Obama wants to fix the economy, really!

According to the White House, in order to fix the economy we need to fix health care:

In excerprts released by the White House, Obama says that health insurance reform is central "as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis."

“This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance," Obama said. "Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job. It's about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive. And it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

"So let me be clear: if we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit. If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we do not act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now."

That's fine, but isn't this also the president that misread the economy before creating his stimulus plan, had incomplete information in creating the stimulus, but can't think of anything he'd do to fix it? And even though he's not familiar with what's in the health bill, he's absolutely certain it'll fix the economy. But even assuming his guesses are correct, since most of the provisions in the bill wouldn't take effect until 2013, isn't it safe to say we can't wait that long?

We owe it to ourselves to defeat this health bill and force the administration to get serious about fixing the economy before they bankrupt the country. Not in 2013, but now. If the stimulus bill isn't working correctly, then cancel it and come up with a new plan. No more money for you, Mr. Obama, until you prove you really know what to do with.

It seems that 53% of Americans agree with me.

Remembering WWII

Bill Whittle on PJTV has the first of series of interviews with Leon Cooper, a navy Ensign in command of a landing craft during the War in the Pacific. We need to remember these people and their stories. Before long they'll be gone, and our reminder of what America can do gone with them.

Thanks to all heroes

A hero came to my house today. My son's friend from kindergarten came to play this afternoon, and his dad came to pick him up. The man has put in 24 years in the Army as a front-line soldier. He served a year in Iraq, where he permanently damaged his hearing. He now serves in the National Guard and with the Sheriff's department.

We told him we were grateful for his service. Somehow that doesn't seem adequate.

The demise of dignity

David Brooks has an interesting editorial on the New York Times site concerning dignity and the loss thereof from our culture:

Washington absorbed, and later came to personify what you might call the dignity code. The code was based on the same premise as the nation’s Constitution — that human beings are flawed creatures who live in constant peril of falling into disasters caused by their own passions. Artificial systems have to be created to balance and restrain their desires.

The dignity code commanded its followers to be disinterested — to endeavor to put national interests above personal interests. It commanded its followers to be reticent — to never degrade intimate emotions by parading them in public. It also commanded its followers to be dispassionate — to distrust rashness, zealotry, fury and political enthusiasm.

He has me right up until he holds up Barak Obama as a modern example of dignity. But then perhaps when he lists a trait of dignity as putting national interests above personal interests he equates party interest with national interest. Certainly Obama has done much for his party, his followers, and his supporters. I don't see much sign of him doing what is best for the national interest.

Why Americans don't understand the Middle-East

Michael Totten has an interesting interview with Jeffrey Goldberg about the Middle-East, and especially about Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Well worth the read, as usual. Michael is the first blogger I've sent regular money to (at least before I lost my job), he's just that good.

Palin going all "Obi Wan Kenobi"

So what do I make of Sarah Palin's resignation as Alaska governor? I didn't know you even cared! ;-)

I think she's decided that both the Republicans and the Democrats aren't going to leave her alone. I don't doubt she's got operatives from both sides scrutinizing her every move in Alaska looking for something to discredit her. Like it or not, they're forcing her to be something larger than she is--or probably even wanted to be.

By resigning as governor she can return Alaska to something more normal while putting herself in a position where she can choose who she surrounds herself with. She'll have a much easier time watching her back.

The only real question is what she means about influencing politics from the outside. I suspect she's already given up on a run for president in 2012. But other than that I don't know what she's got in mind. She may be hoping to help rebuild the Republican Party before 2010. I'm not sure I'd even be surprised if she went Libertarian and became a thorn in both parties' sides. But I highly doubt she's going to disappear quietly from public life.

You see, it was one thing to attack her during the presidential campaign. But they've continued to attack her long after that particular dance was over. By continuing to attack her they've shown her at least one important thing: She's on to something. Both parties fear her, but especially the party in power. The sheer hatred and meanness from the left indicates that she has the ability to hurt them. They hate that, and they feel they have to destroy her before she can hurt them.

It's like one of those myriad of movies where some tough-but-quiet guy who is just trying to mind his own business get pushed too far by the local heavies and kicks some serious butt.

But first she's got to pull an Obi Wan Kenobi and appear to give up her power in order to become "more powerful than you can imagine". I wish her all the luck in the world.

State Department, Twitter, and the Iran Protests

I had heard nothing about this until yesterday in an interview with the president of a new internet startup.

Twitter, as most know by now, has become a critical link to the outside world for the protest movement in Iran. When the State Department found out that Twitter had a maintenance outage scheduled for the middle of the day Tehran time, they asked the company to reschedule so as not to disrupt service in Iran. Twitter agreed, and the outage occurred during the day in America instead.

However, over all, the administration gets a mixed grade for protecting internet freedom of speech abroad:

The week before supporters of Mousavi were Tweeting and coming together in the streets, China announced it would require the installation of a Web-blocking program called “Green Dam Youth Escort” on all new computers in the country. While ostensibly meant to block pornography and violent images, many technology experts pointed to its ability to block sites that are politically distasteful to the communist government. Chinese lawyers, academics, and even many in Silicon Valley were up in arms and vocal with their criticism, but Washington stayed silent. The Chinese government ultimately relaxed the requirement, but battles still loom, especially in Iran.

McDonalds and restaurants, Lithuanians, Cap and Trade

Another potpourri day! First up...

McDonalds takes over France!
From Slate:

As reprehensible as Bové's tactics were, it was difficult for a food-loving Francophile not to feel a little solidarity with him. If you believed that McDonald's was a blight on the American landscape, seeing it on French soil was like finding a peep show at the Vatican, and in a contest between Roquefort and Chicken McNuggets, I knew which side I was on. But implicit in this attitude was a belief that McDonald's had somehow been foisted on the French; that slick American marketing had lured them away from the bistro and into the arms of Ronald McDonald. However, that just wasn't true. The French came to McDonald's and la malbouffe (or fast-food) willingly, and in vast and steadily rising numbers. Indeed, the quarter-pounded conquest of France was not the result of some fiendish American plot to subvert French food culture. It was an inside job, and not merely in the sense that the French public was lovin' it—the architects of McDonald's strategy in France were French.

Just as a prophet is without honor in his own country, not even the French are willing to pay more to preserve their national cuisine. Let the bourgeois tourists pay for it! Give us a quick, cheap meal.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I've never been one to hate McDonalds, even though I haven't eaten there in years.

And speaking of food, I'll have what he's having...or else!
Here's an interesting insight into the world of high cuisine...which I'll probably never experience first hand:

When I talk to people in the kitchen after their meal, people frequently tell me they made a special trip to Chicago just to eat at Alinea. Of course I find this completely flattering. They call two months before to the date they want to dine and plan their trip around the event. One can hardly blame them for expecting the maximum experience, given the commitment that they have vested.

But what does the maximum experience require? As it turns out, this was the main reason we created the Tour menu to begin with. When I was at the French Laundry it was common for the kitchen to give selected guests extra courses. Perhaps they were repeat diners, people in the industry, or friends of the chef. Of the 12 meals I had there, nine were in the 17- to 20-course range, and they ranked as the best I had ever had. Not that the typical nine-course menu they offer is lesser, but it is...after all...less.

Evidently people have been known to burst into tears to find out that someone else gets special treatment they didn't know was available. Silly me. I probably just would have thought I'd missed something on the menu, decided whatever it was probably wasn't worth the extra they were probably paying, and go on with my meal. But then I am a barbarian.

Michael Yon reports on our Lithuanian allies in Afghanistan:

The base itself is an international potpourri with soldiers and civilians from Croatia, Denmark, Georgia, Japan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Romania, the USA, and probably a few more countries. And today there are Italian pilots whose helicopter is having difficulty. From above, this base is just a sesame seed on the body of Afghanistan, but down here it’s a little Starship Enterprise. When I met the Lithuanian base commander, Colonel Alvydas Siuparis, I wanted to call him Captain Kirk, but he’s pretty big so I didn’t push my luck.

Read the whole thing here. It's the typically high-quality background piece we've come to take for granted from Michael Yon.

Waxman-Markey will cost much more than we're told
Robert Zubrin reports in Roll Call:

On June 25, the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate stabilization act, which would institute a cap-and-trade system to restrict Americans’ carbon emissions. While proponents of the bill have sought to argue that the costs of such a system would be negligible, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bill proposes a massive and highly regressive tax on the U.S. economy, and could potentially cause not only extensive business failures, unemployment and privation within our borders, but starvation among poorer populations elsewhere.

It really distresses me to see how quick the administration is to mess with complex systems. They seem to have no idea what they're doing..and they don't seem to care.

Three articles of interest

Which to talk about? All of them: Obama brings about watered-down change, unnecessary copyright protections, and our staggering national debt.

Is diluted change really change?
Clive Crook writes in the Financial Times:

Mr Obama aims to keep his promises, which is admirable. Unfortunately, there is a problem. This is not, as many Republicans argue, that neither issue requires forthright action. Both do. The problem is that the bills emerging from Congress are bad and Mr Obama does not seem to mind.

I've noticed that. It's like he's still in the Illinois legislature and still trying to pad his resume. "Lets see, I promised to deal with Global Warming, revise our health care system, and get us out of Iraq. Okay, let's get Congress to pass some bills about those topics so I can check these off my to-do list." It doesn't matter if the bills are bad legislation. It doesn't matter if they actually accomplish what he promised. They just need to have the write terms attached to them.

I've seen very few who really like the Cap-and-Trade bill on either side of the issue. The Right feels it will have a terrible impact on business. The Left feel is won't actually accomplish anything. Does ANYONE like this bill besides Pelosi and Obama?

Should copyright law be used to protect certain business models?
Jeff Jarvis over at Buzz Machine calls out certain lawyers-cum-lobbyists for advocating bad copyright law:

Following the frighteningly dangerous thinking of Judge Richard Posner – proposing rewriting copyright law to outlaw linking to and summarizing (aka talking about) news stories – now we have two more lemming lawyers following him off the cliff in a column written by the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Connie Schultz.

...

Schultz says that David Marburger, an alleged First Amendment attorney for her paper, and his economics-professor brother, Daniel, have concocted their own dangerous thinking, proposing the copyright law be changed to insist that a newspaper’s story should appear only on its own web site for the first 24 hours before it can be aggregated or retold.

Incredible. So if the Plain Dealer reported exclusively that, say, the governor had just returned from a tryst with a Argentine lady, no one else could so much as talk about that for 24 hours. A First Amendment lawyer said this.

So this post would not be possible if Posner and company get their way. I have to wonder how many news organizations actually support this bad idea. If there is a problem on the internet, it's from bloggers, et al, not attributing/linking their sources. Do they realize that if the law is changed the way they want people will just start summarizing and not link to their sites? As long as they paraphrase carefully it will be difficult to prove they lifted it from their site.

And yes, Jarvis raises a good point. Would this inadvertently impact other news sources who develop the story independently? Would it impact the AP News Service in that the first newspaper that prints an AP story is the only one allowed to do so for 24 hours?

That these people appear to have thought this through so little frightens me.

Congressional Budget Office issues warning
The Washington Post has coverage on the CBO's latest warning to the administration:

Now comes the CBO with yet more news of the sort that neither Capitol Hill nor the White House is likely to welcome: its freshly released report on the federal government's long-term financial situation. To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO's most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 -- roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

This huge mass of debt, which would stifle economic growth and reduce the American standard of living, can be avoided only through spending cuts, tax increases or some combination of the two. And the longer government waits to get its financial house in order, the more it will cost to do so, the CBO says.

Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

Walt Minnick opposes Waxman-Markey

I tell you, if this keeps up I'll be voting for the guy next time he's up for re-election:

This bill raises many concerns. Idaho farmers are worried about increased fertilizer and power costs. Idaho energy companies believe it lacks proper consideration for hydro power and nuclear technology. Idaho businesses are frustrated with giveaways that rig the system in favor of pollution-heavy industry in the Midwest and California. Idaho investors are concerned that the price of carbon credits – which virtually all businesses would be required to buy – will be controlled by Wall Street speculators. And Idaho citizens struggling to meet expenses are worried that gasoline and electric bills will go up during this time of economic recession and high unemployment.

“For all of those reasons, I must vote ‘no.’

I just hope he's one of many who will shoot this thing down.

Read my Examiner.com article on the bill here.

UPDATE: This is incredible. With only three hours of debate scheduled today, they've now added 300 more pages to the bill as of last night. So here we have yet another case where lawmakers are expected to vote on a bill before anyone can be sure what's in it. This is disgusting. Nancy Pelosi is out of control and is determined to throw democracy under the bus. California, PLEASE curb your dog!

Presidential ice cream trips

I am not one of those questioning how President Obama could make a run for ice cream with his daughters while the people of Iran are fighting for their freedom. Not that the events in Iran aren't important, but there is only so much the president can do. You can argue all you want that he hasn't done enough, and I'd probably agree with you.

But leave the guy alone when he decides to spend time with his kids. Being President of the United States does not mean he can ignore his kids every time there is something important happening in the world--he'd never get to see them. Those of us with kids know that sometimes you have to squeeze in time with them when you can. And if they want to go out and do something instead of stay home just so you can protect your image what are you going to do? I think it's okay for even the President to say "Sasha, Malia... YOU are more important to me than the world. If you want ice cream, let's get ice cream."

He made the right choice. Iran is important, but nothing was likely to change significantly in an hour. Except his relationship with his daughters. In a few weeks we'll have forgotten all of this. There's a good chance his daughters won't. I may disagree with the man's politics, but I won't begrudge him time with his daughters.

I have no doubt that had something suddenly come up and his attention was absolutely needed right then and there he would have cut it short and hurried back.

The man has one of the most difficult jobs in the world--and he's President of the United States, to boot! Let's cut him some slack. Letting your children know that the world can wait a few minutes while you spend time together may not be popular with the world, but he'll be their father a lot longer than he'll be President. It's the right message to send.

Obama's regulatory overhaul - summary

I've been reading up on Obama's proposed regulatory changes lately and decided perhaps I should try reading the actual draft. Let me tell you, I'm so glad there are trained professionals with acute insomnia who are able to do these things for us. But here's the gist of what he wants to do:

Create a Financial Services Oversight Council
Purpose: Information sharing, coordination, risk identification, resolve jurisdiction disputes, advise Federal Reserve on "at-risk" companies.

Membership: Secretary of Treasury (chair), Chair of the Federal Reserve, Director of National Bank Supervisor, Director of Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Chair of SEC, Chair of CFTC, Chair of FDIC, Director of FHFA.

My take: Sounds like a Financial Dept. of Homeland Security. Not to be a pessimist, but how well did that work? Is there a need for better communication? Yes. Will this help? No. Information that goes up an organization to the top before going across to another a) takes too long, b) is subject to too much filter, c) is subject to politics, d) relies too much on an analyst in one group to recognize something important to another group, and e) does little to improve the actual act of regulation.

Implement higher level of regulation on large, interconnected financial firms (ie. the Too-Big-To-Fail).
Purpose: Set greater restrictions and add higher level of oversight on companies big enough to rattle our economy if they fail, including parent companies and subsidiaries, US-owned or otherwise.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: This seems like a decent idea. If they're that big they should be watched more closely, since they obviously don't want to watch themselves. This could discourage companies from getting into this category, though, which may have negative, unintended consequences. It may also make some companies find creative ways around this, as well.

Strengthen regulatory requirements
Purpose: Increase capital requirements, regulate executive compensation and incentives, review the accounting rules, strengthen separation between banks and their affiliates.

Responsibility: Various focus groups.

My take: This may not be a bad idea, either. They claim they want to change executive incentives to help them look after the company's long-term interests better, which I could support. However, this seems like veiled language for doing away with high pay for executives. I may disagree with the pay some of these people get, but it shouldn't be up to me--or the government. If the stockholders want it, then so be it. Our companies have to stay competitive. Also, capping pay in just one industry is not fair. Is anyone talking about capping pay in Hollywood? I don't agree with that either, but if you do it for one you have to do it for all.

Close loopholes in bank regulation
Purpose: Create a National Bank Supervisor to regulate all financial institutions. Close loopholes in regulations. Require further separation between companies and any bank affiliates.

Responsibility: National Bank Supervisor

My take: I'm not in favor or creating new government entities, but if there are loopholes to be closed, then close them.

Eliminate the SEC programs for consolidated supervision
Purpose: Move supervision in these cases under the Federal Reserve Board

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: I can take this one on faith, though I'm not sure how this improves things.

Require hedge funds and private investment pools to register with SEC
Purpose: Provide some oversight into a group that has previously been immune--and may have helped bring about our financial collapse.

Responsibility: SEC

My take: I'm not sure what "registration" means and what that alone will do to make this group behave. But if it works, fine with me.

Reduce susceptibility of Money Market Mutual Funds to runs
Purpose: Provide some additional measures to keep the system from falling apart so easily.

Responsibility: SEC

My take: Probably not a bad idea, so long as it goes just far enough and no further. Can you tell I'm not a fan of government intervention?

Enhance oversight of insurance sector
Purpose: Set up Office of National Insurance to gather information, develop expertise, negotiate international agreements, and coordinate policy.

Responsibility: Treasury Dept.

My take: This is too vague. I know why it's in here, but what this will do to keep AIG messes from happening again is not clear.

Determine the future role of Government Sponsored Enterprises
Purpose: Maintain, stabilize, strengthen and propose recommendations on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank system.

Responsibility: Treasury and HUD

My take: May I make a recommendation or two right now? Clean all of these up and cut off their campaign contributions to Congress. Remove from oversight positions anyone who has taken money from these entities.

Strengthen supervision and regulation of securitization markets
Purpose: Keep companies from passing the risk off to others, make performance of loans a consideration in any compensation. Increase transparency and standardization of these markets. Increase regulation and integrity of credit ratings. Reduce government regulator dependency on credit ratings in regulatory efforts.

Responsibility: Federal banking agencies, SEC

My take: This one may be getting a little too paranoid. These companies should have known better. And if we increase the integrity of credit ratings, why shouldn't the regulators be able to rely on them more?

Create regulations around OTC derivatives
Purpose: Prevent markets in derivatives from creating systemic risk, promote transparency, prevent market manipulation and fraud, and make sure derivatives are not marketed improperly to inexperienced traders.

Responsibility: Unknown

My take: This does seem to be at the heart of the matter. And while it's probably a good idea to close the barn door after the horse has come home, the real problem is spotting new dangers from new financial instruments that the government is unfamiliar with, just like Credit Default Swaps were prior to the recession.

Harmonize futures and securities regulation
Purpose: Bring regulation of these two areas closer together.

Responsibility: CFTC, SEC

My take: I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

Strengthen oversight of systematically important payment, clearing, and settlement systems and related activities
Purpose: To bring oversight of these systems under government regulation.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: I don't know why this is necessary. I'm not aware of these systems breaking down or somehow adding to the financial problems we experienced. As one would expect, if it's not needed, I don't see a reason to change.

Strengthen settlement capabilities and liquidity resources of systematically important payment, clearing, and settlement systems
Purpose: Provide the above systems with access to Reserve Bank accounts, financial services, and the discount window.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve

My take: This seems like a move to make the Federal Reserve able to react more quickly to emergencies in the financial system. It may very well be that increased speed may have made a difference in the past financial crisis, but I've found that most computer systems are still hampered by the speed of the human decision makers. Is this component necessary?

Create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Purpose: Supervise and protect consumers of credit, savings, payment, and other consumer financial products and services, and to regulate providers of these products and services.

Responsibility: CFPA

My take: Do we need a new government agency for this? Isn't this just attacking the same problem from the other end? If the other regulators do their jobs properly no one will be selling fraudulent or misrepresented financial products to consumers. Why not just expand the mission of the Federal Trade Commission? We don't need more bureaucracy. We just need consumers who use their heads.

Reforms of Consumer Protection
Purpose: To promote transparency, simplicity, fairness, and access in financial products and services.

Responsibility: CFPA

My take: Any time the government gets involved you can forget about transparency or simplicity. And "fairness and access" is part of the reason why we're in this mess. Remember, the government is one of the main reasons why any mortgage requires you sign half a ream of paper. That was to make things simpler and more clear, remember? I also don't trust this administration to judge "fairness", as so far it seems rather one-sided and arbitrary in such decisions.

Strengthen investor protection
Purpose: Provide greater transparency in investor disclosures, increase fairness for investors, and increase accountability. Establish a Financial Consumer Coordinating Council. Create a permanent role for the SEC's Investor Advisory Committee. Strengthen employment-based and private retirement plans. Encourage saving.

Responsibility: SEC, FSOC

My take: Thank you, Bernie Madoff. This is all your doing, isn't it. Unfortunately a few bad apples have ruined for everyone. Lots of people got hurt, and whenever that happens they start looking to the government to save them from themselves. Look folks, the stock market is risky. People who promise you phenomenal returns at low risk are LYING! Avoid them! Report them! We don't need the government to do this!

Create a resolution regime for failing companies
Purpose: Provide for a resolution regime modeled on current Federal Deposit Insurance Act regimes to avoid messy failures of companies.

responsibility: Not known

My take: Uniformity could be good, unless the result is uniformly bad.

Amend the Federal Reserve's emergency lending authority
Purpose: Require written permission from the Treasury Secretary for extending credit to distressed companies.

Responsibility: Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary

My take: Sounds like a good idea to me. It might not hurt to give Congress some say, as well.

Strengthen the international capital framework
Purpose: Review, modify and strengthen existing international frameworks.

Responsibility: Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

My take: Probably a good idea, but this is rather vague. Do you have something specific in mind?

Improve the oversight of global financial markets
Purpose: Promote standardization and improved oversight over derivative markets.

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: Again, sounds good.

Enhance supervision of internationally active financial firms
Purpose: Establish and support international supervisory colleges to supervise global financial firms.

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: Sounds good. Just don't let the UN do it.

Reform crisis prevention and management authorities and procedures
Purpose: Improve resolution of global financial firms. Improve information sharing and implement FSB principles for cross-border crisis management.

Responsibility: BCBS

My take: Seems logical. I would hope that the international community do some sort of "lessons learned" from this mess.

Strengthen the FSB
Purpose: Further establish international standards.

Responsibility: FSB

My take: If this would have helped avert the crisis, then go for it.

Strengthen and expand regulations
Purpose: Improve liquidity risk management, improve oversight abilities, determine international requirements for large financial firms, and encourage other countries to monitor hedge funds.

Responsibility: BCBS, FSB, other nations

My take: Good idea.

Introduce better compensation practices
Purpose: Encourage other nations to regulate executive compensation and incentives to discourage risk-taking and look after long-term shareholder value.

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: If we can get everyone to do this, great. Otherwise we should not adopt this unilaterally and create a "brain drain". I don't see any other country agreeing to this, frankly.

Promote stronger standards in regulation, money laundering/terrorist financing, and tax information exchange
Purpose: Improve the ability to track financial crime internationally.

Responsibility: All nations, FSB

My take: It lack specific, but that it's in here at all suggests the administration is taking the War on Terror seriously.

Improve accounting standards
Purpose: Promote global accounting standards.

Responsibility: International standards groups

My take: I find it interesting that this is in here. This implies that accounting standards are...well, not standardized. I was not aware of this.

Tighten oversight of credit rating agencies
Purpose: Improve oversight in this area

Responsibility: Other nations

My take: Again, I didn't know this was a problem, but if we're doing it, so should everyone else.

My opinion on the entire draft: Individually most of these points make sense. Taken together I start to worry. My first question is "who pays for all of this?" We're creating several government agencies, placing more power in the hands of the government, and even expecting the government to police financial infrastructure. This won't come cheap. Is this coming out of taxes, or will businesses be expected to shoulder the burden?

Sarbanes-Oxley already placed a significant amount of extra overhead on companies for arguably little return. Heaping more regulations on business during a recession will make recovery all that much more difficult. The damage is already done, and most companies have already cleaned house on their own.

I am also concerned about the scope of the changes. Rather than focus in on a few key trouble spots, the administration is attempting to shotgun every economic component that may have played a part in our current financial woes. Everyone, that is, except the government itself. Even though the government arguably played a part in causing the crash, they show no interest in examining or regulating themselves.

The majority leadership, in spite of promises, refuses to investigate accusations of corruption among their own membership. The people who supposedly were supposed to see all of this coming failed to do so, yet retain their positions of oversight. Some of them even benefited from cozy relations with the very entities they were supposed to be policing. Yet the answer is more of the same government that failed to catch it last time. "You all screwed up," they seem to be saying, "but we get a do-over. You caught us off guard, but give us a bunch more people and regulations to enforce and we'll get it right next time."

I'm also worried about the amount of power being formalized and centralized by this proposal. The government has taken unprecedented steps in attempting to get control of the economy and steer us back on track. But rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle, they trying to make those step the default position going forward. They also are trying to take some power away from the states. The states, most of which are cash-strapped at the moment, are likely to welcome temporary relief from some of these burdens. However, it will be difficult to get that control back down the road.

Are some of the proposed changes necessary? I think so. Is all of it necessary? No. Either this is an overkill strategy in hopes they at least get some of the things they wish for, or they want to put in place the mechanisms to micromanage the economy from here on. It's too much.

Media and politics

Remember the good old days when the role of the press was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? Boy, I miss those days...

(courtesy of "Day by Day" by Chris Muir)

Alfonzo Rachel on Letterman and liberals

Daaaaaang! The gloves come off in this video short. 'Zo takes on hypocrisy from the left that they are the compassionate party.

Bigotry and prejudice in the gay movement

The Obama Justice Department filed a brief favoring the Defense of Marriage Act, and for now Obama seems to be backing away from his campaign promise of overturning it. So whose fault is it? The Mormons, of course. Why? Because one of the three attorneys who prepared the brief is evidently a Mormon.

In short, they are judging this guy based on his religion. They assume that because he is Mormon that he is full of hate and fear, and doing everything in his power to destroy the gay rights movement. He must have an awful lot of power if he can override two other attorneys!

I can speak from experience that not all Mormons believe alike. As much as the rest of the world would like to think so (it makes it easier to hate us), we do not all get our political beliefs surgically implanted by Salt Lake City HQ at baptism. If so, then how do you explain Harry Reid? It is not inconceivable that Scott Simpson, the lawyer in question, could have been in favor of overturning DOMA. The critics don't seem to be offering any evidence to the contrary other than "He's Mormon!"

But ultimately the gays are shooting themselves in the foot. For one, they are going after a religious group with hateful and vengeful attacks, showing just how nasty they can be. For another, they keep giving Obama a pass when he has repeatedly hung them out to dry since taking office.

They attack Carrie Prejean for her views while ignoring that Obama shares the exact save views. And when the Obama administration decides not to fight DOMA it's not because Obama is a traitor to their cause, it's because a single Mormon somehow cowed the entire administration into accepting his religious point of view.

Uh huh.

Pardon me, but your irrational hatred is showing.

Bumper sticker police

Andrew Klavan expressed a notion I've had for some time now: Those who say "War is not the answer" lack imagination in their question.

Video here.

Decency, society, and religion: a long, bilious rant

I’ve been getting a full head of steam built up lately, and it’s time to let loose. If you don’t like me ranting you may want to skip today and come back another time.

First of all, David Letterman’s pathetic joke at the expense of Sarah Palin’s daughter (not to mention Alex Rodriguez, who should take great exception to being labeled a pedophile rapist) was inexcusable. Don’t bother with the pathetic “but she’s a public figure” excuses. No one’s daughter deserves to be treated like that. The comedians who made cracks about Chelsea Clinton’s appearance were just as much in the wrong.

I really couldn’t care less who started it, who escalated it, or who was the last one to push the boundaries. It has to stop. We can have public debate and still maintain decency. We can make fun of our public figures without verbally molesting their children. Let’s stop this headlong race into the gutter now. This is not a race anyone should be interested in winning. This is not progress. There is nothing liberating about stooping to our lowest common denominator.

This might be understandable if Letterman abused everyone equally, but he does not. The man who is afraid to make jokes about President Obama—I can’t imagine any comedian turning down a chance to roast our top politicians—does not draw the line at children. It seems we can expect him to verbally abuse Sasha and Malia before we can expect him to poke fun at their father. Is this what passes for manhood these days? Man up, Dave. If you’re the paragon of liberal virtues, count me out.

Next topic. An acquaintance of mine on Facebook has recently frequently been posting his views on gay marriage lately. No problem with that. It’s his right. It’s his page. But something he said lately stuck out, as he’s not the only one I’ve heard bring up this defense. He asked, in essence, what right does society have to tell people what they can and can’t do?

I have to respond with a counter question: If society doesn’t have that right, who does? Who should? As a society we’ve pretty much eliminated God as the moral authority on what is right and wrong. What’s left, if not society? It is society that makes laws, not the other way around. The original colonies didn’t just pass a constitution and some laws and create a society along with a nation from the grip of anarchy. If we don’t acknowledge a higher being as our moral anchor, then that role falls to society.

It’s society that protects us. The majority of society believes it to be wrong for me to kill my neighbor if his sprinklers get hard water spots on my car. The majority of society believes it to be wrong even for me to punch him in the nose. I might even suffer adverse consequences for cussing him out if I happen to do it standing in his yard. These are good rules, and we don’t have minorities lining up to tear them down because “society is telling me what I can and can’t do.”

So why does gay marriage get a pass? Why is this issue somehow immune from majority rule? Why does the minority voice matter more than the majority voice? Why is it unconscionable that society dare tell people “no” in this instance? It’s the way things work. It’s how societies function. It’s the same rule that keeps idiots from solving the problem by killing all the gays—which, people seem to forget, is still the preferred solution in many countries in the world today.

To give minorities—any minorities—the right to override society just because they don’t like being told they are the minority is not just wrong, it is suicidal. Do you really think that allowing one minority that ability is not going to throw the door open wide for any minority who feels unfairly limited to force their will upon society in the future?

Suppose someday the majority finally supports gay marriage. Guess what folks, you’ll have created a new minority. Does that minority suddenly get preferred status? Do they suddenly get to invoke the “What right does society have to tell me what’s a marriage” argument?

Don’t pull out the example of racial rights in America. The majority became convinced it was time for a change, and the majority changed society. Should it have happened sooner? Absolutely. But society being what it is, it had to wait for enough people to change their minds to where the majority had enough mass to force the change. It may not have been fair for blacks to wait that long, but in the absence of any other moral anchor to go by, we should just be glad it happened at all.

Remember, we did this to ourselves. We overthrew every other moral authority we might have turned to, so all that is left is the “wisdom of crowds”. There is no "right" or "wrong" anymore, just the majority opinion. If a minority in that crowd feel they’re smarter than the rest of the crowd, too bad. They can’t—even though they try to—claim the moral high ground, because they flattened that hill long ago. In their wisdom they handed the moral imperative to society as a whole, and then complain when the crowd takes it and runs a different direction. The ungrateful wretches didn’t recognize what we did for them and immediately hand the moral authority to us as an expression of gratitude!

Now, frankly I have no doubt that one day the majority will support gay marriage. And I have no illusion that the new majority will suddenly want to show the same respect and consideration for the new minority that they insisted we show them. No, suddenly they’ll find new wisdom in the crowd and use their new societal authority to get revenge for their perceived wrongs.

When that time comes I reserve the right to fight hard to limit the damage that will be done to my right to worship as I please and for the government to not infringe on religious beliefs and practices. I don’t expect much tolerance and respect for diversity from the new social order. I don’t expect many of the current crop of “live and let live” proponents to come riding to my defense; “What right does society have to tell those Mormons they have to accept and perform gay marriages?” That particular argument will have served its purpose and be put into a cozy retirement, I’m sure.

And last, but not least—and certainly related—I’m tired of the anti-religious sentiment going around. From an even closer friend I recently heard “I believe in God, but I don’t like his fan clubs”. I doubt she really feels that way at heart, but rather thought it a cute or clever way of saying “I don’t follow any organized religion”. And that’s fine.

But far too many people do fully believe the notion that the only good religion is a dead religion. You know, the people with the “God, protect me from your followers” bumper stickers, or who hire billboards to warn people to beware of dogma. These are the people who are intellectually dishonest enough to actually believe that the majority of the world’s problems are caused by religion.

Yes, there have been a lot of atrocities committed throughout history in the name of one god or another. There have also been great atrocities committed in the name of no god, or in the name of socialism, or genetic purity, or division of resources. You name it, people will kill over it. Religion is just one of the many excuses. Most of the people who use that excuse are not actually religious, or at least not truly following their faith. They are perverting it in the name of a different cause—namely themselves.

To blame all ills on religion is dishonest also because it fails to acknowledge the vast amounts of good that religion does in the world and in history. For every David Koresh you have a Mother Teresa. For every Osama Bin Laden you have hundreds of humble religious believers who live out their lives in peace without bothering anyone. Why is it fair only to acknowledge the bad and not the good? And yet that’s what these people do.

The reality is they care nothing for history, if indeed they’ve ever taken the time to study it. It’s merely an excuse for, as I ranted about above, the minority view to rail against the majority. Because the majority is somehow infringing on their right to do whatever it is they want, and because the majority claim to be religious, then organized religion must be bad. End of discussion, lest reality enter into it.

But for all those haters of organized religion out there, I throw down the gauntlet. Here’s a challenge for you. You make the accusation, so the burden of proof is on you. Prove to me:

1- That there is no God. If many of you are telling the truth about your belief system you concede this one already.

2- That God does not have a specific set of rules for us to follow.

3- That God does not believe it will be easier for people to follow those rules as part of an organized religion.

4- That God does not believe in order, and therefore does not care how his followers worship him, organize themselves, or perform rites and ordinances.

Don’t bother with the lame stuff like “Well, if there was a God, how could he let X or Y or Z happen? Why doesn’t he stop it?” That doesn’t prove there is no God. It just proves that God does not see things the same way you do—something you should expect from an all-knowing, all-powerful being. All it proves is that whatever God has in store for us, He feels it’s worth allowing us to endure short term suffering in order to get it.

No, don’t give me platitudes or decrees on how you believe God should act. Give me proof. Ultimately you can’t offer any more hard evidence against those four points than I can offer hard evidence in favor of them—at least that you’re likely to accept. If the myriad of religions and religious texts out there aren’t proof enough already then you’re not likely to accept anything else short of a visit from God himself. And since that doesn’t happen very often, it’s obviously not important to his plan that you be given incontrovertible proof.

So since you can’t prove that organized religion is wrong, knock it off with the hate, the smug mockery, and the continual bigotry and prejudice. Or, if you must, be egalitarian about it. Don’t just picket the Baptists or Mormons when they vote against your favorite cause. Go picket the Muslims and the black protestant churches, too. Don’t just pick on the churches that are in the majority in America, pick on them all. Otherwise you’re little more than a hypocrite at best, or lying to yourself at worst.

Because it’s not about religion in the end, is it. It’s about getting your way and finding easy targets when you don’t. Never mind that you’re laying the foundation for the destruction of society by imposing minority rule. Never mind you are paying lip service to the role of society while ultimately exploiting it for your own anti-social ends. Never mind that while you are tearing down a moral anchor that hasn’t been a threat to you in decades you are also tearing down the only anchor left.

It’s all about you.

Obama is Spock, and that's not good

Bill Whittle over at Pajamas TV takes on Maureen Dowd's premise that Obama is Spock. He doesn't disagree with her, but instead makes a strong case for having the intellectuals in charge is not a good idea. He also presents an interesting analysis of who "James T. Kirk" is and why that's important.

See the video here.

Congratulations, Class of 2009

I went to my nephew's high school graduation last night. It's been quite awhile since I've been to one--it was probably my own, come to think of it.

The school district superintendent informed us that 75% of the graduating class was either going on to some sort of schooling or into the military. I suppose that could be an impressive figure, but I also have to wonder how much the recession has to do with it. If given the choice between trying to find a job now or being able to wait for a couple of years I know which one I'd pick.

In some ways, this class may be timing things just right. I suspect our economy is going to undergo some changes over the next few years, and they will be well-positioned to adapt mid-way through their post-secondary training if need be. But they will have to stay informed. I doubt they'll be able to rely on the jobs that were hot a few years ago still being hot when they graduate.

Still, I do think that by the time they graduate the economy will be in much better shape. With any luck they'll be emerging from the halls of higher learning just as the employment wave gets firmly headed upward again.

This is an exciting time to be young. It's not without its challenges, of course, but this generation of kids will bring a whole new vibrancy to the world that will make itself felt.

They still need to use sunscreen, though.

What happened to North Korea?

Did I miss something? A week ago they were testing bombs and missiles, and making threats. Then the problem just...went away. Or at least fell off the front page. Today there's a story about the UN cutting off Kim's luxury goods, which experts agree probably won't make a difference.

So what happened? Did Obama somehow make some behind-the-scenes deal to make Kim Jong Il back off? Or has the media just conveniently forgotten to cover anything that would embarrass their president? I really hope it's the former and not the latter, because I'd hate to see N. Korea suddenly back in the news in the form of a nuke on Juneau.

Making sense of the GM bankruptcy

Keith Hennessey has an excellent post on the GM bankruptcy and the government's role in it (hat tip Instapundit). He points out something I missed this time around, and in all fairness, I should bring it up:

The objecting creditors will now defend their rights in court. If the Chrysler precedent is an example, you should bet against them. It is interesting that the President did not attack them as “speculators” this time, so at least the rhetorical leverage against them is weakened.

It does seem that Obama has toned down his anti-investor, anti-business rhetoric lately. Could it be he's been listening to advisors who have been telling him "ix-nay on the ame-calling-nay, sir. We're going to need these people some day."

I hope it's because he realized he was doing more damage than good with such talk. I'm afraid it's just because that particular line of attack is currently needed. But even with the media in his pocket, you can only send the message of "we need to stimulate the economy so those greedy, filthy capitalists can put people back to work" so long before people catch on to the contradiction.

GOP reponse to Sotomayor gives America no credit

The GOP is afraid. They see the Sotomayor nomination as a nearly insurmountable problem. They can't protest her nomination without alienating the Hispanic vote. Or so they say.

I think what they're really saying is that they can't control their own message. They either can't or won't make it clear what their real reasons are, so they're preparing to lose the battle to win the war. Or something like that.

I don't think they even know what war it is they're fighting. It's not a fight over minority voting blocks. It's a fight over who can and should lead this country. It's a fight over what this country's values should be.

We already know the Democrats will pander to minorities long enough to get their vote, and then stiff them. Why would Republicans want to duplicate this tactic?

Here's a revolutionary idea: Stand for something and see how many people rally to your cause. Go on the record as to why you oppose Sotomayor. Make it clear it's because of X, Y, and Z in her judicial record, or A, B, C in her stated beliefs. Make no mention of her race. Wait for the Democrats to call it a race issue, then simply kick the stool out from under them: "America has elected a black president, proving once and for all that we're beyond such pettiness. Won't you please join us in the 21st century?"

When they duck and cover in anticipation of Democrat accusations of racism they only reinforce the idea that there is actually something to it. That, and they give America no credit for having a brain. They don't think we notice that the race card gets played by the left all the time. They don't think we can see through it. They don't think we'd recognize a principled stand when we see one.

Give us some credit. And give yourselves a boost. Stand up for something. Show you've got a spine. We're looking for a few good vertibrates.

Political Correctness unmasked

Alfonzo Rachel has a new video up at Pajamas Media that's well worth watching. Don't let the jive-talk fool you. There's substance behind his humor. Some NSFW language.

Salute to the Greatest Generation

Some local organization has sponsored a B-25 bomber to fly in to town. It's been making occasional loops over the city today. I was out mowing the lawn during on fly-over, so I stopped and watched it for awhile. I was amazed at how big, slow, and noisy it was.

I tried to imagine going to war in an aircraft like that. They would spend the better part of a day on missions in amazing cold and thin oxygen--they often had to use breather masks. Their planes were easy targets for any fighters that came along. Hours of boring flight interspersed with moments of intense anxiety and terror for a minute or two aiming and dropping bombs. And then turn around and do it all again on the way out.

And they did this over and over again.

I pretty much believe we have forgotten just what an amazing thing they did in turning back such an enormous global threat through sheer willpower with weapons largely primitive by today's standards. I wonder if we have that fortitude and clarity of purpose today.

Those who lived it won't try to remind us of what they did. They're largely quiet about it. I think they discovered early on that the only ones who even could understand it were the others who went through it too. Everyone else...how do you describe something like that?

It's our loss, because we're going to need what they had someday. I hope we can still find it.

Fumbling Toward Employment

It's not been nearly a month since I was laid off. In some ways it's been a very encouraging month. I've had more interviews in a month than I had in five months last time. I'm at least attracting attention. Five years have made a difference in my marketability, evidently.

On the other hand, it's hard to know what to plan for. If it's going to be difficult to find a job, then I might be better off exploring some of my self-employment options and lining up some volunteer work. But if there really is something out there just around the corner, then perhaps I should be devoting more time to my job hunt.

Then, of course, there's the outplacement service paid for by my previous employer. They have a very specific program the recommend that they assure us can make a huge difference in our job hunting. But to do everything they recommend could take several weeks just in preparations. That's a lot of time that could be invested elsewhere.

Of course I can work a little at each option, but is that going to be effective?

I can feel myself slipping into paralysis by analysis. Part of me would really like to run away for a few days and just sit on top of a mountain and think for a few days. If I were single and with no kids and had this much savings I know what I'd do in an instant.

But it's not that simple. I have people depending on me. It's both a positive and a negative. They keep me motivated to keep working at...something. But they also keep me from taking any significant risks.

In the mean time I feel like I'm being nibbled to death by cats...or is it ducks? Gah, Babylon 5 has screwed me up forever. We've got a tree--the only remaining tree in our back yard--that is looking sickly. So we've got someone coming tomorrow to examine it. There goes my morning and a week's worth of grocery money. My den is a mess, so I reorganized it and found a bunch of things that can be stored away in the garage. But before I can store things in the garage I need to organize the garage. Before I can organize the garage I need decent weather that won't soak everything I have to put out in the driveway temporarily. And on and on.

So with all of this I probably sound pretty down. I'm not...not entirely. I know somehow this is all going to work out, and probably for the better. It's just that in-between part that I'm not so good at.

Do you know what I miss most about my old job right now? My teleconferencing headphones. They had some really good sound quality and didn't leak a lot of noise. I've got nothing even remotely comparable at home. If I did I think I'd put on some Billy Joel (Best of, Disc 2) and have a good "blue funk" session and get all of this restlessness and frustration out of my system.

Of course knowing me I'd probably start singing along too loudly and wake up the boys. See, I'm determined to be in a downer mood tonight. Don't mind me. I'm tired. I'll be fine in the morning.

Obama carries out threat against Chrysler bondholders

Tom Lauria, former legal counsel for some of the bondholder firms involved in the Chrysler bankruptcy, claims the White House threatened to use the press corps to destroy the reputation of one of his clients if they continued to oppose the proposed deal. The White House has denied this, and a spokesman for the client has as well.

It is interesting, though, that no one seems to be questioning whether the press corps could or would be used in such a manner. One could argue that they don't need to questions, as the press is above reproach. One would be wrong, and entirely out of touch with current events. One need look no further than Newsweek yesterday to see how happy the media is to offer free PR work to the White House.

No, the only issue is whether the threat was made, not whether it would have been carried out. In fact the threat is being carried out as we speak.

Obama has made his stance clear: "While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."

Obama further echoed his theme of the investor class as greedy parasites: "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."

What is the sacrifice that the bondholders were asked to accept? They are supposed to accept 29 to 33 cents on the dollar for their stake (reports vary), compared with 50 cents on the dollar offered to the UAW. The bondholders were reportedly holding out for the same 50 cents offered to others. Not all sacrifices are equal, evidently.

And just who are these money-grubbing holdouts? According to Lauria, his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt".

Pension plans, retirement plans, college endowments, and credit unions. So these awful, greedy investors are retirees, students, and families trying to save. Somehow these people are less important to Obama than Chrysler's management, suppliers, and dealers. Never mind that the same people who supposedly want to buy Chrysler-made cars are the very same retirees and families he's claiming are not willing to sacrifice.

Then there are the legal ramifications. Lauria described the debt held by these bondholders as "very secure first lien debt". The UAW's take has been described as unsecured. Legally, in any normal bankruptcy proceeding, the bondholders would have to be paid first. Anything left over would go to the UAW. So is it really so selfish of the bondholders to give up their prior claim and settle for being treated merely equal with the UAW?

It is to President Obama. The bondholders, in his opinion, should sacrifice by going from the front of the line to the back, while the UAW should "sacrifice" by stepping to the front.

Let's call a spade a spade, folks. Obama's plan for screwing average Americans in favor of his union pals is the worst kind of politics. It's cronyism. What's worse is that Obama is doing precisely what the White House denies he threatened to do: he is using the media to try to discredit the bondholders who dare insist that they be treated merely equally, let alone fairly and legally.

Swine flu and the media

Does the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak help or hurt? The obvious answer is "yes."

The media often goes too far in pushing a story. They trumpet the frightening details in an attempt to make the stories more "personal and accessible", yet often fail to provide any perspective.

The swine flu story is a good case in point. Often touted is the statistic of "over 150 deaths in Mexico". Buried much further down is the fact that over 2000 persons have contracted the disease. That makes the mortality rate 7.5%--high by American standards, to be sure, but no statistics are given on the mortality rate of more normal flu viruses in Mexico. Besides, Mexican health care and American health care are no comparable.

On the contrary, so far the opposite seems true. Over 75 cases have now been reported in six other countries world-wide, America included. So far there have been no deaths. If the Mexican mortality rate were the norm, then we could expect 5-6 deaths elsewhere so far. And compared with Mexico, the number of cases elsewhere represent only about 4% of the total worldwide spread.

Could this number increase? Quite probably. More advanced countries are already moving to slow or stop the spread of the disease, but other nations will likely experience much higher infection rates--some may even make Mexico seem statistically small by comparison. But I suspect that in the long run swine flu will be no more a pandemic than avian flu or SARS.

The media also does a poor job of deeper investigation. While this could be from a lack of information at this stage, there is doubtless more information they could provide. Of those 150 deaths in Mexico, how many were children or elderly--the typical victims of flu--as opposed to healthy adults? How many of those deaths already had poor health or other medical complications? We don't know, and the media is in no rush to find out.

But the reality is that while any death from flu is unfortunate, it is typically the weakest who succumb. The average adult in moderate to good health is unlikely to experience more than an inconvenience after contracting the virus. This is mostly under-reported in the media. The facts are often present, but seldom are the dots connected for easy public comprehension.

However, in spite of this, the media probably does as much or more than any other group to help stop the spread of such diseases. Knowledge is power. Those most likely to get the disease are those who do not know there is even a danger.

When the media pushes "epidemic" stories as they are doing with swine flu the public is aware and can act accordingly. While there is far more over-reaction than is necessary, when the general public takes steps to avoid infection it usually works. People become more health-conscious and start washing their hands more, using disinfectants more, and avoiding public places as much as they can. Those who get sick tend to stay home more readily, limiting the exposure to others. These tactics alone can be quite effective, even without vaccines or government programs.

Swine flu is not an epidemic. Nor is it likely to become one, at least in most countries. And while the media deserves some criticism for not providing more perspective, they should also be thanked for getting the word out. An informed public is a safer public.

Perez Hilton vs. Miss California - putting the "bully" in bully pulpit

Perez Hilton is an opportunist and a bully. In the latest Miss America pageant Miss California was the front-runner until she came up against Perez Hilton, who asked her if the rest of America should follow the lead of Vermont and legalize gay marriage. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, stated that she was opposed to gay marriage. Perez dinged her score and the second-place contestant went on to win.

Asked to defend his actions in an interview with the Today Show, Perez stated that she should have given a better answer, that she should have either taken a neutral line or declined to answer rather than offend. He felt she should have been prepared for the question, coming from California. He defended his question by claiming that Miss America has a responsibility to represent all of America, and at least some of America was offended by her response. He also suggested that his question was no more unfair than asking her if she approved of the current administration's economic policy.

He is nothing more than a bully and a coward. First of all, he used his position as a judge to advance his own political agenda. He raised the issue of gay marriage on national television. He probably even thought he would get the answer he wanted by asking Prejean either because she was from California, or just because wanted badly to win. Instead she voiced the opinion of the majority of Californians and Americans.

That was intolerable to Hilton, who then scuttled her bid to become Miss America.

His actions are intolerable. He honestly feels the best answer would either have been to agree with him or shut up. He honestly feels that Miss America is responsible to avoid disagreeing publicly with a minority. He honestly feels his question was no more unfair than asking about fiscal policy.

I'm willing to bet that had she instead been asked a question about fiscal policy and given an answer contrary to Hilton's own opinion he would have let it pass. In his mind that's in immaterial question. Gay marriage is everything, the only question that matters. It's his cause, and heaven help anyone who opposes his cause.

But, truth be told, Prejean would likely have offended more people with an answer on fiscal policy--in either direction--than she offended with her position on gay marriage. So why should her gay marriage position disqualify her? Obviously, in Hilton's mind, those two questions are NOT equal. He's a liar.

He's also representative of much of the gay rights movement. Their policy seems to be "agree with us or shut up".

My hat is off to Miss Prejean, who showed more integrity than Hilton has probably ever even seen before, let alone possessed. She would rather not win the competition than lie about or apologize for her beliefs.

If anything she deserves to be Miss America more than before. Is this not the model we want for our daughters? Don't we want our daughters to stand up to bullies, to stick by their beliefs, and not compromise their standards just to be popular?

Not to Hilton. To him gay marriage is the only issue that matters. It doesn't matter what happens to the moral fiber of America so long as he gets his way. Integrity and standing up to authority are all fine and good, so long as it's to advance his cause.

He does nothing to advance his cause in my eyes. I worry deeply about people like him being representative of the gay population and ever achieving positions of power. I don't feel that way about gay people specifically. I know several and I would feel quite comfortable voting them into any office in the land. But not Hilton. His abuse of power is sickening. His hijacking of a national television show to advance his own personal agenda cum vendetta is disgusting and intolerable.

Donald Trump is standing by him for now. The proof will be in whether Hilton is ever invited back. Probably. Trump knows the value of a good controversy, and morals are matters of convenience with him.

Andrea Tantaros puts it best:

Perez Hilton has since gone on an angry blogging tirade against Prejean’s answer calling her an absolutely reprehensible five-letter word and later an even more unacceptable four-letter word that begins with “c” on a mainstream news network. He later apologized for his remarks, but then retracted his apology. “She lost it because of that question,” he admitted. “She was definitely the front-runner before that.”

Let’s consider the source: Perez Hilton is an openly gay, unstable and unreasonable left-wing blogger who reports on rumors with great braggadocio — not even real news — and often outs closeted gays in the public eye. If he doesn’t have respect for other homosexuals or an individual’s right to privacy why would he have respect for anything else?

When people are arguing for tolerance and equal rights for gays they undermine their own argument when they resort to intolerant, hateful language that shows a complete disrespect for women. Whether you are talking about gay marriage or the price of coffee at Starbucks, it is absolutely unacceptable to use that language about females to advance your argument.

The double standard is astounding.

I didn’t hear the outrage when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama are against gay marriage. No incendiary language, no insults, no four letter obscenities.

Why is it acceptable for Obama and Biden to have this opinion but not a conservative female? And where are the women’s rights and feminist groups to speak out against this kind of language? Or gay rights groups to denounce this clown because he does nothing to advance their agenda of tolerance? The same place they were when other females who possessed traditional values or beliefs like Sarah Palin exercised their right to free speech and expressed these views: they’re nowhere to be found.

This is why I don't fear being called a hate-monger by the rabid gay movement. It's apparantly a compliment. The Left in general seems to desire tolerance, understanding, fairness, and cooperation only from their opponents. They don't need it themselves.

Perez Hilton and his ilk are hypocrits and bullies. They deserve contempt. The need to be stopped.

Unemployment - Day Two

"I realize there is no shame in being poor...but it's no great honor either!"
- Tevye, "Fiddler on the Roof"

I have dreams. Dreams that involve me doing what I most enjoy and making enough money to support my family at it.

The reality is that is will probably be quicker and easier to just keep trying to do what I've been doing for the past ten years. But I don't want to.

This is also the adjustment period. No one, including me, is used to having me home all day. Even though I spend most of it working at the computer, I'm still aware of them, and vice versa. I don't know whether I should try to insinuate myself into the normal rhythms of the family or not.

I searched my usual sites today, and not one of them had something I can apply for. Okay, one did, but the skills quiz that came up when I applied quickly convinced me I'm not the droids they're looking for.

In short, not the best of days. Though I did wrestle into submissions a technical problem on one of my websites. That felt good.

Media still doesn't get Tea Party Protests

My local paper did a very good article on the local Tea Party protests, but not all media are getting it. The majority of headlines I've seen--when I even see headlines--have read something like "Tea Party Protestors demonstrate against taxes".

That's both oversimplifying the issue and diverting it at the same time. I think most of the people at the protests were not protesting taxes as a concept. Most of us understand that there must be some means of providing for the national government to operate.

No, the issue is how BIG the national government should be allowed to get, and how far in debt they should be allowed to go. The issue is how both parties seem to have either lost all sense, or lost their sense of responsibility to their constituents. Perhaps both.

It's not just an anti-Obama movement, though contrary to campaign promises, he's certainly exacerbated the problem. And no, we don't forget the role the Bush administration played in this mess. We don't forget the role both parties played in this mess.

Don't think for a moment we're not suspicious of GOP attempts to embrace the Tea Party platform. While we'd love to think they've come to their collective senses we've been burned before. GOP, if you really mean it, stop talking and act. We're tired of talk. Give us action.

We're even more concerned, however, about the Democrats. They're the ones with both hands firmly on the wheel. That they continually dismiss, demean, and denigrate the protest shows that they just don't get it. That they can't stop talking about it shows that they do recognize it as a threat.

The funny thing is that, had this happened during the Bush administration, the Left would be lauding the movement as an amazing bi-partisanship grassroots effort in which every-day Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to speak truth to power. But there's been a changing of the guard, and now such efforts are painted as "despicable", "Shameful", and little more than a Republican front. (This from an Illinois congresswoman whose husband just plead guilty to tax violations and bank fraud.)

No, the Liberals just don't get it. Instead they use misdirection to obfuscate the message:

"It's despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians."

What is particularly significant and honorable about this moment in history? Oh yes, that Obama-first-black-president thing. I have three words for the Left:

GET OVER IT

It's great we elected a black president. But since when does being black preclude him from criticism? Does he somehow deserve special treatment for being black? Is a black president somehow more sensitive to criticism? Is a black president incapable of doing wrong? That's the most racist implication I've heard in a long time, and it's coming from the LEFT!

No, black, white, or polka-dotted, Obama is the president now. He should be subject to criticism. To imply otherwise is borderline facist.

So what, then, is particularly shameful about Americans of all political persuasions coming together to express concern about the future? THAT is what the moment is all about, no matter how Democrats and media try to paint it otherwise. It's not about taxes this week or this year. It's about the enormous deficits that have been run and are being escalated by someone who pledged to end them.

Perhaps we should have had enough under Bush, but the fact remains, we've had enough. We've lost control of government, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to regain control again. That's what the protests are about. It's about a government--both sides--that no longer represents its people.

And, to a degree, it's about a mainstream media who have willfully become the government's propaganda arm. How else can you explain this outburst from CCN's Susan Roesgan at the Chicago Tea Party:

CNN’s Susan Roesgen, an alleged “reporter” covering the Chicago Tea Party, lashed out at the participants like an angry MoveOn.org member. “What does this have to do with taxes?” she demanded of one attendee, as he held his 2-year old and spoke of personal liberty. “Don’t you realize you’re eligible for a tax credit,” she shouted at him. “Don’t you know that Illinois is getting stimulus money?”

Unable to get the participants to join her in support of Obama-nomics, Roesgen dismissed the event as “anti-government and anti-CNN, since this is highly promoted by right-wing, conservative network, Fox.”

I may be old fashioned, but my high school journalism teacher told us journalists were just supposed to get the facts and report them. They are not to render judgments, and they are not to attempt to persuade the subjects they are covering. They are to report the story, not become the story.

Add to this a government agency that preemptively tried to head off the protest by branding as right wing extremists pretty much anyone who supports certain issues:

The Department of Homeland Security released a pre-emptive “assessment report” on the dangers of “right-wing extremists” just a week before the tax protest rallies. According to DHS, these potentially include pro-lifers, supporters of border security and that notoriously unstable group - U.S. military veterans.

To conclude, I'll draw on Michael Graham of the Boston Herald:

And I can report that there were, in fact, quite a few vets at our Tea Party at Long Wharf. But other than their crazy notion that spending our kids into an $11 trillion hole is wrong, they didn’t appear to be unhinged.
...
Agree or disagree with the estimated 250,000 people who showed up at Tea Parties across the country, they deserve respect, not abuse. Declared suspect by their own government, targeted for insults from the “unbiased” media, they still showed up. They organized. They spoke out. And they did it without any free-speech bailouts.

It was true democracy in action. And that’s why liberals find it so scary.

Tea Party Protests Today

All across America today thousands of citizens will be gathering at Tax Day Tea Parties to protest the out-of-control spending of the Federal Government. Critics (usually on the Left) claim that non-partisan protests are really backed by the Republican Party, but such protests are disingenuous.

True, the Republicans would like to use these protests to hammer home their opposition to the current administration, but it wouldn't be nearly so easy for them if the Democrats hadn't surrendered the budgetary high ground so completely. Rather than show themselves the very models of fiscal restraint like President Obama promised in his campaign, the Democrats have spent money like it grows on trees--no, like it runs like rivers from the snowcaps. They opened themselves wide to this.

But make no mistake. Most everyone out there protesting today is just as fed up with the Republicans, especially those who switched sides to pass the Stimulus Bill and the Federal Budget. We feel the government in general has betrayed us and sold out our future.

The Democrats would prefer to--and have tried to--redirect the frustration and rage toward Wall Street in general, and AIG and GM specifically, but while they're part of the problem, they are not the problem. The problem is a government that doesn't do what it is supposed to do, and does what it shouldn't to make up for it.

Does the government really have the moral high ground to lecture Wall Street on poor business decisions? How can they be upset with AIG for over-leveraging themselves when the government turns right around and over-leverages itself? The only difference is that while AIG's customers and investors can take their money and go elsewhere, the government's customers and investors (ie. taxpayers) can't. We don't even get to attach condition on how our tax contributions are used.

Today is especially poignant. It's the day we're all forced to pay up, whether we like it or not, while a large number of our public officials have not paid up for years, and only do so when it appears their illegal activities may interfere with securing the posts they seek. Why do they get a pass and a cabinet seat, when the rest of us would get fines and jail time?

No, the Tax Day Tea Party protests are not about which party is right. It's about both of them and the government they have built being wrong. There's plenty of blame to go around. This is a warning shot across the bow. We want the mess cleaned up, and we don't care who does it, so long as someone does.

By downplaying, criticizing, or outright ignoring these protests the democrats and the media risk appearing as if they deserve the blame. Rather than oppose the protests as "GOP manipulation" the Democrats should jump on the bandwagon. There's room. Rather than sending out MoveOn and ANSWER to counter-protest they should join in and make sure the protest stay generalized. If they feel they're innocent they have nothing to fear. By getting defensive they risk painting themselves as the target.

Like I said, I don't care who cleans up this mess. Just clean it up. NOW!

Obama and the Somali pirate hostage situation

It seems everyone else is weighing in on this, so why not me too? Evaluations on Obama's handling of his "first international crisis" are mixed across the board. I'm reserving judgment, as as I see it, this one incident is not the crisis. It's one move in the chess game.

But in this one incident I see encouraging signs. The President authorized lethal force and left control of the situation at the local level. The Bainbridge's captain wasn't having to call for permission to have his snipers fire. He was able to react as he saw fit, and things turned out well.

Yet the fact that the situation went on as long as it did showed some patience and hope for a peaceful resolution from the top.

So it would appear that Obama's orders were to resolve it peacefully if possible, but protect the hostage's life at all costs. I approve. It was the right call for the situation, I think.

For the larger crisis I would like to see more action. Obviously what we're doing now isn't getting the job done. While I feel for the Somalis, who are forced to live with a dysfunctional government that cannot provide them better options than piracy, they clearly condone piracy and are dismayed that the international community is escalating the situation:

In Somalia, in the pirate haven of Harardhere, where locals have benefited from millions of dollars in pirate ransom, the military operation seemed like a bewildering display of force against four errant young men. "It was wrong to kill those pirates," said Aisha Gurey, an Arabic teacher. "The international community is wrong, and the pirates are wrong. But in this case, the strong one has killed the weak one." (Washington Post via MSNBC)

Obviously the pirates don't view the international community as the strong ones or they wouldn't be doing this. Unless we can somehow turn the Somali economy around (which would likely require invasion of Somalia) we're going to have to figure out how to make piracy not pay. We're not going to accomplish either without significant loss of life. The only question is which option is the better one.

The situation is only getting worse. It's time someone stepped up and took leadership of the situation. I'd like to see it be us, but I'm not holding my breath.

One side note: In darkness, 80-100 feet away, in rough seas. Three shots, three hits, first try. DANG! As I've probably said before, give our military an objective and get out of their way and you'll get results. Kudos to the SEAL sniper team and to our military in general.

UPDATE: Here's a Newsweek article on how France is handling pirates. They're nastier than we are, and it's getting them results. And evidently none of this talk of "escalation".

That would suggest that the pirates are not yet convinced of American resolve.

New Writing Gig: Examiner.com

Examiner.com is a Clarity Media Group venture that leverages local writers in 60 major markets across the US to provide local, expert content. I've applied and been accepted as the Boise Business Strategies Examiner.

My debut article can be found here. Most Boiseans are familiar with Metro Express Car Wash by now, but I look a little deeper into how they use their electronic sign as an entry point to get people into their online marketing.

So take a look if you like. I should be posting something every few days.

When Less is Really Less

I read an interesting post from Havi over at The Fluent Self about a situation that runs contrary to conventional wisdom.

She was waiting for a massage at her favorite business and discussing masseuses with the clerk when she found out that the employees there were offered free massages by the masseuses so that they could become accustomed to their work and be able to refer customers.

The clerk had yet to use his massage. He was saving it up for some time when he really needed it. Most of the clerks were doing the same.

So the writer asked them all what their response would be if the masseuses offered a massage for only $12. They all agreed that they'd sign up to get one that very day, because it was such a good deal.

It seems counterintuitive, but it's true. I know I've sat on several free things in case I needed them later. Sometimes "free" becomes too valuable to use just any old time.

10,000 Hours

The other day I read Orson Scott Card's latest review column. He reviews a book by Malcolm Gladwell entitled "Outliers: The Story of Success". Success, it seems, does not necessarily come from intelligence or circumstance:

But it's more than talent, and more than luck. How about 10,000 hours?

The number is approximate, but that's about how much practice and work the "geniuses" put into their careers to take them over the threshold into the big leagues.

Sure, there's some natural talent or aptitude. But then comes decision time -- are you going to really do this, or just continue plinking around at it?

Musicians. Painters. Writers. Mathematicians. Computer programmers. Game designers. Actors. Singers. They don't sit around feeling good about themselves and building up their self-esteem. They do the work. They put in the time.

So let's assume this is true. 10,000 hours is approximately 5 years if you put in 8 hours a day. I'm nearly 40. By that standard, I should be able to be successful at 8 different things by now.

Now I realize that's not a fair assessment to make. But the point I'm trying to get to is this: I may have skills that I could be successful in, even if I haven't consciously been developing those skills. I think we all could. So is it that far off to think that if I were to find a way to link several of those skills together in marketable form that I could indeed become wildly successful if I devote another five years to developing and channeling that combination?

I don't think so. It makes sense. It feels right. I have a goal that by the end of this year I am going to know exactly what my next 10,000 hours is going to go towards. Five years from now I'm going to be successful at something, even if it's considerably different from what I'm doing now.

Counterintuitive, or Just Wrong?

Penn Jillete has an editorial on CNN's website, in which he discusses the things he's learned in life that are counterintuitive. Things like turning into a skid or eating fire. He then applies it to Obama's spend-our-way-out-of-debt policies:

Obama tells us that we can spend our way out of debt. He tells us that even though the government had control over the banks and did nothing to stop the bad that's going on, if we give them more control over more other bank-like things, then they can make sure bad stuff doesn't happen ever again. He says we can get out of all those big wars President Bush caused by sending more troops into Afghanistan. And I don't know. I really don't know.
...
But there are some things that are just intuitive. Did you know, that if you're going 100 mph, directly at a very, very thick, reinforced concrete wall, and you speed up, so you're accelerating right when you hit the wall that the accident you have is going to be much worse than if you'd jammed on the brakes as soon as you saw the wall at the end of the street? Did you know that? It's exactly what everything you know and feel would tell you, and it's exactly true. Most times when you're driving, or playing with fire, or handling money, the thing that makes sense to you is also true.

I way hope we're turning into a skid and not accelerating into a concrete wall.

It's nice to see a celebrity admit that he simply has misgivings about something and doesn't know for a fact that we're all in deep doo-doo. I could probably learn something from that.

Kodak Moment?

I was listening in on a conference call from my den this morning when my daughter came in. "Daddy," she said, "since you're losing your job and won't be able to make any money I wanted to give you some of mine." Awwwww.... That tugging sound would be my heartstrings.

She then proceeded to place three coins in my hand--make that Chuck E. Cheese tokens. "April Fools!" she laughed. Ornery little snipe!

She's eight, so I don't know that she understands how to turn convention on its head. But then she is pretty smart, so perhaps she did, if even subconsiously.

Speaking of April Fools jokes, here's a good one from the Guardian in the UK. They announced they're going to switch to Twitter as their publishing medium. It's fortunate I was not drinking when I read this part:

A mammoth project is also under way to rewrite the whole of the newspaper's archive, stretching back to 1821, in the form of tweets. Major stories already completed include "1832 Reform Act gives voting rights to one in five adult males yay!!!"; "OMG Hitler invades Poland, allies declare war see tinyurl.com/b5x6e for more"; and "JFK assassin8d @ Dallas, def. heard second gunshot from grassy knoll WTF?"