You can't win the war until you win the battle

Over at PajamasTV they're calling a cautious victory for the health care and budget protesters.

Color me jaded, but I can't believe it was that easy. I still hear lots of rhetoric from the White House about pushing Health Care through. If they're pulling back at all it's just to try their next favorite tactic: stall and hope everyone forgets about it.

I don't think the Administration has learned anything yet. I don't think they're listening yet. I think they're only pretending to listen. They're appearing to change their minds, but at the same time they still protest about the protests. That doesn't appear to me to be a concession. I think it's more like the kid to, when mom says no, goes and asks dad.

So what is America to do now? Keep up the pressure. We've got their attention, at least, and that's more than we've been able to do previously. It's a start. But we need to keep holding their feet to the flame, and we need to stay vigilant. They are going to try an end-run at least once before they actually concede any kind of defeat.

In the mean time, we can also raise the level of discourse:

- No more shouting matches, please. That's so "Bush Era". We're different. Let's show it. Be respectful, but don't be a push-over.

- No more guns at protests. That was stupid, even for a radio show stunt. It distracts from the real message we're trying to send. Stop it.

- No more "Kill Obama, his wife and kids" signs. That person got detained--and quite frankly, should be arrested. That's beyond the coverage of the First Amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if they were an Obama-backer hoping to do their man a favor by discrediting the legitimate protesters.

- Do not forget. Those of you in areas where your elected officials have been hiding from you or talking down to you--remember that. They're counting on our faulty collective memory to kick in before the next election. Do not forget. Vote them out. Support the reps. who are listening and get it. I don't usually vote Democrat at the national level, but right new we've got a Democratic representative in our area who is listening, is talking sense, and largely voting the way I would like. If he keeps it up I will vote for him next time. People like that deserve our support.

- Stay informed. A vigilant populace is our only guard against unresponsive and oppressive government. And it's not just this administration. Though I agreed with some of what the previous administration did, they were just as deaf when it came to listening to the people. I understand what some of you were feeling back then a little better now. Whether we agree on the issues is irrelevant. We need to join together to force our government to start listening again.

- Do the "reaching out" that they refuse to do. Remember all of that talk of bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and reaching across the aisle? It didn't happen, did it. But let's not let them drive a wedge between Americans. Let's show them a good example. Let's start talking to each other. Let's start working out problems ourselves. Let's start treating each other with respect, try to understand where each other is coming from, and see if we can't find a third option that moves us in a better direction.

- Turn off the Professional Outrage Squad. Both sides have them. They're not doing us any favors. Their jobs, as they see it, is not to bring people together. They're to stir up the flock to keep sending them drawing a paycheck. As much as I like Glenn Beck's "Common Sense", I still will not listen to his shows. He always sees the worst in everything the other side does. We don't need that.
< >< >< >< >It's like my kids when they get in these moods where they are constantly watching each other to find something to tattle about. No one is giving anyone even the slightest bit of room for error. Everyone is holding on to every little piece of ammunition they can get. We're still hearing about Michelle Obama's "For the first time I'm proud..." speech. I think she misspoke then, and I don't care to keep hearing about it now.

It's not too late to turn America around. It's not too late to return decency to our national dialogue. It's not too late to build bridges so that even when we don't get our way on issues we don't start reaching for the torches and pitchforks. Wouldn't it be nice to feel like we were at least heard first, and that perhaps the result we disagree with was at least modified out of respect for our point of view?

It can happen. But We The People have to make it happen. Our government won't do it for us. We have to make them. And that starts with re-making ourselves.

Town hall, Idaho style

Tonight I got a call from my congressman--or at least his auto-dialer--inviting me to a telephone town hall, one of at least two he's conducting this month. I decided to join. Everyone was polite and calm on both sides of the health care issue, and Mr. Minnick did a pretty good job of explaining where he stands on things and why. This is what town halls should be, and would be if more congresspersons treated their constituents with the respect Mr. Minnick shows us.

Walt Minnick is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who supposedly convinced Pelosi to slow things down and not take a vote until after the August recess. If so, good for him. And while I can't say I agree with everything he said, I think if he can stick to his guns he'll do a good job for us when he goes back. If there has to be health care reform, I'd prefer his version of it to anything else I've heard so far.

I'm still jaded enough by politics to not want to believe Minnick is for real, but he's off to a good start if he's trying to make a believer out of me. I didn't vote for him, but next time around I just might.

Rewriting Godwin's Law

"Godwin's Law" is an observation made by attorney and author Mike Godwin, which states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."

Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.

Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.

I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.

Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.

In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.

But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?

The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.

Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.

Iconography and Obama

Bill Whittle is back with another thought-provoking segment on the power of iconography.

And while we're touting videos, here's Ed Driscoll's interview with Chris Muir, creator of "Day By Day", one of my favorite cartoons (Ed didn't ask the question I'd have asked, which is: Is Zed modeled after Muir himself?)

Muir just completed a fund-raising drive which evidently exceeded the goal, which I'm pleased to see. I'm also hoping to be in better financial shape (ie. employed) next time so I can contribute. He's certainly on my list of sites I would like to support.

And who would I like to support, you may ask? Well...in no particular order:

Michael Totten
Chris Muir (Day By Day)
Pajamas Media - Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachel, Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, et al.
Michael Yon
James Lileks

Do I think you should, too? Why yes, of course! If you have some spare change, check them out and leave a tip. Tell 'em Thom sent you.

John Mackey, Obamacare, and public opinion

Now that I've read the Op/Ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in the Wall Street Journal I really don't understand what the big deal is.

Don't get me wrong. This is not about Free Speech. I uphold Mackey's right to say what he said. I uphold the right of the readers to boycott Whole Foods if they so desire. Freedom of Speech should never guarantee freedom from consequences for that speech. If you're going to say something that annoys your support base you should be prepared to take a hit, whether you're John Mackey or Natalie Maines (or Arlen Specter).

No, this post is about what liberals say and what they do. One of the main criticisms being leveled at those protesting against the Health Care Reform bill is that they are shutting down discussion and disallowing dialogue.

Mackey's article is a calm, rational discussion of alternatives to what is currently on the table. But just because he does not agree with universal health care it appears that the liberals are unwilling to read any farther than the second paragraph. I'll bet if they did they'd find they agree with him on at least a few points. Even if they disagree with everything, they would likely benefit from hearing what other people think.

Don't liberals espouse the value of differing viewpoints? Or does that only apply to ethnicity and sexual orientation?

To be fair, the political right is just as bad. Both sides seem to focus much of their attention on keeping people from listening to anyone from the other side. They aren't conducting a war on their ideological opposites so much as a joint offensive against moderation. They don't want anyone reaching over the wall they built. They have no interest in reaching across the aisle--they'd rather turn the aisle into a demilitarized zone where anyone who dares to venture will be shot on sight!

The sad thing is that if we we would take more time to listen we just might find we CAN find an answer that we can all agree on. Health Care reform could be possible. Universal Health Care could be doable. But as long as our politics allows for no middle ground we'll never accomplish anything that doesn't alienate at least half of the country.

The middle ground is where the answers can be found. John Mackey tried to take us there. No good deed goes unpunished.

Oops! I picked the wrong side!

According to this article, the Obama administration is offering $15 an hour to protest in favor of his health care proposal (big misnomer, really, since he didn't write any of it and admits to having no idea what is in it). Unfortunately for me I already caved to the insurance companies and have been speaking out against it. Boy did I screw that up. Obama pays much better than the big, bad insurance companies! I haven't received a single darn penny for my efforts so far.

But it's our side of the debate that's being dismissed as "astroturf", while the other side is the one hauling in professional protestors. Isn't all this "truthiness" great?

Call Me Un-American

I am the mob. I am a racist, fascist nazi pawn of the Health Insurance industry. Not only that, I must be stupid, because I'm not getting anything from the Health Insurance industry except...the health insurance I pay for. There's no hack like a stupid hack. And alas, alack, I am a hack.

Because Nancy Pelosi says so. And Nancy Pelosi wouldn't lie to you.

She and Steny Hoyer have a column up at USA Today in which they make the case for Americans sitting down, shutting up, and letting Congress do what's best for everyone. It really is a precious piece of cynicism, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy. Where to begin...

"Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care."

I don't know about that. I've been enjoying quality, affordable health care for only about 39 years. But then I work hard, save my money, and plan for such expenses. Which makes me a chump, of course.

"From President Lyndon Johnson to President Bill Clinton, to President Obama's winning campaign on the promise of reform, there hasn't been a more debated domestic issue than the promise of affordable health care for all."

Oh, so that's why you want no debate on it this time, because it's been debated in the past. Oh, and Obama was elected on many things, and to suggest that the only reason we voted him into office was to screw up Health Care is disingenuous.

"The failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation's history — it is well worth the time it takes to get it right."

Unless, of course, "getting it right" means doing nothing. Shouldn't all these past failures tell you something? WE DON'T WANT IT! AT LEAST NOT THE BRAND YOU'RE PEDDLING!

"Already, three House committees have passed this critical legislation..."

Meaning....? Obviously three House committees is no endorsement, or you would have supported the War in Iraq as vehemently as you do this nonsense.

"... and over August, the two of us will work closely with those three committees to produce one strong piece of legislation that the House will approve in September."

Even if we don't want it? Aren't you missing something. It's fitting that she refers to the governing body as "the House", as she's obviously forgetting the representative mission of that body. You are supposed to represent us, not cram things down our throats.

"In the meantime, as members of Congress spend time at home during August, they are talking with their constituents about reform. The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people we represent."

And this is why the majority of the meetings our elected officials are holding do not even allow questions about the health care legislation? Is this why so many representatives are not interesting in "dialogue" but just telling us what we want? Is this why so many of them end up yelling at their constituents, hurling accusations and contempt? Is this why union members are beating up protestors?

"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent..."

...anyone who is against this bill as un-American, fascist, elitist, paid hacks, but to silence any opposition? Oops, I'm jumping the gun, even if it is true...

"...the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."

I will agree with her some here. If there are people who are shouting others down then that's rude. But most of the videos I've seen has involved heckling the speaker, something left protestors have been doing without any criticism from Madam Pelosi for years. Does that mean that everyone has free speech, but some have more of it than others?

"These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion."

Like I said, this just looks like a case of "we can dish it out, but we can't take it. For shame, Pelosi. We saw WORSE than this about Bush. Where were you then? Holding the noose?

"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

No, creating bad legislation is how you failed at this task for decades. You have the media firmly in your corner. If they can't get the message our there for you it's because you have no message. We're not afraid of the facts. But it's hard to believe our congressmen are giving us the facts when many of them admit to not having read the bill. How can they possibly give us the facts?

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, is TRYING to give us the facts, but YOU don't seem to be listening.

"Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts."

Why? If you'd had your way this bill would already be passed BEFORE anyone could learn the facts. In fact, nearly every bill you've crammed through so far has been as quickly as possible lest Americans get a chance to learn the facts and engage in dialogue and debate. Pelosi, thy name is hypocrit.

"Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket."

Uhm...most health plans I've ever seen already have a preventive care component. Even after I was laid off I had people from my former employer's health plan calling me to work out a healthy lifestyle plan. Any decent insurer gets it already. Probably better than the government does.

"This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation. We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics."

...because you intend to intimidate, malign, and discredit all critics until there are none left!

Good luck with that. You've already made it obvious that you'd prefer to do everything without any debate. That is WHY our elected officials are getting such pushback. It's a new thing for them, but it's long overdue.

"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal."

What polls does she read? Certainly not this one.

"This fall, at long last, we must reach it."

Why? Tell me why we must, other than your poll consisting of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Is it because you haven't managed to kill off the economy yet? Is it because you haven't spent enough money yet this year, in spite of campaign promises of cutting the budget? I'm not necessarily opposed to health care reform, but not the expansive, not this expensive, and not when we can't even afford the amount of government we've got. Enough of this deficit spending. I know Pelosi et al just want to get the main spending over with and out of the way before next year's election season, but that's is the worst possible reason. If these bills are so good they should stand up to the debate of a campaign season. If you're so proud of it, wouldn't it be a great campaign point? The very fact that they want to hide this before then indicates they know what a scam this is.

Let's not forget, too, that these elected representatives who care so much about Americans and the environment want to buy a bunch more airplanes for congressional travel, even though the military claims we don't need all of them. As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe it's a problem when those who are telling me it's a problem ACT like it's a problem.

To quote columnist Ron Hart:

If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his surgeon general who is obese, signed by a president who smokes, and financed by a country that is just about broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

It's a shame that Pelosi had to squander her opportunity. She had a national forum in USA Today. This was the perfect opportunity to present the "facts" she cares so much about and make her case for Health Care Reform. Instead she maligned concerned Americans who are so frustrated by their elected officials they feel they have no recourse but to protest. Instead she gave us broad, unsubstantiated generalizations that amount to little more than "it'll be great. Trust us."

Miss Pelosi, we don't trust you. That is why we're protesting. Get your fingers out of your ears and listen, like you claim our representatives are eager to do.

Instead she's too busy doing the very thing she accuses her opposition of doing: ABCNews Blog: "Partisan Mobs with Lies About Health Reform," Democrats Rally Their Own Activists to Visit Members of Congress at Town Halls, District Offices.

Miss Pelosi, have you forgotten that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?

Excuse me?

Why was it that during the Bush administration any demonstration or protest--or even mob action--by the Left was heralded as a victory for freedom of speech, but now when independents and conservatives are protesting and demonstrating they're "mobs" and "extremists"? What happened to "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"? Why is it wrong to question the actions of the administration when they have repeatedly made inexcusable attempts to leave no room for debate themselves?

More on this at Hot Air:

Needless to say, this is the left’s pitiful — and ironic, given the lip service paid above to “thoughtful discussion” — strategy to win the ObamaCare debate by framing the GOP as stone-cold nuts before its own message machine gets rolling during the recess this month. Already today, we’ve had Axelrod whining on MSNBC about “fearmongering” (more irony!), Boxer fretting about people in suits “storming” the town halls, and smilin’ Dick Durbin lamenting that “tea baggers” are trying to turn the meetings into “free for alls.” Isn’t that what the left did for years in public meetings about the war, asked Jake Tapper of Gibbs earlier today.

And more here, as well:

- People who want Congress to take more time debating healthcare are shutting down debate.
- Pres. Obama says the time for talk on healthcare is over, but his critics are trying to shut down debate.
- Harrassing and threatening the families of AIG employees is awesome; razzing Representatives and Senators is totally bogus!
- Asking Representatives and Senators to read bills before voting on them is killing democracy.
- Sen. Specter saying “we have to make judgments very fast” is awesome. Booing him for saying so is shutting off debate.
- Healthcare protesters are thugs shutting off debate; antiwar protesters are “rowdy.”

Heaven help us all if we are not allowed to speak out against issues that affect us all. What happened to representative government? I may not have liked what many of the left protesters had to say, but I would never have questioned their right to protest. I guess it was expecting too much that they would return the courtesy--I mean, right.

HOA gripe session

I am president of my HOA. Last night I had someone stop by my house to pay their dues (four months late) and to complain about my Vice President's lack of tact in collections. I'll concede right away that my VP is probably not tactful when he goes to collect. Do his job for awhile and you'd lose any tact you had, too.

But let me continue on to the rant by saying this: If you don't like my VP getting upset with you then PAY YOUR DOGGONE DUES ALREADY!!!! You see, the problem with these people's complaints about my VP is that they're simultaneously proving it works. They hate my VP, but they pay their dues. They didn't pay after the two overdue notices and the regular reminders in the newsletter. They paid after someone appeared on their doorstep and got cross with them.

Yet they want me to drop the tactic that seems to work. Why does this not make sense to me?

Another standard complaint is "Why make such a big deal over $40?" (Our HOA dues are really low!) Well, how about this? Why are you making such a big deal over $40. Just pay already! Are you suggesting that you would pay up immediately if it were a lot higher? I don't think so. Why am I making a big deal over $40? Because 95% of the neighborhood have already paid up, most of them without complaint or any extra measures on our part. These people should not be made out to be chumps by the other 5%.

I've also now heard "My lawyer friend said I don't have to pay until the end of the year". Has your lawyer friend read our CC&Rs? Is your lawyer friend going to pay your dues for you? Shut up about the lawyer friend. I have a lawyer on retainer who says you have to pay, and if you don't I can charge interest and slap a lien on your house for the overdue amount plus legal fees. You wanna go there?

I might. It would be easier for me to just turn this all over to lawyers and bill collectors. We might get on your doorstep and get in your face. They'll ruin your credit rating and make you pay $260 minimum for a $40 bill. Which do you prefer?

Don't give me the "hardship" sob story, either. I'm unemployed. I paid. I know people with health problems. They paid. I requested in the newsletter for people to let me know if there are problems so we can work something out. Very, very few have taken me up on it. We can work with you, but we're not mind-readers.

There is a soldier in our neighborhood who will be on deployment when dues come around next year. If anyone has a good excuse to dodge dues, or at least put them off, it's him. But does he? No. He's made arrangement with his family to pay while he's gone. And he's told me almost a year in advance. I know his situation, and should his family forget to pay I will not be making a big deal about it. Neither will my VP. We will wait patiently until he gets home. Heck, I may even cover him myself.

Anyway, I am sick to death of people who think the rules don't apply to them and get mad at us when we insist that they do. Pay your dues, people. If you don't like my VP then stop ignoring our mail notices. Pay on time or tell us why you can't and when you will. Ignore us and we'll be forced to make it hard for your to ignore us.

Yes, it's a big fuss over $40. But you started it, not us. There are 80-90 other responsible people who we have to stand up for. It's not fair to them for us to let you get off.

Grow up and be responsible.

Gates-gate: What can we learn?

A neighbor sees someone trying to force their way into a house and calls the police. The police show up and find that someone still in the house. They request to see ID. And things get fuzzy from there, turning into a national issue that helped the President of the United States stick his foot in his mouth at a time it should have been talking about his health care reform. The whole incident doesn't really end when the President invites both parties to the White House for a beer.

I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn.

The real loser in this is Lucia Whalen, the neighbor who called the police. She has been defamed far and wide by Gates' defenders. That is completely wrong. She should be applauded. If one of my neighbors saw me forcing their way into my house and called the cops I'd go right over there and thank them, because mistake or not, at least she was paying attention and willing to do something to protect my property.

Lucia Whalen, thank you! As a home-owner and home-owners association president I would like to say I wish there were more people like you.

Of course we can also learn that perhaps we don't do enough these days to get to know our neighbors. Perhaps if people were closer in Gates' neighborhood Whalen would have recognized him and not had to call the cops. That's not her failing. That's America's failing.

I shudder to think about what lessons we can learn about race and politics. All I know is that if I had just had difficulty getting into my home and the police show up investigating reports of a burglary I would 1) show them my identification immediately and without talking back, and once they are convinced I live there, 2) thank them for protecting my property and doing their (very difficult) jobs. I would not have ended up in jail, because I would have done nothing to get myself there. But if I had, you can bet the charges would not have been dropped, either.

I am concerned, any racial overtones aside, that our President admits publicly that he doesn't know the facts of the case but in the same breath passes judgment anyway. There was no reason for him to make a statement at that time and in that way. He deserves to get beaten up in the polls because of it. It was a foolish, easily-avoided mistake.

One final lesson, one of forgiveness and humanity:

Gates castigated Crowley in person and in the media, yet Crowley still helps him down the steps. He had every reason to dislike Gates, and to let him get himself down the steps. No one would have thought anything of it, likely. But he helped anyway. That, folks, is the measure of a man.

A Salute to Station 7

Yesterday we got a real treat. Our home teacher from church is a fireman. We mentioned to him once that the kids would love to visit a fire station some time. He invited us to come visit his. We finally had time to take him up on it yesterday, and made the arrangements.

The first thing we learned was that our friend is not just a fireman. He's a battalion chief. The second thing we learned is that firefighters are very good hosts. They bent over backward to show us anything we wanted to see.


For example, they were more than happy to run out their big truck (we also learned the difference between a "truck" and an "engine") and give us a ride in the basket. They didn't take it up to its full height at all, I'm sure, but we were above the power lines. I was amazed at how sturdy it was. Other than minor jolts when it started to move, it was nearly as stable as being on the ground.



Our friend also gave us a tour of all their trucks and engines and a look at all their equipment. He let us try on his equipment as well. I tried the entire outfit, and I'm glad I don't have to be a fireman in my current shape. It was all I could do to move around, let alone run up several flights of stairs, hack down a door, and drag out a 200-pound person.

Emma wanted to try the outfit, too, though she could only handle the turnout coat and helmet.

E.T. phone home!



Everyone, including we parents, found it all fascinating. There is so much behind the scenes that you never think about. For example, all of their stoves and ovens are connected to the alarm. If a call comes in it automatically shuts everything down so that nothing burns while they're away.

They also have ventilation hoses attached to the exhaust pipes of each vehicle that turns on automatically to vent the exhaust outside when they start up the vehicles and get them rolling. They can just drive off, and it's rigged in such a way that the hose comes off automatically as they leave. It also triggers the door to close after they leave.



The kids also got to try running one of their smaller hoses, one they use for brush-fires. What kid doesn't dream of getting to use a fire hose? What parent wouldn't also like to get their hands on one, even if they wouldn't admit it openly?

Anyway, we had a great time and learned a lot! Thanks again to John and the men of Station 7! We appreciate everything you do to help keep our city safe. We definitely appreciate a lot more just what a complex job it can be. Thank you for your service!

Hindsight is not always 20/20

Bill Whittle continues his interview with WWII veteran Leon Cooper, who admits that before the war he was an isolationist, during the war didn't think it was justifiable, but afterward came to realize that it was absolutely necessary. And he gets mad at people who sit back with 60 years of removal and second-guess it all.

Well worth watching.

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.