Pursuing Happiness

Will You Shop on Thanksgiving?

2011-11-20T18:55:00.003-05:00

I'm probably not their Target (or Walmart) customer but I am interested in the trend for moving Black Friday up a day.

Part of me looks at this question and wonders what the draw is? Does the extra 4 to 8 hours of shopping really make a difference? If you really want to increase the shopping opportunities between Thanksgiving and Christmas, how about simply keeping doors open later? Open at 8 AM and close at midnight, or go 24 hours.

If you want to draw more customers in during those extended hours ... offer loss leaders on other days than Black Friday.

Then we get to the question of "Do we really need to sacrifice the family time of Thanksgiving so retailers can make a few more bucks?" Now I've shopped on Thanksgiving and Christmas and been very appreciative of the convenience stores that were open. But that doesn't mean I want the whole country going to work on Thanksgiving Thursday. I like the fact that my family gets together. I'm sure other families like this too.

The preference for retailers would be to have the stores open everyday of the year. This holiday thing just gets in the way of corporate earnings and profits.

My preference is to stage an Occupy Main Street protest and simply stay home. Shopping is crazy enough during the holidays. Doing it with crazed housewives focused on getting the best deals they can find is way more than I can handle.

Tebow Hater's

2011-11-18T15:17:00.005-05:00

I find it absolutely hilarious that number of Sports Commentators that can't help themselves in telling us how bad Tebow is.

Al Davis -- Just Win Baby -- had it right. Would you rather have a 2 and 8 Bronco team without Tebow or a 5 and 5 team? Perhaps Tebow will never be the kind of QB that rewrites stat books on passing but you can't help but appreciate his drive for success. I'd rather have a QB that plays to win vs. one that plays for stats anyway you slice it.

They won't change their opinions but a nice cup of STFU would go a long way.

Herman Cain Thanks Perry

2011-11-12T16:00:00.001-05:00

I'm guessing that Herman Cain was the biggest fan of Perry's 53 second brain freeze.

Finally the press found something else to focus on -- if just for a moment.

Talk Radio -- Mark Levin -- August 4, 2010

2010-08-07T14:12:00.004-04:00

I was listening to Levin go off on the court decision overturning California Proposition 8 and in his attempt at belittling a caller almost started explaining a moral equivalency against slavery and gay marriage. Unfortunately he was saved by commercial interruption – thus missing the opportunity to sound really stupid – before going on to ask his caller what right the court had to overturn Proposition 8, ignore any response, and hang up on him.

So on to what Levin “almost” said.

From Levin’s comments, you get the sense that he is not an advocate of gay rights and considers it morally wrong. He supported Prop 8 because it fits with his view of the world. In setting up his argument against the caller, he suggested that both slavery and homosexuality are morally wrong and therefore the people have a right and obligation to express their outrage, disgust, repression, etc.

Does it strike anyone else that in both cases we have the will of the majority repressing the rights of the minority? It’s nice that Levin found slavery morally wrong – and it’s relatively easy to be against it 145 years after it was done away with. No such luck on the gay rights discussion.

Moving on to the legal basis for doing away with Prop 8.

Levin took huge issue with the use of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause as the basis for overturning Prop 8. His argument was that the will of the people – those that voted for Prop 8 – should prevail. Levin then goes on to cite Dred Scot and Plessy v. Ferguson as bad court decisions. The irony – apparently lost on him – is that these were court cases the 14th amendment was designed to address and was intended to eliminate the kind of discrimination exhibited by Prop 8.

Power of the Public Opinion

2010-07-27T21:43:00.005-04:00

Should John Kerry pay Massachusetts taxes on his new yacht? Should BP pay Tony Hayward his severance package?

There is much heat and light being given to these topics because the "public" feels slighted and owed on both fronts. The challenge is that there isn't a direct relationship between the public and the questions at hand.

John Kerry doesn't owe taxes to Massachusetts. The boat is owned by a Pennsylvania corporation and docked/registered in Rhode Island. I don't care for Mr. Kerry's politics but he owes Massachusetts NOTHING. The responsibility of the tax payer is to pay taxes on what is legitimately owed. John Kerry isn't responsible for either the tax law or the taxes.

Tony Hayward apparently has an agreement with BP to collect a nice severance package. Bully for him. The fact that there a people hurting / suffering / struggling in the Gulf is something BP needs to address but there is no indication that money that goes to Mr. Hayward would be diverted to the Gulf Coast if he weren't paid.

Get a grip people.

Issues of the Moment

2010-07-26T17:32:00.003-04:00

The Environment - How do we find the right balance of encouraging the use of environmental resources and protecting them?

Education - How do we create an education system that allows the United States to be competitive in a global economy?

Government - What should government be spending our money on?

Global Warming - How do you distinguish between plans to address a potential environmental catastrophe and a wealth redistribution act?

Fairness Doctrine - Does the government need to control what’s on radio and TV?

Illegal Immigration - Isn’t it called illegal for a reason?

Today's Stuck on Stupid

2010-07-14T17:36:00.006-04:00

In the latest updates on racism in America we have the Tea Partiers and Limbaugh on Steinbrenner. Now why on earth would you indulge such sources as the NAACP and Rev. Sharpton that have a long histories of fostering racism to comment on it? It would be nice if they could be called out as the racists they are or fade in to history with their 15 minute having expired.

Speaking of 15 minutes, NBC Today had breaking news. It appears the Bristol and Levi are getting married but not having sex and Sarah and Todd have no comment. In further revelations Mad Max appears to fly off the handle and say things he'd prefer were not repeated when fighting with his ex (thank God I'm not aware of any recordings of my transgressions). I'm trying to figure out if NBC bought the Thrifty Nickel and/or the National Enquirer. In the meantime I'm sure that those are 15 minutes I won't get back.

The Art of the Dive

2010-07-11T19:23:00.002-04:00

Spain 1 - Netherlands 0

If there was a good part to the World Cup final it was that the better team won. Spain was just a step faster than the Dutch. They possessed better, they created better, and they put a lot of pressure on the Netherlands. Netherlands responded by stepping up the physical play and started racking up yellow cards and there were at least two cards that could easily have been straight reds. Definitely not football at its prettiest.

Somehow we get through the second half and then into extra time still tied 0-0.

And then Spain cheats.

Two yellow cards are given to the Netherlands for imaginary fouls. One is a second yellow, so the Netherlands are down to 10 men.

At some point FIFA is going to have to come up with something that keeps players from making a run at the Oscars.

Like I said ... the good part is that the better team won.

Lebron ... Looking for Class

2010-07-11T18:57:00.003-04:00

Lots and lots of the talk about Lebron, what he meant in Cleveland and what he'll mean to the Heat is centered around the discussion of legacy. How many championships will he win? Has he got more game that Magic, Jordan, or Kobe? Does it matter if where he wins that them or who he wins them with? etc., etc., etc.

Talking about the legacy of a 25 year old is a waste of time. About the time Lebron gets ready to retire, then we can talk about his legacy and how he compares with the greats, what his contribution to the game was, and the impact he has had. Same story for Kobe.

Winning championships is just one component of the legacy -- just take a look at John Wooden if you doubt this. When all is said and done, if the only thing people can say about you is you were on the winning team, it will ring hollow.

The thing that Lebron was missing this week and that hopefully he'll find in Miami is class. It was obvious at the end of the playoff's that Lebron was done in Cleveland. He'd already decided they didn't have what he wanted and it was time to move on. Where to go next and what would be the best fit for him was a fair question and one he needed to explore.

But the way to do it ... the way to wrapup his time in Cleveland on a positive note and the way to find his best fit ... this would have been to do it quietly and with a touch of gratiousness.

Before you make a big deal of telling the world where you're going, take a moment to let people appreciated where you've been. Tell Cleveland what the've meant to you and make it about them, not about you. Then be honest and direct and explain you've been offered a great position in Miami and you'd be crazy not to accept it. Sure, some Cleveland fans wouldn't like it ... that's just the way of it ... but you'd keep more fans respect and admiration.

The spectacle that was Lebron on Thursday night did nothing to show what a great talent he is or could be in the future, and that was to bad.

Embellishment and Cheating

2010-07-03T12:43:00.004-04:00

One of the more frustrating aspects of the World Cup is the impact of embellishment on the game. Football is a physical game played at a fast pace. When running at full speed, getting bumped can take you down; when you get kicked, it hurts; an elbow to the face is going to leave a mark.

The result of this contact is that the referee blows his whistle and stops play. From here we get a foul, perhaps a card, and it goes from there.

So there is a big reward for a player that can appear to have taken the worst of it when they may not have been touched at all. At a minimum they get to stop the momentum of the game but the real payday could be getting an opponent red carded and ejected.

Technically, embellishment is a cardable foul but the speed of the game and the angles of the ref make the chances of getting it wrong as likely as getting it right. So it's a card that stays in the pocket most of the time.

In the fallout of Saurez's handball in the box, it turns out that FIFA has a disciplinary committee whose job it is to review games and player infractions and that FIFA also has rules that "call for suspensions of 'at least one match' if the panel finds a player guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct toward an opponent."

What can be more unsportsmanlike than faking something that didn't occur and deceiving the ref? Where the heck is the Disciplinary Committee on this topic? How many games would some of top players have had to sit out if the panel was watching the same game tape we do? What would the impact of this type of post game review have on the outbreak of acting we've seen at too many football games?

No Cheating Here Boss

2010-07-03T11:23:00.004-04:00

The Uruguay v Ghana game provided a finish that will go down as one of the more amazing in World Cup Finals history. Lots of twists and turns of fate and emotion, red cards, penalty kicks, lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

In the post match review, there has been some commentary that Suarez's handball was cheating. What Suarez did is clearly described / addressed in the rule book and occurs completely within the field of play. There was no deception in what he had done and he didn't hurt or injure another player in the process.

Suarez knew that he'd be getting the red card when he handled the ball and he knew Ghana would be getting a PK. He also knew Uruguay's World Cup was over if the ball hits the back of the net.

This is no different than American football where a wide receiver is wide open in the end zone and the defensive back knows that he has no play on ball and it's 6 points if he doesn't interfere.

He did exactly what he needed to do and that wasn't cheating.

Where in the World is Arizona

2010-06-27T23:03:00.003-04:00

Recently Peggy West, the county supervisor from Milwaukee, WI came under fire because she opened her mouth suggesting that Arizona had no right to enforce immigration law due to it's proximity to Mexico.

My first thought was how can a county supervisor not know where Arizona and Mexico are. But a little bit of research makes you wonder if perhaps Ms. West knows exactly where Arizona and Mexico are and her successful attempt at playing stupid were really just a smoke screen for a larger political agenda?

No Comment

2010-06-27T15:10:00.002-04:00

So far we've had four games in the elimination round and two huge missed calls. One taking away a goal that was and another giving a goal that wasn't. In the first, the referee was in the "right spot" and had no angle on the ball crossing the line. In the second, the referee was out of position and the speed of play was so quick that there was no recovering.

Good luck if you're looking for commentary from FIFA on why in football's marquis tournament they won't take steps to make sure the players -- not the referees -- are determining the outcomes.

2010 World Cup Player Comments

2010-06-27T13:22:00.002-04:00

Looking at the 2010 Roster, we had a solid keeper and a strong midfield. Our Defense and Forwards were more of picking the best of what you've got as opposed to having a large group of standout players and having to make cuts. There is definitely room for improvement and growth.

1 Tim HOWARD -- Solid keeper play that too often got hung out to dry by his defenders. This said, you need more than solid keeper play in the World Cup. Brad Friedel was a huge part of our success in 2002. Much more so than Tim Howard in 2010.

3 Carlos BOCANEGRA -- In my mind Carlos was one of the weak links in the defensive line. He was taken to school in the game vs England and appeared to quit on the second goal vs Ghana.

4 Michael BRADLEY -- Solid midfield play and contributor.

5 Oguchi ONYEWU -- May be a great player when fit but wasn't ready to play in the cup for 2010.

6 Steve CHERUNDOLO -- I liked his ability to get forward and contribute to the offense.

7 DaMarcus BEASLEY -- limited appearance vs. Algeria

8 Clint DEMPSEY -- Clint's got game and you saw him work his butt off in this year's cup run. . He should have had at least 3 more balls find the back of the net.

9 Herculez GOMEZ -- From their actual game play all of the new USA forwards -- Gomez, Altidore, Findley, and Buddle -- looked interchangeble with none of them really differentiating themselves. Herc had limited chances to play and didn't make the most of it.

10 Landon DONOVAN -- Landon did what was expected of him but you always want
more. Personally I'd like to see him play more central mid to allow him to create more.

12 Jonathan BORNSTEIN -- I know he played but nothing remarkable came to mind

13 Ricardo CLARK -- not sure why this guy started two games. Obviously the turnover v Ghana was huge.

14 Edson BUDDLE -- See Gomez

15 Jay DeMERIT -- Jay was the guy on defense for the US.

17 Jozy ALTIDORE -- Jozy showed lots of hustle / work rate up until Ghana. He's a young striker that should only get better.

19 Maurice EDU -- solid midfield play and great contributions to the team.

20 Robbie FINDLEY -- See Gomez

22 Benny FEILHABER -- Why isn't he a starter? Each time Benny came on the field the US played better and he contributed.

Looking to 2014, you never know who will still be playing and what new faces will arrive. Based on their performance for this cup, here are the folks that have set the bar going forward:
- Keeper -- Howard.
- Defense -- Demerit. Then we have lots of opennings.
- Midfield -- Donovan, Feilhaber, Edu, and Bradley are keepers. The rest of the midfield is wide open.
- Forward -- Dempsey. Then we need to see who wants it.

World Cup Thoughts

2010-06-27T11:09:00.003-04:00

Arrrrgh. So close yet so very far away.

It was a fun run with lots of excitement and emotion but ultimately the things that added all of this flavor was our undoing. You simply can not get behind in 3 out of 4 games and expect to get a result. So much potential and opportunity simply slipped through our fingers in the process..

On the positive side, this was a much better effort than the 2006 version. Coming into 2006, we were ranked a hilarious #6 in FIFA rankings and proceeded to show just how silly this was. We were slow, we were tactically and technically weak, and we were overmatched throughout. The one thing we did show in 2006 was heart. The effort against Italy was inspirational.

For 2010, we came in ranked a realistic 14th and showed that we actually know how to play the game. We've improved the overall level of the team with better / more experienced players, our speed of play was much better, we scored goals in every game, and we showed the level of intensity we had in the 2006 game v Italy throughout the tournament.

As we look to 2014, it'll be interesting to see if we can continue to improve. On the plus side, the growth of soccer in the US is starting to take root. Our premier players are playing in top leagues around the world. We should continue to play better all around. Still, there are several areas that we have got to get better at:

Team focus. The problem with giving up early goals has been a huge problem for the US side going through the qualifying process and that it continued in the Finals was no surprise. We need to improve our mental toughness and be ready to go from the whistle.

Defensive line. One of the reasons we became the Cardiac Kids of 2010 was that our defensive line was routinely overmatched. Poor communication, missed mark-ups, and routinely being beaten one-v-one was standard fare. We've got to do better and if we expect to get out of the group play we've got to be able to defend more reliably. DeMerit came to play but the rest of the defenders were pretty much MIA and that's being kind.

Finishing. Listening to the talking heads, they felt our #1 gap was the lack of a world class striker and when you look at the opportunities missed you can see their point. The reason I'd put this need as third on my list -- but still on the list -- is that we were both getting chances and scoring goals through out the tournament. We scored in every game and had two goals taken away, so that was a big positive. But there were simply too many times where we had open nets or one-v-one situations and were unable able to find the back of the net. In the final game v Ghana, they had two different forwards go to goal and finish with power. We had none.

Looking forward to seeing the beautiful game in Brazil 2014.

World Cup Refereeing

2010-06-26T10:33:00.002-04:00

With all the hubbub about the USA goal that was disallowed in the USA v Slovenia game, there are has been some suggestion that this was an isolated incident and was specific to the USA game -- perhaps the ref was just out to get the USA.

But the truth is that there has just been some really bad refereeing in the World Cup. Refs that don't put themselves in the right spot to make calls, refs that don't take command of the game, and refs that make simply horrific calls.

Now to be fair, this is a tough job ... the game is played at a very fast pace, the refs can't see the instant replay in super slo mo from 3 different angles, and many of the players exadurate the actual intensity of the play.

So how about doing two things ...

First add more transparency to the process. It would be very interesting to know, if not during the game then afterwords, what exactly the ref saw / was thinking when he made a call. Now on one hand, the ref may not remember every play but when you take away a goal you should have a clear reason for what you saw and why you made the call you did ... and this should be public. This doesn't mean we're changing the call, just that there is an explanation. To often -- and at all levels of soccer -- the ref hides behind the fact that he doesn't have to explain his call and he can card you if you question his call.

Second there should be video review of cards given and players whose embellishments result in cards should be penalized by a card. To make it fair, the level of evidence would need to be very high but this would at least eliminate the player being hit in the shoulder and grabbing is face type of embellishments.

Am I Angry?

2010-06-26T00:08:00.002-04:00

There seems to be lots of discussion by folks on the left about how angry people are who disagree with the lunatic politics / policies of the Obama administration.

If you suggest that perhaps passing a 2000 page law that none of your elected officials have read -- let alone understands -- is a bad idea, you're angry. Suggest that spending trillions of dollars we don't have on programs we don't need, yep angry. Suggest that it was the government that caused this economic crisis, very angry. Suggest that the Obama administration are generally a bunch of inept fucks, very, very angry.

Unfortunately, this is just a bunch of bullshit. I'm not angry. I'm just totally disgusted by the ideas, politics, fiscal policy, and abuse of government power that epitomizes the Democrat / Progressive / Socialist movement. I know we deserve better and I know we're not likely to see it as long as President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid remain in power.

Things That Annoy Me This Week

2010-06-13T17:39:00.002-04:00

The first topic is the "oil leak" still coming hot and heaving in the Gulf. Somehow, someway, we need to get this under control. Since both BP and the US Government seem to be making it up as they go along ... and doing so poorly ... here are two thoughts:

1. Instead of looking for someone to be accountable (see http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/10/gulf.oil.nungesser/ as just one example, or do your own google), why doesn't President Obama take responsibility?

2. Instead of trying one thing at a time, seeing if it works, then trying something else and repeating ... how about a government task force that drives resolution along the following areas and where each area has someone in charge:
- How do we stop the pipe from leaking?
- How do we collect the oil that has not reached shore yet?
- How do we clean-up the oil that has reach shore?
- How do we assess, mitigate, and repay the impact of the oil leak on the Gulf Community?
- How do we learn from this process so we can avoid doing it again?

Once we have the task force in place, the job is not to create single threaded solutions but rather to build a frame work that brings all resources to bear to solve the problem.

The second thing that really annoyed me was Alan Grayson's comments on the Stephanie Miller Show suggesting that people who said "drill baby, drill" should be put in jail. If only we could put both Stephanie Miller and Alan Grayson in jail .....

Questions of the Moment

2009-11-07T16:08:00.003-05:00

Do health insurance companies make to much money? If they do, how much is to much?

Basis for the questions ... There were two themes that had struck me. The first was the idea that health insurance is all about making money and not about providing coverage. Apparently one aspect of the bill now in the house is a stipulation that limit overhead (which I assume would include salaries and profit) to 15% of premiums. The second was that the health insurance industry is currently generating a 2.2% profit margin. When compared other industries -- Big Oil at 8%, railroads at 12%; telecom / networking gear at 24% -- their profits are relatively small.

Break for reality ... Insurance companies do not make that much money. For the 2.2% there is a massive amount of cost associated with processing claims, negotiating with providers, and managing risk. The demagogues in Congress, on left wing talk radio, and in the progressive movement need a target to blame and insurance companies are it. What needs to happen with insurance companies is that they be allowed to focus on offering insurance and be permitted to move out of the payment processing business.

---

Why hasn't President Obama done anything to reduce gas prices and clamp down on Big Oil profits? How am I supposed to fill my SUV when the price keeps going up and up and up?

Basis for the questions ... I was listening to a talk radio show (no idea who it was) and they had raised this point. Looking back to the campaign, there had been much discussion on how much oil cost and the question was why wasn't W doing anything about it? For the folks on the left, one answer was because W and Cheney were in the pocket of big oil and had vested interests in Haliburton. This also provided another reason for the invasion of Iraq because we needed the oil and W and Cheney needed the profits that came with it.

Break for reality... President Obama has just as much say on the cost of oil as W did, which is to say "Not Much". Certainly if Obama were to make drastic changes in the American economy the boosted worldwide demand, discontinued all US Oil production, or attacked Saudi Arabia then we would see a price increase. But short of eliminating all oil consumption in the US (or other major countries) he is just as stuck to the whims of commidity traders and the international market as W was.

What's Wrong With America

2009-10-27T21:18:00.002-04:00

If you are looking for a clear example of what is wrong with America, look no farther then Ed Schultz. For some serious scary reading check out his blog as well. Warning: the material on Ed's Blog is some seriously whacked out stuff.

Obama, Joe the Plumber, and All That

2009-10-24T13:53:00.002-04:00

We saw this with President Obama's exchange with Joe the Plumber but he was able to successfully characterize the outrage on income redistribution being Joe's problem, not his.

If America had access to Obama's history and had seen his views dating all the way back to college, specifically "... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

Would it have made a difference?

Are You Offended?

2009-10-22T23:16:00.002-04:00

This started with a piece on MSNBC "Obama: Excessive pay 'does offend our values'" that definitely offended me but not for the reasons President Obama is apparently concerned with:

How do we find ourselves in a position where a non-elected / non-Senate confirmed individual can dictate the earnings of private citizens with no oversight from Congress and apparently no recognition of the problems caused by such policies? Why is a law required to increase the Federal minimum wage but a “Compensation Czar” is able to dictate executive pay? What are the odds that companies the government lent money to will be able to pay back the loans if there is no incentive for the talented individuals capable of rebuilding them will stick around? When will the government address its role in causing this financial crisis? Why is the person responsible for both the oversight of compensation and the IRS a Wall Street insider and an admitted tax cheat? When did we convert from being a democratic republic founded on free enterprise and capitalism to fascism?

If the President is really concerned about offending our values, would it be possible for him to offer the type of leadership that represents that values we hold dear? I’m guessing not.

Thinking About Health Care

2009-10-17T14:12:00.002-04:00

With the hubbub over making changes in the way healthcare is funded and delivered, it seems to me that our elected officials are truly missing the point on what we need in the way of reform. The focus seems to be on the 15% of the populace that doesn’t have proper coverage with poor accounting to the 85% that does. There also seems to be a total disconnect on what the real problems are and a misguided belief that government delivery systems – as evidenced in Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran’s administration – are good models for addressing the healthcare requirements of the nation despite the problems inherent to each of these programs.

Today, the United States seems to have the best and worst of healthcare options. The best boils down to one component: choice. Comparatively, we have far more options associated with healthcare than the rest of the world. The worst also boils down to one component: cost. We spend far more as a percentage of GDP than any other industrialized nation. We appear to fall somewhere in the middle (depending on whose studies you read and what the focus of the study is) for most of the other measurements such as quality of care, access to care, and medical advancements.

Since I fall into the 85% of the population that does have coverage and pay a large amount of money each year on insurance coverage (yes, my employer subsidizes it but the majority of the burden for family coverage falls on me), my voice and needs have not been a large part of the discussion on health care reform. Worse yet, rather then looking at addressing the real issues for healthcare in America and making structural changes to address them, we are looking to spend trillions enhancing the broken parts of our system.

If we could take a step back from the abyss, here are some areas that should be driving the reform process:

Cost Control – Let’s face it, we spend way too much on health care. The idea that the cost of healthcare can increase by more than inflation each and every year and business and individuals can continue to absorb this indefinitely is crazy. But this is exactly what has been happening. The impact of the increased costs causes businesses to become uncompetitive in the global economy, flattens or depresses wages in real terms, and limits access to healthcare based on affordability. Our current system needs serious changes to support reform and there have been too many sacred cows that restrict progress. Adopting a health insurance approach instead of a health care payment program, expanding pool sizes, enacting tort reform, reducing administrative costs, eliminating minimum coverage requirements, etc., etc., etc. should all be on the table. Rather than focusing on spending more (which is what Congress is working on now), the first step should be enacting structural reforms that will reduce that overall cost of healthcare. We simply can not continue in our current model.

Health Insurance vs. Health Care Payment Plan – Everyone talks about health insurance but what we really have is a health care payment plan. Our health care payment plan is expected to cover the majority of medical costs while minimizing out of pocket expenses. The idea of insurance is to create a safety net that protects us from the unexpected and manages our exposure to risk. With our current system, we have no real idea what a procedure costs (ranging from an office visit to open heart surgery) and it is difficult to make informed decisions on how best to seek care because we are almost totally isolated from the financial considerations associated with going to the doctor, med-center, or emergency room. If every time we needed an oil change, we used our car insurance but had no idea what the cost of oil change was and no way to differentiate the services associated with one service provider from another, then we’d also have out of control costs on car insurance – even if risk factors were identical. One idea that has been tried but hasn’t stuck is the concept of healthcare savings accounts. If instead of paying $10,000 per year for my families Health Care Payment Plan I was able to put $5000 into an HSA AND then apply the other $5,000 to actual insurance that would cover the expenses occurred above the HSA, then we’d begin to see both the potential of allowing people to make decisions on their own while still providing the safety net of coverage needed when you or yours require more than a regular checkup or assistance with a common malady. As a one-off approach (as now implemented) HSA’s don’t create the economy of scale needed to impact costs; with universal implementation HSA’s would promote savings, create better informed healthcare consumers, and drive down costs or both health care and insurance coverage.

Catastrophic Coverage – The idea that you can walk into an emergency room sick or injured and walk out bankrupt is a serious problem and represents a lose – lose – lose situation since the patient loses most of his/her assets; the hospital, doctors, and related entities don’t get paid; and the losses associated with the bankruptcy are passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher costs. Enacting a national insurance program that covered everyone up to retirement age / medicare enrollment would address this issue.

Insurance Scams / Pre-existing Conditions – The underlying goal of insurance companies is to limit the amount of money they pay out in claims in order to maximize their profits. When done legally and ethically, this is simply good business but the industry has a track record of abusing their trust with little or no repercussions for acting inappropriately. Similarly, insurance companies have no problem accepting payments for years and then citing a “pre-existing condition” to deny coverage. To address these abuses, there should be significant dis-incentives for insurance companies to arbitrarily / wrongly deny coverage and the concept of a pre-existing condition could be eliminated by the creation of larger coverage pools and catastrophic coverage options.

Government involvement – Somewhere in the Constitution I missed the part where it says healthcare is a God granted right to which all Americans are entitled. There are other countries that have this in their constitution, but we do not. So if you feel slighted by this omission either work to change our Constitution, move, or stop whining. We “don’t give a damn about what you think you’re entitled to”. The focus of government should be to provide a structure that balances cost with choice, allows America to compete in the global economy, and supports the quality of life we both expect and appreciate as Americans. We do not need the Federal Government to become the core provider and assume responsibility for roughly 1/6th of our economy to accomplish these objectives.

How to Start Each Day with a Positive Outlook

2009-10-12T11:15:00.001-04:00

1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it Barack Obama
3. Send it to the Recycle Bin.
4. Empty the Recycle Bin.
5. Your PC will ask you: "Do you really want to get rid of Barack Obama ?
6. Firmly Click Yes.
7. Feel better?

GOOD! Tomorrow we'll do Nancy Pelosi.

Being Sorry About Slavery

2009-07-03T09:23:00.002-04:00

There is no question that slavery and what was done to both Native Americans and Blacks starting with the discovery of what is now the United States and continuing through the Civil War was a terrible injustice. It is incredibly easy to sympathize with these peoples and feel sorry for them. Without splitting any hairs ... slavery was bad.

As if this was still an open question, both the House and Senate have passed resolutions apologizing for slavery. Whew, I can't tell you how much better I feel now that has been cleared up. But there is a huge difference in feeling sorry about these events and taking responsibility for them and this is the scary part of the legislation that is making its way through Congress.

Taking a quick look around the house .... Nope, no slaves. Looking at the family tree and my ancestors ..... Nope, no slaves. Looking around the country just to see where we stand .... Nope, no slaves, former slaves, or people that owned slaves. Did you get that? We haven't had slavery in this country for something like 144 years. Nearly a century and half.

I'm not sure why we feel the need to apply the morality of today to events that happened a century and a half ago but hopefully now that we've passed some feel good legislation we can move on to more important things.

Recovery Plan = Biggest Tax Decreases in History

2009-07-03T08:49:00.004-04:00

Perhaps I was the only one in America that caught this but this statement is an interesting insight into the way the Obama administration is positioning the Recovery plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fCsW4D3Uc (at about 6:07 of the interview and I couldn't believe Juan gave him a total pass)

Bill Burton describes the Recovery Plan as one of the "biggest tax decreases for middle class families in the history of our country". Huh?

I suppose if you break the plan out into individual parts (wikipedia link) you might be able to buy into this spin but the real truth of them matter is that the Economic Recovery Plan of 2009 is turning out to be the "biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in the history of the country".

Getting Directions From Keith Olbermann

2009-05-01T08:57:00.005-04:00

Last night (4/30/09) Keith Olbermann did a bit trying to explain how Bill O'Reilly was lost and and didn't know his right from left in conjunction with where Fox is in comparison to NBC.

This is somewhat visual (and I'm not going to post a picture) so you'll have to use your imagination. The crux of the point was that O'Reilly said the NBC was to the left of Fox while Olbermann felt NBC was to the right of Fox.

Well if you look closely at Olbermann's map you'd understand that it depends on which window at Fox you are looking out of as to whether NBC is on the right or left. Now my guess is that O'Reilly actually has an office window so, for him, NBC is on the left. Olbermann on the other hand either doesn't have an office with a view or has his head so far up his ass he can't see Fox. Either way, I'd hold off on looking to Olbermann for directions.

Olbermann was so much better when he stuck to sports and focused on being funny. Well ... he is still funny ... but people are laughing at him not with him.

Where all the tax deductions go

2009-03-27T14:44:00.003-04:00

There was a letter to the editor in today's USA Today noticing that all of the tax deductions and tax shelters go to the rich and not to the poor. The writer thought it would be much fairer if everyone received the same deductions.

This line of reasoning dovetails somewhat with President Obama's comments at his Tuesday press conference about why its fair to cap the amount of deduction that "rich" people receive at the same level that "middle class" people receive.

There is a bit of reality missing from both of these viewpoints.

Under the graduated income tax system we currently toil under, the more money you make the larger the marginal (the tax percentage on the last dollar earned) tax rate is.

For single tax payers, after deductions, the marginal tax rates look like this ...

10% on income between $0 and $8,025
15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

For the USA Today letter writer and other like minded people (who probably do not know any better), you might notice that the poor actually pay significantly less in taxes -- both in real and in percentage terms -- then the more well off. In fact, roughly 46% of the population pay no income taxes at all. How much more of a tax deduction / tax benefit do you need once you are at zero dollars in the first place?

For Barack Obama (who certainly does know better), if I am at the low end of the 28% tax bracket and write a check for $500 to charity I get to take a deduction just like the person in the 35% tax bracket but I will be paying about $16,000 in taxes. If I'm in the low end o f the 35% tax bracket I'll be paying $103,000 in taxes. I'm sure everyone would love to be making $358,000 per year but writing that check for $103,000 is a whole lot less fun. And then to have the President stand there and tell you you're not paying enough when about 1/3rd of your income is going straight to the US government in income taxes is fairly disgusting.

Follow-up to AIG Bonuses

2009-03-25T13:52:00.003-04:00

Here is a link from SondraK on why AIG executives deserve the bonuses they were offered.

Mr. Grassley it appears you and your ilk owe an apology. Or perhaps its time you resigned your position in Congress.

Random Thoughts

2009-03-21T09:49:00.006-04:00

"I'm sick and tired of all the weak explanations about the rise and fall of gas prices. The bottom line is still greed" -- Dayton Daily News. Personally I'm happy that gas now sits below $2 a gallon, but I did miss the right of entitlement to gasoline. The oil companies have the right to charge what ever they want; consumers are free to buy or not; the overall market will set what the actual price is. Who is being "greedy" ... the company that looks to earn a profit by finding, recovering, refining, and distributing the gasoline; or the consumer that expects all of this to happen but pay only what they consider to be "reasonable"?

"We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers." - Nancy Pelosi.
One has to wonder ... just who's money is Nancy talking about -- who is the "our" and the "we"? Since only about 54% of Americans pay income taxes, this leaves out a little less the half of the populace. Of the 54% remaining, at least of 1/2 think Nancy Pelosi is a complete idiot. Why is it that Nancy has no problem spending MY money on things that I neither support nor benefit from?

One thing that I have not heard is exactly what the bonuses were for. Were they retention bonuses to keep qualified people? Were they acheivement bonuses for a job well done? What were the metrics for accomplishing them? If the employee held up his end of the bargain and excelled or if the company can be more profitable / competitive by keeping the high performers, isn't it in everyones interest to keep them around? Since my money is being used to support these companies, I want the best and brightest working hard so I can get my money back.

One of the concepts that has been raised in the wake of the bonus offerings is that we should not be compensating the people who caused the problem in the first place. Chuck Grassley suggested the folks at AIG "should either resign or go commit suicide". Is it me or did anyone notice that the Senators and Representatives who allowed this problem to occur in the first place are still in office? Perhaps they should lead by way of example .... Chuck Grassley has been in office since 1980, Barney Frank since 1981, and Nancy Pelosi since 1987. If anyone should know failure when they see it, it should be these three.

Do we really want the federal government dictating how much people can earn? So much for capitalism and a market economy. Personally, the whole "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" doesn't really work for me.

Know new taxes, Know more spending

2009-02-20T22:36:00.002-05:00

Listening to Obama supporters it is almost surreal the justifications that are offered for the comments and programs coming from Washington. There seems to be no shortage of things that we can spend money on and no limit to the things that government can do for us.

Typically the discussion / positioning goes something like this: "Over the last 8 years the only folks that have achieved success in America are the rich. Everything has been given to them them and now it is time they started paying their fair share. Bush's tax cuts were given at our expense and if we hadn't done that the world would be a better place." Actually, this is way nicer than whining you actually hear.

Usually I get so frustrated in listening to this that I start yelling at the radio -- just Ed, Alan, and Rusty doing their part -- because these guys are flat out lying. And they know they are lying. But their audience just loves it.

No where in the presentation do you hear "Did you know that 50% of the tax payers pay 96% of all income taxes." or "Did you know that George Bush only veto'd 12 -- YEAH TWELVE -- bills and that four of these were overridden by Congress?" He had 8 years of being President, 4 years with a Democrat controlled Congress, and he successfully veto'd 8 bills. For all the complaining about his approach, W was nothing less than a rubber stamp. or "Did you know that George Bush increased non-defense spending by the largest amount since 1976? More than Clinton, more than Carter?" Nope. All you hear is "George Bush cut taxes on the rich". Over and over -- like its a fine wine that just get better with age.

And then you have the callers.

"If it weren't for the rich taking advantage of me I would have had life easy for the last 30 years". What you hear is -- and this is kind of ironic when you consider that the hosts are basically a bunch of rich guys -- "Life isn't fair. And it isn't fair because all of the money goes to the wealthy and nothing is given to me". Perhaps there are certain benefits to being wealthy but making the wealthy less wealthy will rarely put more money in the callers pockets. Life is not a zero sum game; if you want to have more money you'll have to get off your butt and earn it.

There's a thought that doesn't get shared very often.

And when it does, the people that most need to take it seriously are the most likely to assume that you're not talking to them.

Government Schools and Free Speech

2009-02-15T13:13:00.004-05:00

One area of liberty that seems to be getting a pass is the control public schools are placing on the speech of students, parents, and employees. From my view there is a fine line that is being crossed here ... schools have a right and responsibility to manage the activities that occur on their grounds and at school sponsored events. Outside of school premises and activities, the ability of school administrators to act judge and jury should be significantly reduced.

I'm not sure if this argument has been made previously but a quick look at the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution flows down to the state and local jurisdictions restricting the laws and regulations that may be imposed upon the citizenship.

Now the concept of free speech sometimes has a bit of nuance to it. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded movie hall without an actual fire, slander or libel are off limits, and statements you make may have consequences. On the last point, what happens if you make comments that reflect poorly on your employer? Do they have the right to fire you? It would seem that they do because the Constitution doesn't say you can say anything you want ... it says the government can't tell you what or what not to say.

Now what happens if your employer is the government? Do the same rules apply?

If you make comments in public, on a blog, or social networking site -- outside of the work environment -- that government officials take issue with, can the government fire you? It seems like they would be overstepping their bounds.

How do you know government when you see it?

My view is that this is a very simple question. Public institutions where we elect representatives (i.e. school boards) and / or pay taxes (i.e. sales and property taxes) directly to the institution are part of the government and subject to the law of the Constitution regarding the exercise of free speech. Simple.

Well it seems simple anyway but there are lots of school systems and administrators out there that believe they have the right to inflict their regulations on students, parents, and employees and ignore the rights affirmed in the Constitution:

Teacher Placed on Leave for Facebook Photo
University of Florida Looks Out For Militant Islam
Kent State Bans Facebook

A quick Google on "free speech schools" provides no shortage of public school administrations run amuck.

The Fairness? Doctrine

2009-02-15T11:54:00.003-05:00

Michigan seems to be cursed with representatives -- Debbie Stabenow, John Conyers, and Carl Levin for example -- who seem to think that we need more government and are unable to think for ourselves.

The latest debacle is Debbie Stabenow's attack on the First Amendment through the promotion of "The Fairness Doctrine". The idea behind this approach is simply that we need to control the flow of ideas and information that some find disagreeable. In a nation of "Yes we can", the notion that not everyone is in lockstep with the Democratic Party is unacceptable.

To Debbie and the rest of Americans who feel we need their help in deciding who and what we listen to, let me set you straight: all of the televisions and radios have a tuning dial and an off switch. I am fully capable of managing these controls without your assistance. I neither need nor want your help in determining what I watch or listen to.

As one of my representatives in Washington, could you spend a bit more time focusing on ways to expand our liberty vs. ways to eliminate it? It's a change in approach that would be refreshing.

Atlas Shrugged

2009-02-08T23:10:00.005-05:00

I just finished reading this ... great book.

Let's start with the basis that I had no background on either the book, Ayn Rand, or Objectivism prior to reading Atlas Shrugged. I still have not done much research on either Rand or Objectivism but my first pass in reading the book is that it absolutely nails my economic and political philosophy.

If you happen upon this blog and love or hate Rand / Atlas Shrugged I be interested in your thoughts. I'm working up a post on my personal take aways that I'll share shortly.

Obama Status Check

2009-02-02T22:15:00.002-05:00

So far ... just a couple of weeks into (at least) the next four years of an Obama presidency we are getting a good idea of what's in store and it has an ominous feel ...

Closing Gitmo. It's clear if you listen to news outside the US that there are lots of people that don't like our POW policy in Gitmo. Fair enough. But if you are going to take steps to close it, perhaps having a plan on what to do with some very dangerous individuals as a first step would be a good idea.
The $850 billion "bailout". Income tax refunds for people who don't pay income taxes; pork, pork, and more pork; most of the money included in the "bailout" program will not be spent for a couple of years; very little in the program will actually go to stimulating job growth in small businesses.
Same old, same old. It's funny to listen to the democrats complain about corruption and greed but when it comes to democrats, the bar is suddenly lowered.
Foreign policy. Nice letter to Iran; nice interview on Al-Arabia. Word is they were impressed.

Hopefully things get better from here.

The Meaning of Green

2009-02-01T21:38:00.003-05:00

I'm watching a clip from the CES (Consumer Electronic Show) and they are talking about a battery powered bicycle.

The interview asks "Is this green?"

And the person representing the battery powered bike said "Yes it is".

Give me a break. Bicycle powered by your own two legs = green. Bicycle powered by a battery = not green.

On and on we hear about the importance of being environmentally conscious with an underlying theme being the electric / battery power is good while the internal combustion engine is bad.

You wonder if these folks have ever considered just how unfriendly things like lead, lithium, cadmium, and sulphuric acid are to the environment. Oh, and while were at it, those batteries don't charge themselves so you are probably using coal or nuclear power to charge your batteries -- neither of which environmentalists are keen on.

The Gimme Generation

2008-11-16T16:30:00.000-05:00

Let's start with the idea of "there but for the grace of God go I" as recognition that the nation's economy is struggling. Looking at the country as a whole it is easy to generalize but when it is you and yours that are unemployed, have lost your house, or your retirement it puts a personal component on the discussion. So if this is happening to you, I empathize. I wouldn't want to be in that spot either.

All of this said, the election of Barack Obama seems to have culminated in a total loss of personal responsibility. We have lost our work ethic and our desire to improve. Life isn't about what we can contribute, it's about what we deserve; and fairness is about making sure that we get what we deserve.

For me, the view of the American dream has never been clearer. I grew up broke (not poor, just broke) in a single parent home. Once you were old enough to work, you did. College wasn't just a dream, it was expected. If you wanted to make something of your self you needed a good education. Settling into the 45 years of employment from college to retirement has had its ups and downs but through lots of hard work, long hours, personal sacrifice, paying cash instead of credit I've managed to find myself squarely in the middle class.

Having "arrived", I struggle with the sense that Americans are owed something and wonder why I should continue to focus on doing the right things ... making my house payment on time, saving for retirement, helping others, etc. ... when the government will support / bail out that those that don't do these things at my expense.

The government continues to grow and consume more resources. The President and President elect have either spent or would like to spend trillions on new programs that dramatically increase government control of our lives. The Social Security and Medicare programs are bankrupt and won't be there for the middle class when we retire. The only solution proposed by government is more government. The concepts of self reliance and personal responsibility have been totally lost to the Gimme Generation.

Somehow I'm pretty sure this isn't what the founding fathers had in mind when they dumped tea into the Boston harbor.

You Can Always Serve as a Bad Example?

2008-11-09T08:46:00.005-05:00

One of the things that President Elect Obama suggested during the election was that he had a great range of advisors to assist him once he became President.

During the first days following the election we are getting our first look at some of those advisors and from my view the area of advice that most concerns me are those focused on the economy. With great fanfare associated with his contacts to Warren Buffett, Paul Volkers, and Robert Rubin, you have to wonder how Jennifer Granholm fits into the mix.

For those of you that don't know, Jennifer Granholm is the current Governor of Michigan and is about 1/2 way through her second term. As a politician she represents the kinder gentler approach to politics that Americans claim to be looking for. Granholms tenure as governor can best be characterized as disappointing.

When Governor Granholm was re-elected in 2006, she did so with on the basis that the first term was not her fault and she had the ability to lead Michigan to a brighter future.

In 2007 Michigan was one of 3 states (Michigan, Delaware, and New Hampshire) to be in a recession. In October 2007 she led the enactment of 1.75 billion in new taxes. In August 2008 Michigan's unemployment rate stood at 8.9% (50th out of the 50 states).

These are not the kind of results that deserve to be rewarded by a leadership role in an administration that will shortly be trying to address the exact same issues for the country that Governor Granholm has been struggling /failing with in Michigan.

Taxation Update

2008-11-02T11:55:00.002-05:00

It looks like Obama is rethinking (again) his approach to taxes. I noticed yesterday he'd updated (via one of his ads) the income limit from $250,000 to $200,000.

The problem with his changes on amounts is that it looks like: A) he doesn't understand exactly who pays taxes and B) that if he becomes President you can expect that number to continue to fall until he gets to the people that don't actually pay taxes today. If you are paying taxes today, you're not paying enough. If you're not paying taxes today, you deserve more from those who are. That would only be fair.

So what do we really know about Obama's tax approach?

Tax Increase ... We must repeal "George Bush's Tax Cuts". This has largely been portrayed as a tax cut for the wealthy but it actually spanned the entire population. Here is an interesting write-up on what really happened based on the "George Bush Tax Cuts".
Tax Increase ... The ideas we have for spending money on everything from healthcare to kindergarden far exceed the current income of the US government. So if we want all of these new programs we are going to need to pay for them.
Tax Increase ... We are going to cut income taxes for 95% of the American people. Since 40% of the American people don't pay income taxes at all and since the $250,000 number (and the associated 95% number) keep falling you can bet that if Senator Obama is talking, your taxes are going up.

I think I see a trend here.

Understanding the Message

2008-10-12T09:25:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, I was buying a book at Borders and was listening to the employees discuss Sarah Palin's capabilities as the Vice Presidential nominee. One of the statements that was put forth was that Sarah Palin had only worked 12 hours since becoming Governor of Alaska.

As I ran through the checkout line I mentioned that this was an incorrect characterization. You can like or dislike Mrs. Palin for lots of different reasons but its obvious that work ethic is not an issue.

Recently John McCain appeared to take a step back in his message when at Townhall meetings he indicated that we do not have to fear Barack Obama and that Barack Obama is not an Arab. The first reaction to McCain's correction was "Gasp. Does John McCain realize that he's behind and the people are taking his messages to heart? What the heck is he doing?" What he was doing was pointing out that there are lots of reasons to be against Barack Obama but fear and racial orientation are not the things that should be driving our selection process.

This wasn't about changing the tone of the campaign or redirecting the message. McCain was simply trying to make sure that we understand what the message is. This is subtlety that is easily lost on us as we make the final run to election day.

Who Would You Rather Rip You Off

2008-10-11T18:41:00.005-04:00

The Obama campaign has an ad suggesting that once he's in power we won't have oil companies or bankers ripping us off anymore. It just makes me all warm inside knowing that Barack is taking a personal interest in our economic well being. That he cares and is looking to change the system and address past offenses.

Of course it would make me feel a whole lot better if in addition to caring and offering "change" he actually understood what the hell he was talking about and wasn't offering to simply enhance the ripping off process.

Obama is right on when he points out that the bankers ripped us off. Of course since Barack is buddies with many of them and either takes their advice or their money, you'd have to figure he knows a little something about how the process works. The folks at Fannie Mae supported billions of dollars in bad loans, knowingly cooked the books to provide a distorted view of their operations, gave millions of dollars in bonus to people who did not deserve them, and stuck the American tax payer with a HUGE tab. To bad Obama didn't exercise any of his concern in his role as Senator to prevent the fleecing of America.

WAIT!!!

The reason that he didn't do anything about this travesty was that he actually favored Americans getting ripped off. It was good for his buddies, good for the policies and organizations he believes in, and matched his beliefs on exactly what the role of government should be.

This is really the core of it. We weren't just ripped off by the bankers. We were ripped off by the Democrats policy of giving loans to people that couldn't pay them back and ripped off by the people that borrowed (read stole) the money that they knew they'd never be able to or have to repay.

When Barack Obama moves from being a Senator to being President this is exactly the kind of policies we should expect. A President that cares enough to spend your money on policies and programs that we can't afford without regard for the people that will be writing the check. I feel better already.

Why to Vote for Obama

2008-10-09T18:03:00.003-04:00

Near as I can tell there are three reasons that you should be voting for Obama.

He gives a good speech (at least with a teleprompter). W's way with words has long been a sore point for denizens that don't want the rest of the world thinking of the US as a band of redneck hicks.
He cleans up well. Obama has fair amount of charisma in both his presence and his speech. He's not a bad looking guy, dresses well, and is engaging on the campaign trail.
He's black. If you're voting against him, you're probably racist; if you're voting for him, you probably think it is about time we had a black president.

It is worth noting that none of these items has anything to do with the substantive issues that are facing our Republic today. The fact that Obama is either wrong (e.g. how to handle Iraq) or lying (e.g. middle class tax cut) or misleading (e.g. health care) on the vast majority of key issues seems to be totally lost on the majority of the registered voters.

The unfortunate thing is that unless things take a dramatic turn in the next 25 days, the people that do care about the issues are going to get the type of government that majority of Americans deserve.

Put a Fork In Him ... He's Done

2008-10-09T00:09:00.002-04:00

This pains me but John McCain is about out of time.

The two years of campaigning leading up to the general election are about done and it looks like Senator McCain is likely to remain a Senator.

There are still a couple of outs ... the election turnout could go bad for Obama (though with ACORN in the game encouraging folks living and dead to vote early and vote often this seems unlikely). John McCain could say or do something that so grabs the conscousness of the America public that people of both parties flock to him (hasn't happened yet, but hey ... you can always dream). Barack Obama could do something incredibly stupid to tank his campaign and see the biggest change in the polls since Bush 41 kicked butt in Iraq.

In all likelyhood .... "Not gonna happen". America survived 8 years of W and can probably survive 4 years of Obama as well. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Why Obama Is Wrong For America

2008-10-05T22:33:00.004-04:00

Here are 5 reasons:

National Security and Foreign Policy -- Obama has repeated demonstrated that he is not the right man at the right time to manage our foreign policy . His willingness to surrender in Iraq and create a power vacuum in the middle east; his naivety in understanding how to communicate with the truly evil regimes of the world; his playing both sides of an issue: in Iraq where he attempted to negotiate a delay in troop withdrawals until after the election and in Canada where he told the Canadian government one story about NAFTA and American workers something else.
Background and Affiliations -- Obama has not addressed his past in a way that makes sense. Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN just to get started. So far Obama has been able distance himself from these folks but it is clear that they have had significant influence on him. These are not influences that will make America stronger.
Taxes -- Obama is flat out lying on taxes. First, there is no way that he will be able to fund all of his spending initiatives without raising taxes. Second, he totally mischaracterizes who pays taxes today. The top 10% of wage earners pay 65% of the income taxes; the top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of the income taxes; This means roughly 50% of taxpayers pay no income taxes at all. Just how much more skewed does this need to be to create "fairness".
Leadership -- What exactly has Obama done that provide examples of strong leadership? Answer: Nothing. He played partisan politics in the bailout / rescue / screwing of the American taxpayer; he has only been in the Senate for 3 years and he has spent 2 of these years running for President; from community organizer to State legislator to US Senator he has not come up with new ideas or been a driving force to make things happen under his watch. Other than a charismatic smile and being well spoken, there is simply not much there.
Socialism -- When you look deeper into the things that Obama holds near and dear, the kind of change Obama is proposing can best be summed up in one word. Socialism. That is the kind of change we can do without.

Good Thing There's An Election Coming

2008-10-03T20:18:00.003-04:00

When you look back on the legacy of the Bush administration, you kind of have to wonder. Does Barack Obama have it right when he says the last thing we need is four more years of W?

Actually, I think Obama has it exactly right ... four more years of the of George Bush would be devastating for America ... but not for the reasons Barack is running on.

Let's start with the Bailout / Rescue / Screwing that the we got this week. There is no question that the policies (primarily Democratic, but with lots of blame to go around) of making credit highly available to people that should not have had access to it has created a serious problem for our financial markets and that something had to be done.

Now other than pointing out that we had a serious problem (as opposed to "crisis") and pulling the parties together ... was there any other leadership that was offered? Not that you could tell. Did it occur to him that we'd been through this before? Did it occur to him that the private market had resources to help deal with this as well (thank you Mr. Buffet, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo)? Did it occur to him that we didn't need to add billions of dollars of additional earmarks to this proposal?

But this was just the latest example of a situation were W provided weak leadership.

Barack Obama says that John McCain votes align with George Bush 90% of the time. I think in the last debate Sarah Palin indicated that Barack Obama voted with George Bush 96% of the time (that's what I heard, I'm not sure whether that's what she meant). The truth is W is a go along to get along guy on most domestic issues -- and you can see his direct impact in the huge amount of growth of domestic spending in the last 8 years (something that somehow Barack never points out)

It took him over 5 years (over one whole term) to break out the veto pen for the first time. George Bush votes with EVERYBODY. He has stepped it up a bit but still has only 28 total vetoes and 33% of those have been overridden by Congress. We haven't seen this type of leadership since Warren Harding.

America could definitely use some fresh leadership that would take us in a new direction.

VP Debate

2008-10-03T07:56:00.002-04:00

Basically another draw.

Palin scored more points and showed that she can speak publicly. So on the "one heartbeat away" question she scored.

If you were undecided before ... you're probably still undecided.

Nothing happened to make you change you vote one way or the other.

It is about time the gloves came off in this campaign. We are two years into it and still have undecideds. The politically correct / polite approaches are not going to work. If you want to win you are going to have to bring a sledgehammer -- this is especially true for McCain Palin since they are losing.

Wow ... Go find $700 Billion Somewhere Else

2008-09-29T13:49:00.003-04:00

We seem to be looking for some statesmen that can lead this country.

Whether the issue was that this was the wrong plan or that it was to much of the right plan it looks to have gone down big -- along with your 401K portfolio.

Democrats -- 141 for, 94 against (40%)
Republicans -- 66 for, 132 against (66%)

One voter that just didn't know what to do.

207 for; 226 against (this wasn't the final / final count, but was the count at the time I was watching)

You can look at this lots of ways, but in the end, this problem was caused by the government with lots of room for blame (yes, I'm looking right at you Nancy Pelosi).
Unfortunately the same people that were responsible for the mess are still here for the clean-up and they have failed mightily.

Nice job gang.

Call it a Draw

2008-09-27T08:53:00.002-04:00

The first McCain / Obama debate went off to a draw.

If you were looking for Obama to get a bit of schooling by McCain of Foreign Policy ... well, yes that happened.

If you were looking to see if McCain can handle the task of speaking in public (comparable to Obama and contrasted to W) ... well, yes he can.

But if you were looking for McCain to knock foreign policy out of the park or for Obama to fall on his face ... nope. Didn't happen. Obama was able to hold his own. The people that were for him before the debate are still for him. The folks that were leaning his way can still lean and feel OK about it.

The problem for McCain is that he needs more than ties in these debates. The country is already divided by party lines -- people who will not be easily swayed regardless of what is said at these debates -- leaving 15% +/- of independent or undecided voters that need to be wooed in order to tilt the balance of the election. McCain needs to provide stark, compelling reasons for why Obama is not their guy.

McCain could have scored some more significant points by hitting Obama on Obama's discussions Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki on delaying troop withdrawls. During the economic discussions he needs to hit Obama with more details get more details The bit about Obama on earmarks (almost $1 billion) was strong but is something that McCain needs to continue to press. Obama again pulled out the "90% agreement" point which McCain hasn't strongly rebutted. McCain is also going to have to be clearer and more direct on the ideas of taxation, where the money comes from and where the money goes.

House Republicans Walk Out

2008-09-26T09:15:00.002-04:00

When I first heard this, I couldn't believe it.

Walking out is NO WAY to solve the financial problems we are now facing.

Then I did a quick Google on "House Republicans Walk Out" and found that they do this fairly often. If they don't get their way, they pick up their ball and go home.

We need them to get back in the game .... NOW.

They don't have to agree with everything being discussed but they absolutely need to be part of the process.

Obama Looks Presidential

2008-09-25T07:54:00.002-04:00

McCain Suspends Campaign

Are you serious? WTF?

Obama responds "A President needs to be able to deal with more than one thing at a time". Exactly.

I'm reminded of Ross Perot exiting and entering his campaign. That giant sucking sound you hear is could be voters being pulled to the Democratic Party.

Not the message we needed at the moment.

Stuck on Stupid

2008-07-28T09:19:00.003-04:00

Neal Boortz whines about the mortgage bailout

Neal ... you are totally missing who is really being bailed out here.

The reason a bailout is needed is not because we feel sorry for all of the home owners that made bad decisions and now can't pay their mortgage bill. If it were just the consumers that were effected, there would be no bailout.

Since you don't get it .... the reason we are doing a mortgage bailout is to save the other people that were impacted that we can't let fail: namely the banks that offered the mortgages, the investors that loaned the monies to the banks, and the companies that bought or secured what is now bad debt. These are the people that are really being bailed out.

The primary blame for this mess lies with Congress. They created a regulatory environment that allowed this problem to happen in the first place. The secondary blame lies with the banks and lenders .... "Hmmm, let's see ... your credit record is spotty at best. Wait, I know what we can do. We'll lend you at least 100% of the value of the house and consolidate all of your other outstanding debts into your monthly house payment as well. Oh and to save you even more money, we can do this with a variable rate loan". Duh!!!!

Energy Rebate Checks?

2008-07-13T12:45:00.000-04:00

Obama supports energy rebates to put a few dollars in the pockets of all Americans.

Well isn't that special.

My first question is how this meaningfully differs from the approach of offering a "gas tax holiday"? My second is how either of these approaches provides a meaningful solution to managing the cost of energy?

So far both the Democrats and Republicans have completely failed to do ANYTHING. What we need from the President and the 435 members of congress -- and particularly McCain and Obama -- is leadership. Instead of looking for problems, look for solutions. Instead of spending money with pandering programs like Energy Rebates and Gas Tax Holidays, invest in solutions that will provide long term value and benefits to our nation.

The focus on short term problems is great for the news cycle but will never result in addressing the world-wide need for energy. The idea that a country founded on the principles of capitalism and a market economy would subject company CEO's to public scorn because they had the gall to earn a profit margin of 8.5% is unbelievable. Congress should be called to account for their actions (and lack there of) rather than trying to shift the blame to someone else.

If we focus on the solutions to the cost of energy, then finding reasonable alternatives to our current course becomes much simpler. The core problem we have is that demand is out pacing supply ... so here are some rocketsciencesque approaches to addressing the issue:

Find more supply of the fuels we currently use the most of. Here are a couple places you might want to look: ANWR and of the coast of Florida. It isn't like we don't have any more oil or gas reserves available. While not perfect, the oil companies have proven that they can develop oil fields without destroying the environment.
Expand the types of energy creation we have available. Solar, wind, hydro-electric, and nuclear are all viable sources of energy. Solar, wind and hydro-electric are all renewable / clean sources of energy. Folks like T. Boone Pickens have ideas and vision for addressing some of America's energy needs. Rather the spending money pandering, invest some of those dollars in people like T. Boone Pickens.
Stop standing in our own way. The fact that we haven't built a new refinery in over 30 years is contributing to the lack of supply for processed crude. Refinery's are great except for the smell of sulphur down wind. Wind mills are great except they kill birds. Hydro-electric dams are great except they kill fish. Nuclear is great except for the spent fuel rods. Rather that bending entirely to the pure environmentalist point of view (which is what we have been doing), we need to use some common sense and balance environmentalism with economic considerations.

It really isn't asking to much to expect our candidates for president to do more than perform vote buying exercises. Both candidates tell us that they are agents for change. How about showing us some leadership for a change.

Stuck on Stupid

2008-07-11T22:50:00.000-04:00

How do you make sense of people that have lost all touch with reality?

Overheard comment. "Either the government can pay for it, or we can pay for it.". Hello. Who exactly pays for the stuff the government pays for? Oh, that's right. That would be us.
The real role / value of big business. Socialism / communism alive and well in the United States. This guy is positively sickening.

Airport Security

2008-07-11T09:15:00.000-04:00

Do you ever wonder if you are getting your money's worth for the dollars being spent by the TSA to make flying more secure? Does the $4.9 billion proposed for 2009 make us safer than we on September 10, 2001? How much liberty do you need to give up to make flying safer?

If you look at TSA results since 2001 we have been able to enjoy air travel without planes intentionally flying into buildings, blowing up midair, or experiencing other terrorist threats (that we are aware of). But still, when you look at the process you have to wonder, is this because TSA is on the ball or because planning and executing a 9/11 type event takes a lot of money, planning and preparation, and dumb luck.

So far the approach has been primarily focused on the addressing passenger security and reacting to new ideas that the nut cases (dangerous nut cases, but nut cases not the less) come up with. It seems the results are mixed at best:

Nail clippers as a weapon. Because the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters as part of their attack things like nail clippers were banned. This resulted in tons of lost stuff but there is no indication that it has made flying any safer. Truth is, just about anything can be used as a weapon, it isn't hard to conceal items with sharp edges that don't beep, and there is no monitoring for someone trained in martial arts ("these hands are registered with the FBI as lethal weapons").
Scanning is more art than science. The idea that we can take a fully loaded suitcase or computer bag, run it through a scanner, and catch everything that falls onto the exception list is dreaming. An Inspector General report from 2005 discusses some of the issues but the real problem is that scanning by itself is not a complete solution. I'm sure I'm not alone as someone that has unintentionally had stuff pass through security. What do you do when liquids (neatly packed in a 3-1-1 quart size bag) pass through screening without raising an eyebrow? You simply pick up your bag and continue on before any one takes another look at the x-ray machine.
Some folks are more equal than others. What do you make of it when TSA agents reporting for duty are not required to walk through an x-ray machine? How about pilots that are allowed to bring bottled water through with no questions? Sure, the expectation is that these folks are known entities that have gone through a extensive pre-screening. The problem is that these lapses in security represent holes that can be exploited.
The magic 4'S. Things have lightened up significantly since the early days following 9/11 but the idea that we rely on random selection to catch bad guys is a huge problem. There is definitely a need for randomness in security but it should be in conjunction with more educated selections. Yes, this means that we should be doing some type of profiling / passenger interactions to focus the selections.

These are just some of the problems with the passenger screening process. While the front door -- passenger screening -- may be slightly ajar. The back door -- air freight -- is left wide open.

Creating a totally secure environment for air travel is a challenging goal and probably one that is unattainable and undesirable if it were. The impacts of cost and loss of liberty would simply out weigh the value of security. Still, the TSA could get a lot more bang for our buck by eliminating window dressing for security, removing political correctness from the screening process, and using a lot more common sense.

As a follow-up item / reference, the TSA has a blog site -- the Evolution of Security -- that provides some excellent information and commentary.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

2008-07-07T22:50:00.000-04:00

The Declaration of Independence posits that we are endowed with "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". For many Americans, these are big words with deep meaning. The challenge is that most of us don't seem to know what they mean.

From my son's fifth grade democracy field trip where we learned that "pursuit of Happiness" allowed you to ignore the rule of law to Thom Hartmann's idea that "Life" equates to socialized medicine we have it exactly wrong. Fortunately I was able to have a reasonable heart to heart with my son and explain how the pursuit of Happiness works, but there were probably 4 or 5 folks listening Thom that may have bought into his views.

If we start with the point made in the Declaration that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are inalienable rights. These are rights that the government neither grant nor take away. But wait, it gets better. The Declaration of Independence was a letter to King George letting him know that his approach for ruling the colonies wasn't acceptable. As you scan through the Declaration there are a number of complaints and concerns raised but not once in the document does Thomas Jefferson assert or complain that the right of health care is not being provided.

There may be valid reasons that we should look at revising the health care delivery system in the United States but the word Life in the Declaration of Independence isn't one of them.

Why Flying Isn't Hard

2008-07-01T22:55:00.001-04:00

It is amazing the amount of babble that you hear when it comes to flying: the planes are too full,
the tickets cost to much, security is to hard to deal with, there is no customer service, etc., etc. etc.

There was a time when crossing the United States was a big deal.

To get started, you needed to sell, throw out, or simply leave anything that didn't fit into your covered wagon. Then you needed to be able to dedicate six plus months to the trek. Once you started there was no guarantee you'd make it across at all, let alone alive. Challenges included getting lost, starvation, Indian attacks, disease, and the weather.

The speed and safety of the crossing improved significantly with steam locomotive but it could still be a perilous trip. The passenger train of the day was not designed with all of the creature comforts you might desire. Seating was cramped, air conditioning non-existent, and windows often needed to closed to avoid the cinders from the boiler. Boiler explosions and train derailments were common dangers that could leave you stranded, injured, or dead.

All of which brings me to the challenges of flying. Everyday ten's of thousands of people are flying across the United States. The typical environment includes air conditioning, a padded seat, something to eat / drink, and a bit of entertainment. Statistically, flying is the safest way to travel.

But my goodness, you should hear people whine when their plane is delayed, when the plane is cramped, or their luggage is misplaced. In 232 years, we have become a nation of total babies.

Come on people, SUCK IT UP.