salesman the gun manufacturers ever had,” said Rick Gray, owner of the Accuracy Gun Shop in Las Vegas. “Obama’s going to be right up there with him.”

- New York Times

I personally plan to wait until an actual move is made, but I have considered buying a few guns if it looks like that choice may be taken away.

Knowing His Limits, or More of the Same?

President-Elect Obama has picked Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. The general consensus is that he's a tough-minded operative and a major partisan. First Biden, now Emmanuel. So far it's looking like more of the same, not major change.

But the Obama campaign is not oblivious to how this looks. From the New York Times:

“They’re torn,” a prominent Democrat close to the campaign said of Mr. Obama’s advisers. “There’s half of them that think, ‘We’re in the midst of a huge economic crisis; let’s get the most experienced people out there.’ The other half think, ‘Hey, we’re the change candidate.’ ”

There are probably some fresh faces out there who are experienced enough, but they may not have enough time to find them and bring them on board at this point. And heaven knows the Right would have jumped all over Obama had he been caught vetting his administration team before the election. To be fair, it may be that proven, experienced insiders may be all he has time to get right now.

Hopefully they can unlearn "politics as usual" and let their experience carry the day.

Axelrod the New Rove?

Extreme Mortman discusses an analysis from Ad Age by Pete Snyder:

The Obama camp recognized that something very different was going on here. It threw out many of the old political adages and assumptions, including the granddaddy of them all, Americans don’t tune into elections until after Labor Day. Obama’s campaign geared its online and off-line engagement and advertising to build on this unprecedented early interest and mobilized it into an effective ground game to get out their vote.

In short, someone noticed that the world has changed. Read the whole thing.

Can't Tell the Players Without A Program!

Daniel Gallington has proposed a great idea for keeping media honest:

Now, hold on to your hats, because when the networks adopt my idea, we will no longer care about the bias or point of view in what their anchors, reporters, correspondents or commentators say. And liberals will rejoice because conservatives will have to stop complaining about the so-called "liberal bias in media".

My proposal:

Let's have the FCC require that the networks designate their news people with either a "D" or a little "R". Some examples: "Katie Couric (D-CBS)", Wolf Blitzer "D-CNN", "Keith Olbermann (D-MSNBC), "Chris Mathhews (D-MSNBC), Bill Moyers and Gwen Ifful (D-PBS) and yes, Joe Scarborough (R-MSNBC). Get the idea?

If FOX News is really "fair and balanced" - like they say they are - let's make them put a "D" or "R" under the person's picture as he/she talks. I want to know for sure if that feisty Irish guy on the "No Spin Zone" is a Democrat or a Republican – and not, as he alleges, an "independent."

A caveat: I'm afraid if we let FOX use an "I", then all the networks would want to use it and we would end up exactly where we are now. So, to keep the system brutally honest – absolutely no "I's" would be permitted. After all, that's what they all say they are now.

You Keep Using That Word....

It is expected that the two candidates and their parties bury the hatchet after each election. Each victory or concession speech must contain some sort of call for unity, lest the candidate be considered a poor sport. The congressional leaders and the outgoing president must also give a nod to bipartisanship.

And we keep hoping that this time they'll get it right. As Americans, we take it seriously. We would really like to see each side work together to find some sort of common ground, some moderate approach that will provide some sort of change we can all believe in, to borrow a phrase. We're running out of hope, but I think we have one more try left in us.

What I believe we the people are asking for is cooperation and respect. That means considering the other viewpoint enough to not propose something that you know the other side is going to automatically disagree with. It's at least showing that you DID consider their principles in coming up with a proposal. It's putting your idea forward and saying "here's the beginning of a collaborative effort to find something we can all agree on eventually".

What we get, however, is something entirely different. It seems as if what the various parties are really saying when they call for "Bipartisanship" is "make it easy for everyone and see things my way." It's veiled code for "surrender now or we'll beat you black and blue from now 'til Judgment Day."

And we're tired of it. A few weeks ago I was watching the PBS documentary on Ronald Reagan. They were covering Reagan's first big fight to pass his economic plans. In the end Reagan won. Then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill called Reagan to congratulate him on a good fight. You could see that there was genuine respect between the two. One of them didn't get his way, but they both felt they'd done their duty and were willing to leave the rest up to history.

Perhaps I glamorize the days of my youth, but it really seemed like a different atmosphere then. I'm sure there was animosity and maneuverings, but at the very least the volume was softer. Today the partisan rancor has reached the level of shrieking. The fighting has become more important than what they're fighting over. It's scorched-earth politics, and I believe one facet of the Obama victory is America saying "Enough is enough!"

In a move that practically gave me whiplash from doing a double-take, Sen. Harry Reid--one of the chief shriekers in my book--spelled it out. "This is a mandate to get along, to get something done in a bipartisan way," he said. "This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology."

I have to look at Sen. Reid in a whole new light right now. While many on the Left are lining up to claim this election cycle as America clearly embracing Liberalism, he took the moderate view. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, too, seems to be interpreting events in a similar way.

I'm enough of an optimist to hope this time will be different. I believe the Democrats have realized that it's "their show" now. If they don't do better with their chance than the Republicans have done with theirs they could very well find the situation reversed yet again. I hope they're feeling just a little embaraced at their treatment of the previous administration now that they realize they're about to be exposed to the same harsh light themselves. And I hope the Right choose to take the high road and forego "giving them a taste of their own medicine".

The pessimist in me says give it a week and they'll all be back to their regular, "cuddly" selves. But that's not what this nation needs. We've never needed that, actually, but hopefully now we ALL see it.

It's been a long time since Americans have been able to feel good about voting for a candidate. For far too long voting has been more about damage control than support; which candidate will take us to the bottom the slowest. In Obama many Americans found a candidate that they could feel good voting for. I envy them that. And I do at least feel good that he was a candidate in the first place. It DOES mean something about this country that three of the major players in this election were "non-traditional"(that would be Obama, Palin, and Hillary, in case I was too vague).

I know I didn't feel good about my choice. I didn't see in Obama what many people saw, and I wasn't thrilled about McCain, either. I do hope in a few years I can gladly admit that I was wrong. I'd love to see Obama be the change we've all been hoping for. I sincerely mean that. If America is better off in four years I'll be happy to give him credit.

Of course just what is meant by "better off" is not universal for all Americans. I realize that. Perhaps one day I'll write up a post on how I would define it. But for now, I just want to say this to our leaders:

You've all pledged to do your part to make this time different. I'm going to hold you all to that. I think we all will.

New (Political) Year's Resolution

I've decided to stop writing so much about politics in this weblog. I'd like this to be about...well, other things. And lately it seems as though everything I write has been about politics. Much more of that and I'll have to rename the blog "Vox Politica". Instead I'll be returning this blog to its original schizophrenic format. There may be some politics, but hopefully less often.

I don't plan to stop writing about politics, though. If anything, I'm going to write more. I'm undertaking a project to produce a focused blog with a deliberate approach. It's not quite pulling a "Locke & Demosthenes", but it won't be entirely candid, either. It's an experiment in developing a voice and gaining a following outside of my own family.

So, if you're interested, check out Body Polytick. And if you're not, that's perfectly okay.

What Does This Mean: Two Views

In taking on this blog I have decided to stretch myself a bit and do some things I wouldn't normally do. Like go out of my way to present alternate views. So for my first attempt, here are two views of what the Obama victory means.

First, from Arthur Chrenkoff, via PajamasMedia:

• America will continue to be a terrorist target
• Those who pretended that anti-Americanism was all about Bush will be proven wrong
• Disappointments will start on the day one
• Things will get worse for the Republicans before they get better
• Deification of the Anointed One will only get more sickening

Next, from Gary Kamiya, via Salon:

• We have taken our country back from demagogues, the greedy, the warmongers, incompetants, and reactionaries
• The Reagan Revolution is over
• The nation is rejecting the conservative "each man for himself" morality
• The nation wants to take America back to what it once was
• No one is expecting miracles from Obama

Reality Check?

Stocks are down today, and the AP is attributing it to unease over Obama's presidency. (hat tip Instapundit)

I realize people don't like the economy as is, and it did get better under Clinton, but as a general rule, liberal policies are not business friendly. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Obama should spell out his economic plan in detail soon or we won't see much recovery until after his inauguration.

Michael Crichton...

...has died of cancer. He was a very entertaining author who did his best to make us think along the way. Sometimes he got a bit carried away with the preaching, but his books didn't suffer that much for it.

I'm not sure if there's anyone out there to take up the mantle. He really put the Science in science fiction. And there were quite a few years in which E.R. was my favorite show.

So long, sir.

First Test - Russia?

Vice President Elect Biden evidently predicted that within the first six months of an Obama presidency the world would test what his is made of.

And so it begins. Russia is parking missiles on the borders of NATO member Poland. I think they've sensed an opportunity. Obama has already stated a desire to see other NATO members step up and do their fair share. Other NATO members are not so keen on this. I think Russia plans to end Europe's Obama honeymoon as soon as possible.

Super-Majority

It appears the Democrats will fail to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The article has disappeared from MSNBC.com already, but judging from the comments section, people on both sides of the aisle agree that's a good thing.

A Little Soul-Searching

The nation has voted. Barak Obama is our president. I'm still working through just how I feel about that, but the bottom line is what I told my children:

No president ever lives up to his supporters' hopes or his opponents' fears.

Or, to borrow from a Beatle, "Presidency is what happens while you're busy making other plans".

As I recall, George Bush was on his way toward being an entirely different president when 9/11 forced him to take on a new focus. I suspect that the realities will force Obama to become something other than what he had in mind.

So as of this moment, I'm going to do my best to push the "clear" button on the last two years. President-elect Obama has a clean slate in my book. I will do my best to judge him based on what he actually does, not what his opponents say he will do.

When he does something I agree with I'll be honest enough to give him credit. When he does something I disagree with I'll be the "loyal opposition". I will, as Stephen Den Beste puts it, "not give in to the kind of paranoid fever dreams that have consumed the left for the last 8 years." We need to show the more rabid elements of the Left how to elevate political discourse. Or teach them, as my mother always said, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I'm almost looking forward to what is to come. It's been a long time since we got to watch a new administration set up shop. Last time I wasn't fully engaged in the political process like I've become since then. I didn't become a father until a few weeks after Bush took office. I'll be paying closer attention this time around. It will be interesting to see how Obama goes about it during the next two months.

Ugh.

I'm one disappointed camper tonight. I'd hoped McCain would pull out a victory somehow. Now the only consolation is that it appears the Democrats will fall short of a fillibuster-proof senate. It's not much hope to cling to, but it'll have to do for now.

Congratulations to the Obama campaign and the Mass Media. They got their boy elected. I just hope now that Obama does not forget the 48% of America who didn't support him and moderates his platform accordingly.

Truth be told, if he sticks to what he pledged in his platform he may not be too bad. His platform wasn't all that different from McCain's, really.

But, as it stands, I don't have much hope for the next four years. He's my president. I'll respect his office. My respect for him will have to be earned. I doubt he'll lose any sleep over it.

Election Day

It seems appropriate to start a new blog about politics on election day, before we know who will win. Whether it's appropriate to start a political blog at all is open to debate. I dislike politics. I dislike both parties. I wish we could have had a totally different slate of candidates. I dislike having had to pay attention all this time.

And yet I can't stay away, either. Somehow that's no longer an option. As a kid I used to avoid conversations with my father about politics. I'd cringe whenever the political conventions or debates were on and he'd start arguing with the TV. How could he get that wound up in something that was so unimportant? We only get a chance to do something about it once a year, right?

Then I grew up. I got a job, bought a house, got married, and started a family. It matters. These clowns will be controlling the environment I will have to live in for the next few years. They will be the ones who decide if my sons must go to war. They can help me get ahead, or they can keep me down.

It matters.

And now I find myself arguing with the television and actively scanning media for more insights into candidate X's positions or how issue Y may affect me. I have become my father. I understand him better now.

Yet as important as politics has become to me, I still consider myself outside of it all. I probably lean conservative, but I call myself a moderate. I will probably find myself running for office some day, so I'll have to connect myself with one party or another some day, but I'll resist that as long as I can.

I'm the president of my homeowners association. Mostly because no one else wanted the job, but also because I care. The condition of the neighborhood I raise my family in matters. If I don't do something, then nothing is what will happen. In our last neighborhood that meant eight-foot plastic pterodactyls hanging from trees, horrific Christmas light displays up--and burning--year round, rental properties with more weeds than lawn, and campers and boats cramping the streets to the point that our two-lane was really a one-lane. I don't want nothing to happen again.

And I will put aside my distaste for the whole process today and go vote after work. Because it matters. I will probably take my older kids with me so they can see how it works. Because I want it to someday matter to them.

I am not optimistic about our future. The nation appears ready to elect a president that I'm afraid hasn't really told us what he really wants to do, but has rather been telling us what he thinks we want to hear. But I have thought about it, and if he wins I will claim him as my president. I will not belittle him and his position like so many have done the last two presidents. Not voting for him does not absolve me of not granting him the basic respect his office deserves.

I have hope for the future. It's a hope that I will have been wrong about him, that ultimately he will prove as intelligent and thoughtful as his supporters claim, and that perhaps we don't see things so differently after all. It's a hope that, if I'm right about him, he won't have an easy time of getting his way.

It's a hope, too, that perhaps the media will return to their original role of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable instead of trying to get someone elected. Or, even better, just report the news.

It's not a great hope. But there's always tomorrow.

Condolences

Barak Obama's grandmother has died. My heart goes out to him and his family. Win or lose tomorrow, the timing could not have been worse. This should be a personal, private time for any family, and instead it will be pushed into the international spotlight. Some may pass it off as the cost of fame and power, but no one is really prepared for something like this.

If we can't be imposed upon to show sympathy, let's at least show some tact and taste. If anything can be considered "off limits" in politics, this should be one.

Loyalty Matters

Every few weeks John McCain goes to a Washington hospital to visit an old friend and mentor. Who? Morris Udall, a liberal ex-congressman from Arizona, who is dying of Parkinsons' Disease. He's one of the few who still does, including members of Udall's own party.

From an article in Slate Magazine.

Oh THERE'S a Big Surprise!

“We were surprised to find this link,” said Anita Chandra, the study’s lead author and a behavioral scientist at RAND, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization. “But teens spend a good amount of their time watching television — an average of three hours a day — and we don’t know a lot about its impact on their health decisions …

“We don’t think that [TV] is necessarily more significant than some of the family and neighborhood factors that can lead to teen pregnancies. But even when we removed all the other factors, we still saw a compelling link between a high exposure to sexual content on television and teen pregnancies.” Read more

Imagine that. Makes me want to sing a hymn...like perhaps "We Thank Thee, Oh God, For A Prophet".

Halloween Morning

I had to come in to work a little early this morning, and it was still dark. The route I took was quite familiar to me, but only by daylight. The tall buildings downtown look quite impressive as you round the last curve of the freeway into town.

My route passes by one of the local parks, too. The trees have lost quite a few of their leaves, most of which seemed to be blowing along the road. It was quite the sight watching the leaves in the headlights, scattering and swirling around the car tires, like miniature wildebeest stampedes across a asphalt Serengeti.

The office building I work in looks entirely transformed at night. There are a lot more windows than I'm normally cognizant of. By day the building looks like two brick slabs interrupted by a vaulted greenhouse structure between them. At night the building seems almost entirely glass, linking the three sections into a more coherent whole.

There was a breeze, and I was expecting it to be cold. One normally associates blowing Autumn leaves with cold wind. But this one was warm and moist like a friendly embrace.

As I headed for the building I was left with the impression that today is going to be more than just a little unusual. And not just because I met Marie Antoinette on the stairway.

What $600 Million Won't Buy

Evidently it won't buy a state-of-the-art credit card processing system.

(Via Instapundit)

Barack Obama has proved the greatest fund-raiser of all time by a long shot. His campaign has raised more than $600 million - $150 million in September alone. But the campaign has also failed to adopt standard protections against fraudulent giving.
- NY Post

I'm in IT. I'm pretty sure any self-respecting credit card processing system vendor would try to sell the Obama campaign "standard protections against fraudulent giving". I'm sure they would have done their homework and known what the federal elections regulations were--and since it likely would have meant MORE money for them, they would have tried to sell Obama on it. They evidently failed.

You would have to specifically turn down that kind of protection to NOT have the basic guards against credit card fraud.

And this is the person who wants to implement tougher regulations on everyone else.

Physician, heal thyself.

Let Boys Be Boys

Dr. Helen Smith, in an interview with Mens News, had this to say about the message society is giving our boys--and their options in coping with it:

It sounds innocent enough but imagine the negativity you receive on a daily basis as a boy in our society. You go to school where you are told you may be a potential rapist or sexual harasser, then the teacher tells you to settle down or you will be sent for medication, the girl at the mall is wearing a “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” t-shirt and then the TV is telling you that you are a bed-wetter or drug addict. It’s no wonder our boys are now more interested in video games than in school, learning or later, college. At least video games are challenging and not telling them they are somehow inadequate.

As a parent of children of both genders I want to make sure they all get positive, uplifting messages from society. I'm so glad to belong to a church that emphasizes boys and girls equally--each has different abilities and roles, but each is absolutely critical to our ultimate destiny.

And yet it's religion that is frequently decried as "out of touch". Silly me, I thought that would be a much better message for my kids than "girls are sex objects, boys are cavemen, and they're both better off without each other." Think about it--that's what society is telling them.

I'm Vox Potpourri, and I DON'T approve that message.

Joe vs. Barry

By now everyone has heard about "Joe the Plumber", who expressed his concerns about Obama's tax policy and was told he'll need to spread the wealth around.

It's sad and perhaps terrifying to see the media frenzy as everyone digs into Joe's background for every little snippet they can find to discredit him. It would be less sad if the media had shown the same enthusiasm about Obama's connection to William Ayers or the John Edwards adultery scandal. Surely the American public can see the disconnect here. Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber deserve a full-court media press, while every question about Obama is met by cricket chirps.

But what bothers me the most about the exchange that started this all is what Obama told Joe:

"I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too."

In short, Joe should subsidize his own competition. What's more, if Joe can do this under the current tax structure, why can't anyone else? Either it's possible now or it's not. It does not good to make it easier for those too poor to start their own business if you then turn around and make it more difficult for them once they DO start their own businesses.

In short, Obama's plan will give more money to the poorer people, but it won't encourage them to do well enough to start creating jobs for other people. If you're a young plumber with dreams of starting his own business some day, which would you rather see? A tax break that helps you keep a little more money now--assuming you have a job--or a job with a plumber who can help you get the experience necessary to accomplish your dream?

In Short, Obama wants to make more people dependent on government money while discouraging the creation of jobs. How will this help the economy?

Don't Just Do Something, Stand There!

That's seriously my impression of both candidates after last night's final debate. We just barely passed a bill to spend $750 billion to save the economy. Now both of them are convinced we need another $50 billion plus to bribe--I mean help the middle class.

Enough already! I'm not sure how much more "help" we can afford. Seriously, either the rescue package is going to work, or it's not. Tacking on a list of additional goodies they forgot to shove into the deal is not going to help. The fact is that the professional money-handlers not only screwed up, but screwed up in such a glorious fashion that we have little choice but to bail them out, lest they take us all down with them. Fine. We'll pony up the cash. Or rather, China will.

But let's not keep piling on more just because we haven't gotten over the sticker-shock enough to realise that $50 billion is still a lot-o-cash. That would buy the entire company I work for, and we're a Fortune 50 company.

One thing is obvious from last night. Neither of these clowns are professional money-managers. For three debates in a row none of them have admitted that we can't afford everything they want to do. They both want to spend more money while cutting taxes. As if we weren't already running a deficit. You may note just how quickly both of them ran away from the question of "how soon can you balance the budget".

I don't know how Obama can cut taxes on 95% of Americans when 30% of Americans don't pay taxes. And I'm not sure how McCain can cut taxes on businesses in one breath while slapping a medical benefits tax on them in the other.

So here's my Christmas Wish: For the economy to recover before either one of these clowns can take office. I know they feel obligated to be seen doing something before the election, but seriously: keep them away from the economy. In their cases, laissez-faire is the best approach. Or have Adam Smith hold the invisible hand over their mouths. Otherwise our best hope is that Congress remains divided and unable to agree on anything, like passing their economic plans.

And it's a sad day when government gridlock is the only things standing between us and oblivion.

Random Thought

Why is it that being "on the same page" is considered the standard for coordination? Shouldn't we be aspiring to better? Like being on the same word?

Just a thought.

A Call For Sense

As it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be the next president, many people on the right seem to be preparing to live by "Do unto others as they have been doing to you". They want to give Obama and the Democrats the same grief that the Left has been laying on Bush and the Republicans.

Rick Moran has other ideas:

"There is no more important aspect of democracy than the minority accepting the will of the majority. The constitution gives the minority certain protections against getting steamrolled by the majority. But it doesn’t give the minority the right to torpedo the legitimacy of the winner.

This is more than a question of “fair play” or being a “sore loser.” The Constitution says we have only one president at a time. Given the importance of that office, it is stark raving lunacy to seek to destroy the man occupying it."

I have to agree, as much as it's tempting to join the former group. Politics in America has become too focused on "Winning" rather than doing what's right. We're not always going to get our way. If that means we have to retaliate and scuttle an otherwise perfectly acceptable proposal for revenge purposes or just because it was put forward by the Left then we're certainly no better than the Left and do not deserve to ever lead again.

Indeed, why would America want anyone in power who acts that way? The Left and Right are nearly indistinguishable from one another in their behavior, while getting increasingly far apart on anything that matters. As Americans we're left with no viable choice. In such situations it's perfectly acceptable to call a timeout and make the squabblers take turns. Let's give Obama four years, then some Republican four years, and back and forth.

Until one side grows up and proves they want what's best for America and that they're truly ready to lead, that's as good as we're likely to get.

Whomever is elected (and frankly there is lots to dislike about both of them), I will try my best to be supportive. I'll use whatever influence I have to change their mind if I think they're wrong, but ultimately I'll do my best to accept the outcome without complaint until it's time to vote again. Any complaints will be registered at the ballot box.

Debate Means "Take Worm Off Hook", Right?

I recorded last week's Presidential Debate and watched it Wednesday night. Then I watched the VP Debate last night. Let me tell you, two nights in a row of debates is not a healthy thing. Ultimately my vote has not changed, though I'm less sure of it. My opinion of the candidates has, though.

First there's George Bush. It's as if he wasn't even there. Oh wait, he wasn't, though you'd never guess from listening to Obama and Biden. They like to make us think that McCain will be more of the same, but there are a whole lot of conservatives and/or Republicans who struggle with McCain because he's NOT like Bush, too. I think Palin didn't attack hard enough in pointing out to Biden that "you're focused on the past".

Frankly, I think the "McCain voted with the administration 90% of the time" line is ridiculous. What does that mean, exactly? Bush's only chance to vote is by vetoing or signing anything that gets passed. Bills that never pass the Senate are never seen by Bush, period, so there's no way to know if Bush would have voted for them or not. It's an impressive-sounding statistic with no substance at all. And how often did Obama vote with Bush? Oh, they don't tell you that one, but since I don't think that Bush has vetoed more than 10% of the bills that come before him, I suspect that percentage is pretty high, too.

Anyway, moving on to the actual candidates instead of the convenient punching-bag.

I've only heard Obama speak once before. I have to admit to falling a bit under the "Obama magic", though only as far as losing some of my conviction that he's consciously, intentionally adopting wrong-headed policies. I'm a bit more willing to give him some benefit of the doubt. And, contrary to what some pundits claim, I did not think the number of times he said "I agree with John on that" was a point against him. I like to see candidates give each other a little credit. I wouldn't have minded seeing some reciprocation from McCain.

But Obama's shallow experience was evident. He kept mentioning that "I wrote a letter to so-n-so about that" or "I spoke to so-n-so and told them--". If that's all he's got to show on the issue I'm not convinced. He's a US Senator. He should have proposed legislation, not letters. He should have at least called for a congressional hearing. Where's the political risk-taking in writing a letter? Being aware of and voicing concern over a problem is not what we pay our leaders for. We expect them to do something.

I was more impressed by McCain's depth of experience. But he was, if anything, too calm. I'd like to see him show a little fire, if only in dicussing his own policies. Is he taking the "McCain's got a temper" criticisms so seriously he's afraid to even approach anything resembling passion?

I've not had much exposure to Biden prior to this. I found him likable. So likable, in fact, that I didn't think to question some of his obvious errors. As Michael Totten asks, when has the U.S. or anyone else ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon? When did he and Obama call for NATO to move in there?

But perhaps I was too busy being irritated with Palin. Some say she did a good job of keeping Biden on the defensive. I guess that's one way of looking at it. I was just bothered by how she'd keep returning to old topics, sometimes with so little connectin with the current one I nearly got whiplash. Yes, she held her own up there. I think I was expecting more, somehow.

All four of them were very astute at twisting facts on each other's records. I've been doing enough research on my own to catch them in the act. They're all guilty, and it's gotten to the point that if anyone says "So-n-so voted against X" I immediately ignore it. Chances are it's out of context. Chances are there were other circumstances in play. Chances are it's just so much spin.

The same goes for "quotes". Like Biden's, "Senator McCain said--these are his actual words--said that he was 'Suprised by the sub-prime crisis'." He repeated it several times, verbatim. And yet that's a sentence that is blatently open to interpretation, even without including context. I'm just not buying it.

So in attempting to use candidates' records and words against them, all any of them have succeeded in doing (at least for me) is to convince me I can't go by their records or snippets. All I can really go by is their own stated positions. And that's risky, too.

Ultimately I'm less sure of my vote, but only because I'm less sure of all of them together. There's not one of them I can trust. And that's sad.

On the bright side, they've all kept the debates thus far civil, even cordial. There hasn't been the spirit of meanness I recall from previous election years. Good for them.

We could use more bright spots, though. It's been a long, dark night. I'm tired. Can we vote already?

More From My Man Michael

Michael Totten interviews a member of Hungary's parlaiment and the Parlaimentary Assembly of the Council of Europe about the situation in Georgia, as well as the broader picture. As usual, a must-read.

National Talk Like A Congressman Day

"Gawrsh, Mickey! Where'd ev'rybody's 401K go?!"

Congratulations to Congress for proving that yes, indeed, they DO matter. Now that you have proof-positive that you CAN have an impact on the markets, would you please do something that will impact them in a positive manner?

A pox upon both your houses!

The last time I saw such fancy footwork was watching Riverdance. "How do we scuttle this deal without looking like we're trying to scuttle this deal? I know! I'll give a big speech in favor of the deal while starting off insulting the other party whose votes we're insisting on. Oh, and let's get mad at them for not attending a meeting we didn't invite them to! That'll do it!"

The other side is just as bad. "We don't believe in this, but rather than try to present any rational arguments against it let's just pretend to go along and then refuse to support it. This our chance to stick it to both Bush AND McCain! Those traitors!"

Well done, you fools! You're bringing about the very event you claimed to be trying to save us from.

Come November when I enter the voting booth I'll be looking really hard for a "Purge" button.

Nerves of Steel? Me?

My financial advisor* called me on Friday to discuss some options he's considering for one of my investments. While he had me on the phone he asked me if I was feeling okay about all the turmoil in the markets lately (Lehman, AIG, the government bailout, etc). I admiited I was a little nervous about it.

His response: "Really?! Wow, if you're nervous I'd better make sure I call all my clients and make sure they're okay with everything."

I didn't realize I had a reputation as a cool-headed investor. I doubt I'd be so calm if I were doing it myself. But I hired this guy so that I won't have to worry about it, because HE will. And so far my investments, while not doing well, are at least outperforming the market (or under-tanking, if you prefer). At times like these there's little to do but try and ride it out.

What I didn't get to explain was that I'm nervous because the government is stepping in. I have little faith in the government to not screw things up worse. The more I read about what was happening, the more it seems that something had to be done, but whether or not what they're doing is right will take time to determine.

From the response on Wall Street today, I'm not the only one who is concerned.

I understand the call for the government to also do something to help all those struggling with their mortgages. I sympathize to a degree. Why bail out the big companies, who have been hiring the best and brightest to see this sort of thing coming and avoid it, while Joe Homeowner who doesn't have an army of advisors on his side gets no help (at least yet. The government claims there is already something in the works for him)?

I guess it's harder to have sympathy for Joe Homeowner, as I've been in his position. I didn't fall for the pitch. I saw the danger in buying more house than I could afford using an ARM. I guess the difference is that I'm not a gambler. I'm a pessimist, and figured the ARM would bite me sooner or later. I stuck with what I knew, what I could control, and stayed within our means. So where's MY bonus for NOT screwing up?

Well, the reality is, I'm living my "bonus." I am able to sit back and ride out the storm with less worry (I can't say "no worry", as I've learned never to assume my job is safe).

Someone I spoke to recently mentioned hearing a talk show in which the host asked some expert pundit what impact this last week's events would have on the average consumer. The expert replied "Well, if you're living within your means, not much."
That's largely true, but I suspect that sooner or later I'll be getting a tax bill for all of this. I don't have enough sympathy to offer for everyone, and even less tax money. I'd prefer, if it's got to go somewhere, that it go where it will have the greatest positive impact.

The cold, hard reality is that shoring up a few big companies will probably do more than sheltering a bunch of homeowners. As much as it galls me to save the bacon of companies that should have known better, it's more likely to help.


* - Yes, that sounds a bit pretentious, but I've found one that works with me not because I'm rich, but because he wants to help make me rich (and ride my coattails). I can't imagine he's making very much off me at this point, and I've even seen him make moves to minimize the fees he could charge me. I like this guy and the company he works for enough to semi-seriously consider working for them.

I Thought I Was Done...

...with political posts this week. But then along came this to put things into perspective:

The Russians say a fish rots from the head down. They ought to know. It may not be factually true that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the saying has passed into common usage because the image as the ring of truth to it: time and time again, the good and decent common people have manned the walls of the city, and have been ready to give their lives in its defense, only to discover too late that some silk-robed son of a b**** has snuck out of the palace at midnight and thrown open the gates to the barbarians outside.

It begins with references to D&D and Tolkien, and ends with a fanfare for the common man. Read the whole thing.

Goin' Retro

We have two stereos in the house with cassette decks. One squeals like the breaks on a steam engine when you play a tape, and the other just won't stay running. I got bored a couple weeks ago and started tinkering with the latter. I don't think I actually did anything--it just decided to start working again.

So I dug out some of my old tapes that have been collecting dust in a box under the guest-room bed. There are a lot of tapes I haven't missed not listening to. They belong to a different me, I think. The musical Chess, for example. I used to love it. If I got depressed I'd put on both tapes and just wallow in my depression until it was gone. Now I just can't bring myself to listen to it. It's just too depressing.

There were a few tapes I thought I'd pull out again and enjoy. On the whole, meh. They just don't do it for me anymore. But there is one golden oldy that has managed to stay in style: Philip Aaberg.

He was one of the original Windham Hill stable, though I'm not sure why. He's much less repetitive and much more melodic (not to mention rhythmic) than George Winston, and much more complex than David Lanz. His music is not intellectual for the most part, at least not for me. It's almost visceral, perhaps because even on his slower numbers he endows them with incredible energy.

But then my first exposure to Aaberg was live. It was while I was in college as a music student. One of the piano teachers recommended we go, and I needed to attend a certain number of concerts per semester. When I got there I was a bit worried. Nothing but earth-toned wool and cotton sweaters. This was one of them Yuppie Hippie concerts!

And then Aaberg himself came out, and my outlook didn't improve. Boots, black jeans, and a black formal jacket painted with some sort of day-glo artwork. But then he started to play. Steinways are not light pianos (I know, I made a college career of moving them), but he made the thing shudder. I was sure the sustain pedal was going to get stomped off.

He got walls of sound out of that piano I'd never experienced before, and I'd swear he had at least fifteen fingers. I was blown away, and now I have three of his albums. They're good albums, but I still prefer him live.

His music is all over the scale, covering boogie, jazz, gospel, bluegrass, and impressionism. For me, the high point is his "Upright" album, which Aaberg calls "Windham Hill's first dance album". It does have some real barn-burners, but The Piece for me is "Slow Dance (reprise)", a solo piano meditation on an earlier ensemble piece that has infinitly more heart than the original.

My car has a cassette deck as well, so for the last few days I've been enjoying a private concert on the way too and from work. Today I'll close out my work-week with the second side of "Upright", which includes "Slow Dance (reprise)". I can't think of a better transition to the weekend.

Why I'm Vegetarian

I am a vegetarian (practically vegan, really). Why? Well, because of this sort of thing, really. I'm not necessarily against raising meat for food, or eating meat, either. But the animals deserve decent treatment in the mean time.

The drive to mass-produce meat has opened the door to hideous abuses. There's something wrong when we treat our corn more gently than we treat our cows. And since I can't guarantee that whatever I may eat was treated well and was able to enjoy what life it had prior to my dinner table, it's easier to just not eat meat.

Besides, my wife has done a wonderful job of proving to me that giving up meat doesn't mean giving up variety and taste. I'm a guy who can't stand salads. I've been eating vegetarian for at least five years now, and I've not missed it.

If you want some recipes, let me know. We've got some good ones.

On Second Thought, Let's Not Go To Camelot...

Todd Zywicki makes a case for Congress making itself irrelevant:

In the abstract, I am no fan of the administrative state and see the theoretical value of political accountability. But if I have to choose who I'd trust to deal with the big decisions, it is hard to make the case that Congress as it actually exists is who we want in charge. Over the past few years, the Executive and Courts have increasingly filled the gap that they perceive as existing because of Congress's incompetence. One would like to say that if the Executive or Judiciary won't step in Congress will step up. But that doesn't seem like a realistic scenario to me. It is a vicious cycle and it is hard to see how that cycle can be broken.

I'd never thought of it like that before, but I'm having difficulty arguing with his assessment.

ENGAGE THE RAGE!!!!!

American Digest has declared this the Capslock Election.

Sad, but true.

World of War(on terror)craft

An article in Wired show an intelligence analyst's ideas on how terrorists could use World of Warcraft to plan operations. Far fetched? Not really, but I do have to side with one person quoted who suggests that not much is gained from that venue over any of the others available.

I think it's just an excuse for intelligence agents to get paid to play WoW at work. ;-)

Up a Creek Without a Clue

The current melt-down of several major financial institutions reminds me of the movie "Without a Clue", a Michael Caine/Ben Kingsley take on the Sherlock Holmes setting. There's a scene in a pub where a pretty young lady is walking through the crowded room when someone pinches her bottom. She complains loudly and calls on the perpetrator to reveal himself. At this point Michael Caine, as a drunken, bumbling Sherlock Holmes steps forward and offers his assistance in indentifying the perpetrator.

"Young lady," he declares, "By astute observation of the clientele and consideratin of the facts at hand I can inform you with complete confidence that the perpetrator was...ME!" He pinches her bottom. "There, you see?! I did it again!"

The scene all too closely parallels our current economic meltdown. For those who believe the government should step in and do something about the current crisis, consider this: The government caused for the current crisis. From Investor's Business Daily:

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

Those regulations came as part of a Clinton-era move to make loans available for minorities. But if you think things are bad now, just wait until Obama is through.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

Boy, that just makes me feel all warm, fuzzy, and confident. I can't wait to be an investor in the Obama Era!

Update: It gets better. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got away with their shenanigans by avoiding government scrutiny through strategic contributions to lawmakers. Neither candidate is clean, but Obama got considerably dirtier.

And with Biden supporting credit card company MBNA where his son was a lobbyist, it's really hard for Obama/Biden to make the case for change. Frankly I'll be surprised if either party can clean up Washington. As any drug counselor can tell you, before you can change you've got to want to change.

I'm not saying that politicians who've long benefitted from the Beltway Gravy-train can't grow disgusted with it and decide to change it. But it'll take more than just the occupant of the White House to get the job done. We've already seen how well BOTH parties have done in cleaning up their own act while enjoying a majority in Congress.

Don't expect me to hold my breath on this one.

That's President Doom To You!

A photographer hired by Atlantic Monthly to take pictures of John McCain evidently purposely ran the session to get the worst pictures she could get, then photoshopped them some more and put them up on her site as an attack on McCain. She evidently welcomes anyone else to use them for their own gratification, so someone took her up on it: http://minx.cc/?post=273406 (Warning: Language)

I have to admit I'm one of the people who think McCain looks pretty darn good as an evil overlord, and it's probably increased my interest in voting for him.

A Bit of History

An interesting interview with Geraldine Ferraro:

The [New York] Times recently did a piece about McCain and Palin "touching" [when greeting each other onstage at the Republican Convention]. But Fritz and I, we never did anything that would look like we were holding hands or hugging or anything. No touching. Now, we see McCain and Palin hugging, even the guys are hugging other guys, for goodness sake.

She offers some interesting perspective on how times have changed in 24 years.

Surrender Dorothy, Part II

I didn't realize there would be a part two, but there was. The answer to my last question was "yes". Emma saw the sky-writer from her school and got excited about the airshow too. We decided that I would take the kids and go, though my wife had other commitments. I was a little nervous about handling all three kids in an unfamiliar situation like that, but I needn't have worried. They were terrific.

The airshow was...loud. Very, very loud. When we first arrived there was a flight of six F-15E's repeatedly buzzing the field. It wasn't long before I was wishing they'd stop as much as my older son was. The first couple of times were inspiring. The fourth of fifth time it was merely exhilirating. By the tenth or twelfth time it was just noisy.

On a mildly humorous note, as we were going through the security checkpoint I was explaining what the soldiers were inspecting our bags for to the kids. Walter asked what would happen if they found something in our bag we weren't supposed to have. I told him they'd probably take it away, but we didn't need to worry because I'd checked the air base's website beforehand to see what items were prohibited. Several soldiers overheard that and smiled, and one expressed his shocked gratitude that I'd actually think ahead like that. I suspect there had been more than a few "positives" in their searches (and probably a fair number of "positives with attitude").

Anyway, we did have a great time. It was noisy, yes, but we got used to it--though I was nearly hoarse from trying to talk to the kids by the time we were done. We got to see, touch, and climb through lots of different planes.

The kids seemed most impressed by the cargo planes. I think they were a little nervous about the fighter planes after I'd told them their job was to destroy things. No amount of reassurances on my part could convince them there wasn't an element of danger in getting too close.

The kids' all-time favorite, though, was the C-17 Cargomaster. It was simply huge, and the kids were quite impressed to find out it could hold three schoolbusses or a complete twin-rotor helicopter inside. I probably should have let them go up to the flight deck, but by that time we'd already been there for three hours and none of us felt up for standing in another line.

My favorite moment was the Heritage Flight. They put a P-51 Mustang (WWII-era), F-4 Phantom (Vietnam-era), and a F-15E Strike Eagle up in the air at the same time. After each plane gets their own spotlight for awhile they then bring all three back. They form into a very tight V formation with the P-51 in front, flanked by the two jets.

It's called the Heritage Flight as it's a tribute to the history of the Air Force and all those who have served. It's a moving tribute, and it brought me to tears (and I'm getting choked up again just writing about it). Seeing three eras of history represented in one formation is cool enough, but in stark contrast to everything that's gone before in the day, it's incredibly quiet. The two jets, who just a few minutes earlier were shaking the ground with their high-speed passes, are now throttled down low enough to keep pace with the P-51 (no small feat, I'm sure, let alone while flying practically within touching distance). The unusual quiet and low speed adds an ethereal, slow-motion quality.

For a sentimental, patriotic military-supporter like me, it's full heart-ripping material. I suspect the only thing that could have hit me harder would be the Missing Man formation. One of my pictures turned out well. I'll see if I can add it later.












About that time, unfortunately, a man behind me noticed my "Suomi" cap. He'd been to Finland and recognized the name, so he tapped me on the shoulder to ask about it. So here I am, tears running down my face (my hands were full of tired three-year-old at the time), trying to be polite and explain my Finnish "ancestry" when I'd really rather be left alone until the well ran dry. I'm not sure if it was better or worse that he seemed totally oblivious to my state.

We spent about four hours there before we needed to head home. As we were out in the parking lot trying to find out car the Thunderbirds flew in. I think we had a better vantage point than the audience did, actually. We ate our snack and phoned home to let them know we were on the way while they repeatedly buzzed us. By then we were either half-deaf or used to it, as they didn't seem as loud as some of the other fighters. Perhaps F-16s are quieter.

My thanks goes out to the husband of a lady I work with who climbed up on their car to help us spot ours. I was headed in the wrong direction. We might have still been looking by the time the airshow closed if not for him.

We got home not long before my mother came for her first visit since we bought our new house. None of us had any difficulty falling asleep that night. It was a long day, but a good one.

Funny though, but air traffic at our local airport seems so much quieter now.

Surrender Dorothy!

I just got a call from home telling me to look outside. There was a military jet skywriting an advertisement for the air show this weekend. I got outside just in time to miss it. She'd finished (though she didn't put a 'w' on Airsho).

I admit I'm very much a little boy where airplanes are concerned. Nine years of living near the airport flight-lane hasn't changed that. Nor has having spent more time on airplanes than Sarah Palin has spent in Europe. If there's an airplane flying by I have to look.

This is especially so with military planes. We live just 40 miles away from an Air Force base (where the air show will be held), so you'd think it's a no-brainer that I'd have gone to at least one of the yearly shows by now, but I haven't. I really need to go. If I weren't already booked this weekend I'd consider it.

Next year my boys will be six and four. I think that may be the time for three little boys (one having a drivers license) to go to the airshow. I wonder if the girls would want to go too.

Palin Derangement Syndrome

Let me just say that while I plan to vote for McCain, I really wish there was someone I could feel better about to vote for. And, as likeable as Palin is, if she were running for President I wouldn't vote for her.

That said, I can see why she was a brilliant pick for McCain:
     - She's an unknown, so she's guaranteed to pick up lots of press coverage as the press seek to tell us who she is.
     - As an unexpected choice the media were caught off guard. They were unable to get any "good stuff" on her before she had a chance to deliver "The Speech".
     - "The Speech" and her background connected her to Middle America in a way that NO candidate has done thus far.
     - "The Speech" and her background irritates--even infuriates--the Left leadership and media in a way no other candidate has done thus far.
     - Not realizing that Palin has connected with Middle America--or just not caring, as they tend to consider Middle America to be "white trash America" and too stupid to count--the Left leadership and media have unleashed their fury on Palin.
     - Obama is getting next to no coverage now, as even the media who have been worshipping him are too busy attacking Palin.
     - Middle America, whether they agree with her or not, see much they have in common with Palin. Thus the relentless, mean-spirited media attacks are viewed as an attack on Middle America.
     - Obama knows this, but he is unable to control his supporters. He sees the danger and there's nothing he can do. He sees that these attacks are only elevating Palin while dragging him down by association.
     - This has Obama rattled, and he's struggling to regain his footing. Instead he wavers between feeling obligated to attack Palin and wanting to ignore her. Unable to decide, he's not doing either very well.
     - His entire campaign is now off message. He's no longer about Change. He's about...regaining control of his campaign.
     - This all capitalizes on Obama's obvious sidelining of Hillary Clinton. Had he at least vetted Hillary he wouldn't be in this trouble now. Instead, he chose Biden, apparently to defend himself against the "lack of experience" angle. Biden, while experienced, is NOT about Change. He is firmly connected to everything that Middle America sees as wrong with Washington. Meanwhile, McCain now looks like the candidate of Change.
     - Obama has been prepping himself for a fight centered on his lack of experience (remember Obama's European Vacation?). He chose Biden based on that. Suddenly his opponents are not only dropping that angle, as Palin is at the least no MORE experienced than Obama. The fight Obama was prepared for is not materialising.
     - The next best thing his campaign can come up with is to turn the "Lack of Experience" angle around against Palin. But she's the candidate for VP, not President, so it just doesn't work as well. Furthermore, she's got a solid record of accomplishment in what she HAS done, indicating that her lack of experience is more of a plus than a minus.
     - Obama has never been good when he's off-script. And his campaign currently has no script. In the absence of a script he's struggling, and the rabid anti-Palin-ism of his supporters become HIS script by default, as it's the only message currently coming from the Left.
     - Obama's success thus far has come from having a positive campaign that LOOKS like it's not the same "Politics As Usual." He's been cultivating a utopian vision that appeals to the best that is in us. The current anti-Palin environment has stripped the veneer off his movement. HE may be above such things, but his followers have been exposed as the same mean-spirited, prejudiced, hate-mongers that have been the public face of Liberalism for the last eight years. The Emperor has his clothes, but his robe has been opened, and exposed all the rats lurking beneath.
     Note: Not for a moment am I claiming there aren't plenty of mean-spirited, prejudiced hate-mongers on the Right. There are so many of them, in fact, that while I am most likely a conservative, I'm not about to admit it, because I don't want to be associated with THOSE PEOPLE. But there are so many of those types on BOTH sides that I really feel that there is no comfortable home for me, politically.

I don't believe McCain was so smart, so prescient as to have known all this would happen if he selected Palin. I think he had an inkling about some of it. Whether I agree with his policies or not(and there are some that scare me, frankly), I have to admire his skill. He made a choice that has single-handedly changed the face of the election.

I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing, either. The face we are starting to see is not a nice one.

But it certainly makes an interesting contrast between the two candidates. Obama has said for some time "judge my by how I run my campaign." Well, he's been running his campaign well so far. But then he's been on top. He's felt comfortable. McCain has been struggling all along and has nearly been out several times. But he's kept his head and pulled out some key plays when the pressure is on. Now the pressure is on Obama, and it's his turn to struggle. I guess we'll finally get a chance to see how good a clutch player he is.

You Find What You Look For

For the record, I don't believe the following quote from Obama was directed at Palin:

"You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

That said, you'd think the man who keeps finding racist comments under every rock, and who keeps warning audiences that the Republicans are going to play on their fears about his race, would be more careful not to make any comments that could be interepreted as sexist.

And he should not act self-righteous and outraged over this. Some of us have just enough long-term memory to recognize the hypocrisy.

UPDATE: Some commenters at Instapundit are pointing out the proximity of "lipstick/pig" to "old fish" to suggest this was not unintentional, but an actual swipe at the lipsticked pitbull and the old McCain. They make a good point. But I'll hold with my initial opinion for now.

I still think Obama crying foul over the McCain campaign's outrage is hypocritical, though. As much as I'd like to have seen McCain's campaign just ignore the whole thing and let it take on it's own life without their help. Best thing they could do? Have McCain and Palin either both make statements that they didn't think it was intentional or, as someone else suggested, compliment Obama on his newfound sense of humor. Perhaps even jokingly refer to each other as "the lipsticked pig and the old fish" a few times and then drop it.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere in American politics by being hyper-sensitive about everything. It does nothing to get us past our current problems. I believe learning to laugh at ourselves and then dismiss it shows maturity and confidence while putting those who make such attacks (or overreact to such attacks) look foolish and petty--as they should.

Obama: Community Organizer

No, this is not about the Palin dig. This is simply to call out an article in The New Republic about Obama's work as a community organizer and how it shaped the person he is now. This article is fascinating if for no other reason than it opens up a perspective on inner-city life and problems that I, frankly, have never encountered.

It also connects with my work as a homeowners association president. I am, in a small sense, a community organizer.

No, I won't be running for President. I'd never vote for me.