Saturday, November 22, 2008

Secret service steps up inauguration security - Confident Aren't they?

America hasn't elected Barack Obama President of the U.S. YET.

Yes, we voted. Yes, Obama won the election.

But the President of the United States isn't elected by the American people and never has been.

He (or she someday) is elected by the Electoral College on December 15th.

When we vote in our Presidential election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, we are electing only electors. We elect one elector for each senator and representative our state has in Congress. Washington, D.C. gets electors, but no more than the least populous state.

On the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, the electors meet at their state capitals to elect the President of the United States. They vote separately for the President and the Vice President.

The results (sealed) are then sent to Congress for the votes to be counted in a joint session of the houses on the 6th day of January in the next calendar year. It is held at 1:00PM in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Until that time, no one actually knows who is going to be our next President and Vice President! The President and Vice President are sworn in two weeks later.

The reason no one really notices this is that the electors have pledged to vote the way their electoral districts or states (it varies) have told them to vote. So they tend to elect the same candidates that the American people have voted for.

24 states have laws to punish electors who do not vote as pledged but there are no laws FORCING them to vote that way.

If the electors can't agree, then the House and Senate pick our President and Vice President. They've done so three times. The House has chosen our President twice, 1801 and 1825. The Senate chose the Vice President in 1837.

Should the House not be able to choose a President, then the current Vice President (Dick Cheney in this case) becomes our new President until the House picks one. If there is no choice of Vice President, then the Speaker of the House (currently Nancy Pelosi) becomes Vice President.

Now, back to the Electoral College. There is nothing to stop them from choosing Joe Biden as President and Barack Obama as Vice President. Heck, they could choose to elect ME as President and YOU as Vice President if they wished. We don't even have to have expressed an interest in politics.

As the old saying goes, don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Here they are, Obama picking his cabinet, the Secret Service setting up the most secure inauguration in history (I think that they think Obama's race might make him a target) yet there is a very slim chance that Obama could end up watching the inauguration on a TV set in his hotel room wondering "What the F**K happened?"

I'd love to see that happen, though it'd cause riots in the streets as that seems to be the way the majority of Obama supporters express their disapproval with jury verdicts and the like. And to be fair, everyone else that voted for Obama would probably riot as well as most of America has never bother to learn how the election system REALLY works. So they'd wrongly protest "But WE elected Obama!"

If the Electoral College was to do this, I hope they at least pick someone good. Like maybe Ron Paul for President and perhaps Tina Fey for Vice President.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com: "Secret service steps up inauguration security
Posted: 04:55 PM ET

As many as 4 million people are expected to attend Obama's inauguration at the Mall.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Law enforcement officials bracing for the largest crowds in inaugural history are preparing far-reaching security — thousands of video cameras, sharpshooters, air patrols — to safeguard President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in."



(Via CNN Politcal Ticker.)



Technorati Tags:
, , , ,


Monday, November 17, 2008

Time For Detroit to Reap What it Has Sewn

You've all ready about it, heard about and possibly discussed it. The big three U.S. automakers are asking for a bailout with our tax dollars.

Used as ammunition to get the money, GM for instance is falling back on the old saying "What's good for GM is good for America". But is that the truth?

Granted, the bankruptcy of such a major former blue chip company will ripple through the industry. Thousands of companies provide services or parts to GM, Ford and Chrysler. They really have no other markets.

The employees of those companies will lose their jobs, the money they would have spent won't go into the cash registers of many more thousands of businesses.

The fall of GM alone could cause the unemployment of over one million people on the United States.

So if we fail to bail out GM, they tell us that it'll be more expensive when we have to pay for their funeral.

Is that true?

toiletmoney.jpg

What has happened to get Detroit to this point?

Thirty some years ago, the Arab Oil Embargo "caused" gasoline shortages. The American people flocked to the dealers to buy more fuel efficient cars. Since Detroit had nothing to offer, Toyota, Datsun (now known as Nissan), Volkswagon and even Honda suddenly had a new market.

Detroit continued to make large vehicles knowing that once prices went down, their market would return. But their lack of preparedness gave those other companies a strong beachhead in the U.S. market.

From the mid-70s through the 1980s foreign cars became more reliable, better built and became more and more acceptable to American buyers. Meanwhile, Detroit's offerings were going downhill. Some of the worst vehicles I ever had to work on or use were Chryslers and GM products of the 80s. Anybody remember the Chrysler K car? The Ford Fairmont? Or driving a 1978 Chevy pickup on the freeway and watching the front fenders flex and flap? I do.

In the past thirty years, Detroit has done little to plan ahead other than in how to gouge the buyer. Did you know that there are some current cars from the big three where to change the battery, a hole has to be cut in the wheel well? That's right, you can't just go to Sears or Pepboys, buy a battery, remove the cables from the old one, swap them out and reconnect. Need to replace the $5 oil pan gasket on your Northstar equipped Cadillac? Well, I'm sure the gasket is more than $5 but you get the idea. Anyway, you have to remove the engine!

Meanwhile, executive bonuses and pay are higher and higher, as are the wages of the workers on the factory floor. According to one of GM's statements, they plan on new hires (untrained workers) getting only $14 an hour instead of the current $29 an hour they get now.

That's right... fresh out of high school kids were hired at big three auto plants making 50% more than my wife made as a nurse with 40 years of experience.

Now what does Detroit want the money for? GM wants at least $10 Billion (yes billion) just to cover the pension fund, and another $10 Billion to fund designing more fuel efficient cars. They MIGHT even close some of their plants in Mexico and bring more of the manufacturing of American cars back to America. But there are no guarantees on that.

Compare that to Honda. They are opening several new plants in the U.S. this year and next. They've revamped all of their plants so that they can quickly switch manufacturing over to whatever the public wants to buy. Quickly being in the range of six months to a year, while the big three need three years lead time to switch.

Do you think that the Big Three have learned their lessons?

We taxpayers bailed out Chrysler once before. As a result, people who bought Chrysler stock cheap made millions over ten years. We taxpayers were paid back by Chrysler providing our government with those K cars. (What a deal) Now Chrysler is in the toilet again and wanting another bailout.

My firm belief is that any money we give Detroit will only put them on life support. At some point they are going to die anyway.

So it's pay for their funeral, or give them billions and then pay for the funeral anyway.

I say "screw them". They made their bed, yes people will suffer if they fold. But the suffering will be less in the long run if we pull the plug now.

Perhaps whomever buys the assets of a bankrupt Ford, Chrysler or GM will run things more efficiently. They could certainly use the Japanese companies as inspiration.

Auto bailout debate: What's at stake - Nov. 17, 2008: "NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For more than a century, the U.S. auto industry has been at the center of the American industrial economy. Events over the next month could determine if that remains the case.

This week, Congress will consider whether to cough up billions of dollars to bail out the troubled companies."



(Via CNN Money.)



Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Why My Son Won't Vote For President - His Vote Really DOESN'T Count

John McCain said tonight that "The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly." 10% difference (roughly) is NOT America speaking clearly.

If you look at the Electoral College votes, yes. As of 10:13PM Pacific Time with only 3/4 of the country reporting, Obama has 338 votes, McCain 156 and 270 are needed to win. That sounds like a major win.

But... the popular vote is 54,055,517 to 49,628,933. A difference of only 4,426,584 which is close to the population of Los Angeles.

The difference between the Electoral College results and the popular vote is why my 28 year old son and many others will not vote for a Presidential candidate. This difference makes a little news every four years, then is totally forgotten until the next time.

I remember when Bill Clinton was "elected". He said it was a clear message from America. Yes... while he won the Electoral votes, 49% of American said that they didn't want him as President. Just as 48% tonight have said they don't want Obama in the White House. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote... but lost because the Electoral vote.

The Electoral College system was instituted to be "fair" and to protect the rights of the less populous states. Let's see how that works out.

California has 55 Electoral votes, Nevada 5. (Electors are granted based on the number of Senators and Representatives a state has, which means that the more population a state has, the more Electors.)

Say only California and Nevada are being looked at this election. And say that only 1 million people from each state vote. Say that the one million Californians vote for Obama and the one million Nevadans vote for McCain.

The result would be 1,000,000 vs 1,000,000 or a dead tie. Except for that little Electoral College thing. The REAL results are 55 to 5. The popular winner in a state gets all the electoral votes the state has assigned to it.

Even though the voters were completely split 50-50 in these pretend results, the final vote is skewed 10-1 in favor of the larger state because it has more people (who didn't vote at all.)

This didn't protect the rights of Nevada (the smaller state) at all. If anything, it makes our votes worth less than Californians.

Now, here's the part that no one seems to understand. We did NOT elect Obama President tonight.

We elected "Electors" who will vote on December 15th for the President and the Vice-President.

Currently, Obama has 338 Electors slated to vote for him and McCain has 156. The Electors pledge to vote for whomever won their state, but there is no technical rule that says that they HAVE to vote that way.

The Electors could, in theory, elect ANYONE President, even if they didn't run for the office. The only thing that would matter is that the person they elect is qualified under the constitution.

So... even after the popular vote is pretty much split between McCain and Obama, and they are pledged to actually vote in such a way that Obama will win... the Electors could on December 15, elect say Tom Hanks as President and Rosie O'Donnell as Vice-President. This sort of happened eight years ago when one elector abstained from voting.

This disconnection between the popular vote, the Electoral vote and what COULD happen is why my son and many others refuse to vote for the office of President.


Technorati Tags:
, ,


The Revolution That Didn't Happen

We had a rare opportunity this year... Congress is the only branch of government that can regulate, tax, make laws and spend money. Which means that the national debt, war, financial collapse and most of the other ills of this nation are a direct result of the actions or inactions of our Congress. The fact that 87.8% of Congressional seats were up for election meant that the American people had a chance to do something besides complain. With Congressional approval ratings amongst the lowest they've ever been, one would think that there would have been a clean sweep with new blood brought in to fix things.

Most of the past 40 years have been spent spiraling this country into the land of corporate greed and financial mismanagement. Most of the past 40 years have been with the Democrats in control of Congress. Most of the past 100 years have been spent cycling between Republicans and Democrats in power. Republicans and Democrats alike are interested in two things: Feathering their nests and kow-towing to the lobbyists who finance their campaigns. Do you really believe that someone elected to Congress with a salary of about $169,000 a year got even more wealthy from that income?

So with the Purple Party (Republicans and Democrats, red and blue) having fun at our expense for all these years and the public crying for change, you'd THINK that the American public would replace those Purples with someone else for a change. Lots of independents and Libertarians ran for office. Who knows if they'd have been better than the two parties that got us into this mess? They certainly couldn't have done any worse.

So with the chance to replace our government, without a single shot being fired, what happened?

Nothing

The outraged American voters came out en masse and set voting records, to vote the same parties back into office and into power. Obama may have won the White House and the Dems may have won control of both the House and the Senate, but the American voters are the losers.

Just so you know, as if you care... I voted and I didn't vote for a single Democrat or Republican.

It'll be years before we get an opportunity of this scale again. Assuming that Americans get their collective heads out of their collective asses, I just hope that there is something left to save.


Technorati Tags:
, ,


If You Like How Things are Going... DO NOT VOTE!!!

We need your vote. We are in a pretty rare situation here in the U.S. today. We are electing a new president (and vice president), 1/3 of our Senators and ALL of the House of Representatives. That's 87% of our Federal elected government that can be changed today!

Despite the news reports of perhaps near record voter turnout, many of you have decided that since it makes no difference if it is McCain or Obama that gets elected as our next president, that you aren't going to bother to vote today.

Even if you don't care who wins; even if you think XXX is a shoe in; you NEED to vote today.

Here's my reasoning:

1. In my opinion, if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about how things are going. Voting is one of the most important ways of making you voice heard.

2. If you don't care for either John McCain or Barack Obama, you still have EIGHT other candidates from which to choose! A "3rd party" candidate getting a considerable number of votes will not only make news, but it MIGHT make traditional politicians take notice. While the Democrat and Republican candidates are automatically on the ballot in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, 3rd parties have to apply, lobby and petition every year to be on the ballot. The more votes they get, the more media notice, and perhaps we can get this changed. Finally, some states even have a "None of these Candidates" entry on the ballot. I'd love to see that "person" win an election.

If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are not throwing your vote away. Granted, one of them winning this election probably has the same odds as winning the Powerball lottery three weeks in a row, but every bit helps. And every vote for a 3rd Party is a vote against the mess we are in today.

So if you really like it the way things are in this country, stay home, don't vote and watch someone else choose our new government for you. If/When things get even worse, I don't want to hear your gripes as you did nothing to try to stop it.


Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Responses to a Few Readers

Just a late night post to respond to a few comments made to me in various places.

An online friend of mine over at one of the forums I frequent stated that he's an avid reader of this blog and that he didn't realize that the country was in such bad shape.

Actually, I never meant to insinuate that. I feel that over all our country is in good shape (not great.) Even as illish as our economy is feeling, as John McCain first said earlier this year, and then parroted by W, Cheney and others, our economy is fundamentally sound. It is ill... it is weak... but I doubt that it is going to keel over and die.

Our biggest problem is US. We as a nation of citizens and voters need to pay more attention to what is going on in the halls of government. Our country is where it is today (politically, financially, militarily, etc.) because our elected government officials, their appointed bureaucrats and campaign contributers (bribers) want it that way. They get away with it because we let them. It is as simple as that.

If we as citizens, mobilize and unite our forces, we can bring the government back under our control. Sadly, I doubt that things are bad enough yet for us to unite.

As a nation, I still love our country and there are still plenty of good things about it to enjoy.

I love the fact that we can publicly express our opinions with little fear of being treated in the manner of political dissidents in some other countries.

I love riding my Goldwing motorcycle, even if it is to and from my workplace.

On the rare occasion where I get to ride out of the Las Vegas valley, I love the variety of scenery available even in this one section of the country.

Most of the people I meet are great. Not all of course, and perhaps not in groups... but as individuals and families, they are generally people I'm glad to have met.

The things I love the most about are country though, are things that our government hasn't decided to "fiddle with" yet.

So the country itself isn't in bad shape... it is us and our chosen government officials that need work.
---

When I posted a week or so ago about Obama being the candidate most liked by foreign governments, I asked why we should care what they think. One of my readers on Twitter pointed out that as part of a global community, we should care what other countries think.

I answered her that I respect her right to her opinion, but that I'm not particularly fond of the "Global Community". In my years I've managed to visit a few other countries and fell in love with the people, lifestyle and history of England. In fact, the only foreign place I've visited that I didn't care for was a small Mexican border town. Once deeper into Mexico however, things were a lot better.

That doesn't mean however, that I want the governments of Canada, Mexico or the UK dictating how we live or run our country. By the same token, the United States shouldn't be doing that to others.

About the time I was in junior high school (middle school to you younger folks I guess) I thought that the best thing in the world would be to have one world government. Age and experience have taught me otherwise.

At the beginning of our nation, we were thirteen sovereign though tiny countries. Certain rich and influential men saw that the balkanization of America would lead at least to the friction experienced at the time in Europe, wars sapping away at the strength of each new nation being the worst possible result. United, the new nations stood a much better chance of surviving, dealing with the rest of the world (Europe) and being prosperous.

So a great debate started on how to unite the sovereign (meaning answering to no one) nations.

The end result was a Federal Government. Each nation would become a state of the new nation, but independent and sovereign regarding affairs internal to each state. The Federal Government would be run by representatives from each state, eventually those would consist of Senators appointed by each state's governor to represent the interests of the state, and representatives elected by the citizens of each state to represent their interests.

The duties of the Federal government were clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Basically they were to act as single voice in dealing with other nations, regulate trade between the states (including providing a common currency), arbitrate any disputes between the states and to provide for a common defense.

That was it. Nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere was the Federal Government given power over the people or the state governments other than as it pertained to interstate trade. Each state would remain sovereign within its borders. This allowed for the states to be run according to the cultural and geographic differences of their populations.

However, government has two purposes. The public one is to govern. Seems like an obvious point, but most of us don't realize it. The less public purpose is to grow and gain power. Historically, this is what governments do. They grow through geographic expansion or by expanding their powers over the governed.

Look at the United States as it exists today. There is very little difference between the cultures and economies of say Florida and California. The "sovereign" state governments are no more. Their only powers are those crumbs left to them by the Federal Government. When a state or territory applied to admission to the Union, in a sense they checked their power and pride at the door. Too late, many states found out that like the Mafia or a Roach Motel, once in, you can't get out. This resulted in the Civil War or "War of Northern Aggression" depending on whether it is the winner or loser of that war speaking.

Here's an example of "states rights" or rather the lack thereof.

California legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Marijuana is a natural sedative that reduces nausea for those undergoing chemotherapy and I believe is still proven to reduce ocular pressure for glaucoma patients. Marijuana is a hardy plant, truly a weed that may be easily grown by most anyone. How great that Mother Nature (substitute with the greater power of your preference) provided us with such a great natural remedy, one that doesn't need a big pharmaceutical conglomerate to produce it for us.

Since the Federal Government outlawed marijuana some 70+ years ago, there is no legal source for marijuana in this country. So co-ops formed there in California to grow it for members who had prescriptions from their doctors.

In steps the Federal Government (Drug Enforcement Agency) to raid the co-ops and arrest the members for growing and possessing a controlled substance. "We never said it was legal" was the Fed's claim.

So here we have the citizens of a state deciding that growing a plant and consuming it on doctor's orders is legal, and following the state guidelines to legalize it. Yet the Feds come in and step all over the citizens despite the fact that it wasn't crossing state borders which would make it subject to Federal law and the constitution.

Same sex marriages are another example. Some states were allowing them
so a number of our Federal elected officials started talking about making them illegal at the Federal level.

Now, what does this have to do with the Global Community and One World Government?

Imagine that the states in the United States are the 200+ countries of the world and that the One World Government is the equivalent of our Federal Government. THAT is what would happen to the United States, Canada, etc. We would cease to have much meaning or power as a nation. We as citizens would have even less say into how our government or economies were run.

Even now, with the maze of interlocked treaties, trade agreements, international corporations and agencies and the central banks, we have foreign governments and corporations who exert a surprising amount of power over our government and economy (and therefore, us as individuals.)

Put the brakes on this! We have armed troops in almost every country in the world. Bring them home. Clean up our government. Clean up our country. Address the problems here at home. When we have our act cleaned up, THEN perhaps we Americans would have the right to stand up at the world table and suggest to others how to run their countries. America First!
---

Finally, a twenty-something in my building at work expressed the opinion that the stock market doesn't matter. That if you don't sell when the market is in free fall, you don't lose anything.

Ah to be so young and naive... his statement might be true if it was only individual investors buying and selling those stocks. The truth is that the major trading activity is done by large investment brokers.

One of the places that banks get the money to pay you interest on your deposits is via the stock market. Insurance companies invest our premiums in the stock market, loans and real estate. That is how a 20 year old can buy a $40,000 life insurance policy, pay less than $20,000 into it for 40 years and collect $40,000 when he retires. Companies and unions do the same with retirement pensions. Individuals do it with their 401K retirement plans.

When the stock market falls, it becomes much harder for them to make money. When they don't make money from their investments, how much interest or gains are going into our accounts?

When the stock of a corporation falls in value, the corporation isn't seen as having as much worth. This makes credit harder to come by which impacts their cost of doing business which reduces their profits and lowers the value of their stock.

So in truth, what happens with the stock market DOES mean something. It means the future for many of us, especially with the slim chance of Social Security being there for us much less the twenty-something.

Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Dow's 2nd Best Day Ever - Sort Of... They Claim

After a month of financial collapses and 25% of the stock market value vanishing, the media is touting a "comeback" based on the sixth best day for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The headlines say 2nd best because of the dollar amount, but in reality it's the 6th best by percentage. Percentage counts more because inflation distorts the dollar amount over the past 100+ years.

Within minutes of the opening bell this morning, I was reading media reports about how there was new confidence in the stock market and that things were looking up. As my son would say, "WTF?" It isn't the opening that counts it's where the market ends up at the end of the day.

Somehow I think while it is the media printing this, the words come from the government trying to stem the rushing waters of financial collapse.

They point out that the 888 point gain follows a 936 point gain two weeks ago. Sounds great right? "Oooh, the market must be up almost 1,800 over two weeks ago, right?"

Beeep! Wrong Answer Clyde. Three steps backwards followed by two steps forward still equals going in reverse. In the past few weeks, it'll make a climb, then slip over a few days, make a climb, etc. not really gaining any ground.

Even with today's climb, the DJIA is STILL down 500 over the "big jump" of two weeks ago. Two weeks ago, the DJIA went from about 8,500 to just under 9,500. Today it went from 8,200 to just above 9,000.

I'm hoping that things will level out but this still looks remarkably like the events leading up to the crash of '29.


CNNMoney.com Market Report - Oct. 28, 2008: "Dow's 2nd best day ever
The Dow jumps as much as 906 points as investors use 5-year lows as an opportunity to get back into stocks.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Dow rallied as much as 906 points during Tuesday's session, as investors dove back into stocks near the end of one of the worst months in Wall Street history.

According to early tallies, the Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 888 points after having risen as much as 906 points earlier. It was the Dow's second-biggest one-day point gain ever, following a 936-point rally two weeks ago. The advance of 10.9% was the sixth-biggest ever.

Stocks ended Monday's session at the worst levels in more than five years, with the major gauges off over 25% in October alone. Global markets have fallen too, as investors worldwide have sought to pull money out of stocks amid the credit crisis and weak economy."



(Via CNN Market Report.)




Technorati Tags:
,


Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Kentucky judge OKs His Own Ruling To Grab 141 Popular Domain Names

Kentucky judge OKs 141-site net casino land grab • The Register: "The dispute is the latest example of the difficulty of regulating activity on the internet, a medium that in many ways breaks down geographical boundaries. If decisions like Wingate's are allowed to propagate, any site on the once freewheeling internet could be subject to the laws of the most world's most restrictive states."



(Via The Register.)



This isn't the first story we've read about this and probably won't be the last. Basically, The Kentucky State Attorney General filed a secret case in a secret court to seize 141 domain names of international gaming sites under the claim that the sites could be visited by citizens of Kentucky in violation of Kentucky law.

First... since when does a state attorney general have any say over what a foreign owned, hosted and located company does, much less what right does he have to take their property?

I'm surprised that he hasn't moved to grab the properties of the legal brothels of Nye County Nevada as prostitution is illegal in Kentucky and citizens of Kentucky could and probably do patronize those houses when they come to Las Vegas. Hell, he might end up seizing the entire Las Vegas Strip using that logic.

Second... how can a judge hear an appeal on a case he decided, much less uphold it?

If this kangaroo court decision is allowed to stand, then no website or person on the internet is safe. Any government agency in the world will be able to seize, shut down or discipline them. Carried to an extreme, a mullah in Iran could seize the assets of Playboy, Victoria's Secret, Anheiser-Busch and Farmer John because their products are illegal in Iran under muslim law and muslims from Iran might get their hands on those items. (Their products include, "pornography, skimpy clothing for women, alcoholic beverages and pork products respectively.)

California could decide that Toyota cars produce too many pollutants, market their cars to Californians and then seize Toyota's assets around the word.

Communist China could seize the assets of western websites which post information that China finds offensive or information it doesn't want the population of China to see.

This is a very, very bad decision. If it wasn't so dangerous, it'd be laughable.



Technorati Tags:
,


Sunday, October 19, 2008

McCain: 'I love being the underdog' - CNN.com

McCain: 'I love being the underdog' - CNN.com: ""


Come on John, at least give a nod to there being others in the race and say that you love "being ONE of the underdogs". After all, there are eight Presidential candidates with less chance than you. According to the dictionary though, there will be about 300 million underdogs after the election.

From Merriam-Webster

underdog


One entry found.

Main Entry: un·der·dog


Pronunciation: \ˈən-dÉ™r-ËŒdȯg\


Function: noun


Date: 1859


1 : a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest


2 : a victim of injustice or persecution







Technorati Tags:
,


Friday, October 17, 2008

Polls in 8 countries show wide Obama support - Who Cares?

Polls in 8 countries show wide Obama support: "LONDON (AP) - If the world beyond America's shores had a say, it seems clear that Barack Obama would win the presidential election by something approaching a landslide."



(Via Drudge Report.)



So who cares? One of the problems I think we've got is that our government has spent too many decades worried about not only what other countries think, but what they are doing.

Fix the damn problems here at home. Then we might be able to care what others think. Besides, if they love Obama that much, they should make him President of the European Union.



Technorati Tags:
,


US teen may be registered as sex offender for taking nude photo of herself -WTF?

US teen cuffed for sending nude phone pics • The Register: "A 15-year-old Ohio girl was arrested on felony child pornography charges for allegedly sending nude cell phone pictures of herself to classmates. Authorities are considering charging some of the students who received the photos as well."



(Via The Register.)



I know the government wants to protect us from ourselves but it seems like they're really getting carried away.

Regardless of right or wrong as far as the act goes, it just seems wrong to me that a teen girl takes a nude cell phone picture of herself and sends it to friends, then gets charged with producing child porn, possession of criminal tools (the cellphone?) and could be required to register as a sex offender for 20 years. That's just wrong.

As for wanting to charge the kids she sent the picture(s) with possession of child pornography...

Job Interviewer in 2018: "I see here that you are a registered sex offender. We don't hire your kind."

Young man: "But all it was is that a girl in one of my high school classes sent a nude picture of herself to my cell phone."

Job Interviewer: "Yeah, right. NEXT!"



Technorati Tags:
,


Thursday, October 16, 2008

McCain - Obama Promise Change. Starting When?

We've all read and heard Barack Obama and John McCain promise change as part of their campaigns.

The Question of the Day is WHEN?

When they were state and Federal legislators and in position to create change, how much change did they create?

Now they are running for President of the United States.  Perhaps their voting records (which don't show change) were based on compromises. So how are they running their campaigns?  Are they flooding our airwaves and mailboxes with information on how they will bring this change about?

Nope.  The campaigns have fallen into the same rut as every previous U.S. Presidential campaign.  Mud slinging, half truths and campaigns against each other, "He's dirtier than I am" campaigning. So with no hint of change past or present, who would really believe that they can or will bring about change in the future?

Want change?  Pick one of the other 80% of the candidates.  You have eight to pick from. Even if we all pick randomly, chances are that we'll get more and better change than we'll get from the greedy two-headed giant (one red head and one blue head.)



Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , ,


Trick Question: How Many Candidates in 2008 Presidential Election?

If you use the TV, most newspapers or most internet "news" sites and if you listen to or read the political ads and spam filling our mail boxes, the answer is two: Barack Obama and John McCain.

Here though, is the trick. The answer is one that the mainstream media as well as the Democrat and Republican parties want to keep a secret as much as possible.

There are actually TEN, yes 10 candidates for running for President this November! Could it be that the "powers that be" don't want mainstream U.S.A. to know that they have choices beside Obama-McCain?

I hit most of the mainstream news media sites tonight, and only Fox News showed that Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) and Ralph Nader (Independent) are candidates in addition to Obama and McCain. However, they still show only 40% of the candidates.

CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, New York Times, Washington Post, USA today all promise complete coverage, yet only cover 20% of the candidates!

Now, when I went to school, 40% would have earned me a big fat F!

usatoday-candidates.jpg

So despite all the nifty color charts and tables comparing Obama and McCain, the public isn't given a chance to compare the choices of the sitting parties against the rest of the field. Gee, I wonder why the other candidates have problems raising money and getting out their word?

Some of these candidates have had some very GOOD things to say and offer. They deserve a chance to be heard by the voters. How many were invited to the Presidential debates? Having a series of Presidential debates but only inviting 20% of the candidates is rather like declaring a sports team "world champions" but only having teams from one or two countries compete. (Think World Series for example)

Ok, there's the list of candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election:

Chuck Baldwin - Constitition Party
Bob Barr - Libertarian
Roger Calero - Socialist Workers Party
Alan Keyes - America's Independent Party
Gloria La Riva - Party for Socialism and Liberation
John McCain - Republican
Cynthia McKinney - Green Party
Brian Moore - Socialist Party
Ralph Nader - Independant
Barack Obama - Democrat

As I've said before, we the voters just keep reelecting the "other" party hoping that they'll be better than the current one. John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are all sitting Senators and have been in position to create the change they're promising. As President they'll have less influence for change, but that is the basis of their campaigns.

The country is the way it is because the Democrat and Republican parties want it that way. If they didn't they'd have changed things already.

If we voters really wanted change, we wouldn't keep electing the same parties to office. The names and faces change but the platforms remain the same.

If they really wanted to give us change, Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin would both remove themselves from this election and put their support behind one of the other eight Presidential candidates.




Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , , ,


Monday, October 13, 2008

Finally, Mainstream Media that "Gets" It! - Cause of the Meltdown

I, among others, have been peaching that it's not Republican vs. Democrat, it is Republicans AND Democrats vs. US. There's a well written story that covers most of the causes of the recent global meltdown and puts the blame right where it belongs, Congress as a whole.

How Congress set the stage for a fiscal meltdown - USATODAY.com: "No single government decision sparked the crisis, but collectively the candidates had a point: Both parties in Congress played important roles in setting the stage for the ongoing financial meltdown."



(Via USA Today.)




Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,


Monday, October 06, 2008

Arctic Ice Deals Scientists and Tree Huggers a Blow

Before the economic meltdown took over front page news, the media was full of doom and gloom (and falsehoods) about how global warming was going to melt the arctic ice cap this summer.

Well, sometimes nature ignores the statements of scientists, reporters and tree-huggers. It didn't melt. In fact, it made a comeback of sorts, about 10% greater than 2007 according to the "National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder."
20081002_Figure2_thumb.png

(You can view the full size graph here.)

While well below the average for the 30 years that NSIDC has been tracking the ice coverage, and below 2005's coverage, 2008 splits the difference between the lowest ever recorded (2007) and 2005.

The growth/recovery is also backed up by NASA and the University of Illinois. I guess they just didn't see it coming. Not that the mainstream media is covering it. After all, it isn't doom and gloom.


The Register is an online newspaper mostly for geeks and those in the Information Technology industry. While opinionated (which I'm not of course) it doesn't pull punches and offers in-depth independent analysis of a number of newsworthy subjects.

This is from August 15, 2008
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered • The Register: "Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the 'North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer'. Others predicted that the entire 'polar ice cap would disappear this summer'."

"NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006."

(Via The Register.)



That is about the only mention I can find about this non-event that admits that it was a non-event.

On the other hand...

On August 31, 2008
The Daily Telegraph ignored the growth trend and pointed out:

Arctic becomes an island as ice melts - Telegraph: "The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.

(Via The Daily Telegraph.)




September 1st, 2008

Arctic Ice Cap Melting To Dangerous Lows - EON: "Situation In Arctic Ice Affects Many Things Including Weather

Chukchi Sea, Alaska- The conditions of the Arctic Ice flow located in the far North has scientists around the world concerned, the ice cap is nearing new all time lows, the lowest amount of ice since records have been first kept."

(Via EON.)



While it doesn't lie, it insinuates that the decline continued this year and "since records have been first kept" sounds like a long time. Yeah, 30 years. I have boots older than that.

Science News on Friday, October 3, 2008 actually admitted a "slight recovery from 2007".

Science News / A Near-record Arctic Melting: "This summer, the share of the Arctic Ocean covered by sea ice was the second-lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979. And because much of the ice had formed just this past winter and was therefore relatively thin, the volume of floating ice at the top of the world probably reached a record low, scientists estimate."



(Via Science News.)



On Friday as well, the NSIDC proclaimed:

NSIDC Press Room: Sea Ice Minimum 2008: "Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on September 14, 2008."



(Via National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).)



The best line of all those is from Treehugger.com back in March when it warned that the "Arctic Ice Cap could be Gone by Summer".

Arctic Ice Cap Could be Gone by the Summer : TreeHugger: " If there's one thing scientists have learned over the past few years, it is that the effects of climate change are too variable and convoluted to make accurate predictions."



(Via TreeHugger.com.)



Personally, I'd rephrase that as "If there's one thing scientists have learned over the past few years, that the climate is too variable and convoluted to make accurate predictions."

Note: There has been a lot of doom and gloom over the arctic ice cap melting, coastal flooding, etc. Those spreading that manure should actually read some basic college textbooks. Unlike Antarctica where the ice cap sits on land, the arctic ice cap is floating on the ocean. It already displaces a volume of water equal to the weight of the ice. Should it melt completely, it will not affect sea level by even one millimeter. Source


Technorati Tags:
, , , ,


Saturday, October 04, 2008

The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

This pretty well sums it all up and echos the things I've been saying about this and previous elections. It is nice to see that I'm not the only one that is "nuts". A revised and updated version of this, referring to Iraq, Nancy Pelosi, etc. is floating around the net right now. It just shows how little things have changed.

The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes: "by Charley Reese, Orlando Sentinal Star newspaper"


The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes

BY Charley Reese

(Date of publication unknown)-- -- - Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was first published by the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper

(Via informationclearinghouse.info.)





Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,


Thursday, October 02, 2008

Apple Removes Cone of Silence For iPhone!

Many companies make developers, beta testers, reviewers, etc. sign NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) to protect their software before it is released.

This actually makes sense as unreleased software is usually unfinished, buggy and may have features disabled. The public hearing about those limitations could and probably would create bad impressions that don't apply to the released version of the software.

However, most feel that Apple went to far in their NDA about the iPhone developer's tools. Even after release of both the software developer kit and the iPhone itself, developers weren't allowed to discuss how to program for the iPhone with anyone, anywhere!

Considering the scant documentation available, the reported bugs in the SDK and the problems a lot of developers had writing applications for the iPhone, the idea of a gag order keeping developers from helping each other is ludicrous.

Yes, it was so restrictive that if someone on a forum said "I'm having some problems. When I do [insert programming thing], it does [insert result] instead." That's banned by Apple. Even worse, someone trying to help that questioner would be violating the NDA as well.

I guess Apple got enough bad press about this and has finally "seen the light".

A message for iPhone Developers: "We have decided to drop the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) for released iPhone software."



(Via Apple Developer Connection.)




Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Price of Gas Has Barely Changed in 74 years!

Hard to believe? I'll prove it. The trick is to compare it to the value of gold versus I.O.U money. Gold used to be our currency/money. Dollar bills were just a convenient way to carry gold. Each note said "Gold Certificate" meaning that you could exchange it for that amount in gold.

Until 1934, one U.S. Dollar was equal and exchangeable for 1.67 grams of gold held in our national treasury. To restrict private citizen’s access to gold during the depression, Roosevelt took the U.S. off of the gold standard, replacing "Gold Certificate" with “Federal Reserve Note” and backed by the U.S. Government’s “promise to pay”. (The latter taken from blm.gov in their education section about gold.)

President Nixon is often said to have taken us off of the gold standard but that’s wrong. After WWII, The United States “fixed” the dollar at $35 per ounce of gold. You still couldn’t exchange a dollar for gold from the treasury, but the price was fixed. In 1971 President Nixon floated the dollar.

In 1934 when the U.S. went to fiat (I.O.U.) money, the Dow was around $100.

In 1971 when Nixon floated the dollar, the Dow was around $900
Today, the Dow is just above $10,200

Using just those indicators, since we went to “backed by the Federal government’s Promise to pay” money created by the Federal Reserve, today’s dollar has lost a little more than 99% of its value.

Let’s see how that stacks up against non subsidized prices





Average Cost of193419712008
New House$5,970.00$25,250.00$300,000.00
Home Rental/Month$20.00$150.00$1,500.00
Gallon of Gas$0.10$0.40$3.61
Gold/Troy Ounce$35.00$40.62$894.00


Now let's look at average wages.


Average193419712008
Annual Wage$1,600$10,600.00$56,194.00



Since 1934


New homes have gone up 5,000%


Rent has gone up 7,500%


Gasoline has gone up 3,600%


And wages have gone up only 3,500%

Now let's compare the same things but using the cost in ounces of gold.
I calculated it by dividing the price for each item by the price of gold per troy ounce that year. So the following is in ounces of gold rounded to 3 decimal places.





Average193419712008
New House170.571621.615335.570
Home Rental/Month0.5713.6931.678
Gallon of Gas0.0030.0100.004
Wage45.714260.95562.857


1971 shows the massive inflation that President Nixon had to handle.

Over all, the cost of things in gold ounces has stayed pretty close, ranging from a gallon of gas being almost the same, to a new house going up 100% to rent going up 293%. Wages only went up 50%.

It looks to me like gold is certainly much more stable in buying power over the past 74 years than the dollar.


Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Is The Federal Reserve Doing Its Job?

I was researching to find a citation for my statement that the Federal Reserve System was put into place to regulate the banking industry and to prevent bank panics and failures. (Seems to have failed huh?)

Anyway, I ran across "Lender of Last Resort" as one of their responsibilities. Here's the definition from the glossary pages of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank.

lender of last resort
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve has the authority and financial resources to act as “lender of last resort” by extending credit to depository institutions or to other entities in unusual circumstances involving a national or regional emergency, where failure to obtain credit would have a severe adverse impact on the economy.


So there it is... in black and white on one of the Fed's websites.

Does the situation meet the conditions specified?

1. Unusual circumstances - It isn't usual for this many banks to go belly up.

2. National or Regional Emergency - The Federal Reserve Chairman says that if we don't bail out the banks, the economy will collapse. I'd call that an emergency.

3. Severe adverse impact on the economy - The Pres, SecTreas and Fed Chairman say that if the banks can't get credit, the economy is doomed.

As I see it, the situation fits the three requirements for the Federal Reserve to act as lender of last resort and extend credit to the banks. That is their job!

So why are they trying to foist it off as a loan to us citizens?

What do you think?



Technorati Tags:
, ,


The Panic Over the Dow

Most of the world is very concerned over yesterday's big drop in the stock market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 777 points, about 6% of the value of the DJIA and about $1.3 Trillion in value. I'm one of those people. Many others however are panicking while the nay sayers point out that looked at as a percentage of drop, it isn't even in the top 10.

This prompted me to do some research last night. Following are the top ten DJIA drops by percentage.











RankDatePercentAmount
1October 19, 198722.61-$508.00
2October 28, 192912.82-$12.82
3October 29, 192911.73-$30.57
4November 6, 19299.92-$25.55
5December 18, 18998.72-$5.57
6August 12, 19328.4-$5.79
7March 14, 19078.29-$6.89
8October 26, 19878.04-$156.83
9July 21, 19337.84-$7.55
10October 18, 19377.75-$10.57


So yesterday’s 6% drop only ranks about the 17th highest percentage drop in the 112 year history of the Down Jones Industrial Average. As a side note, the #1 position isn't quite true. On December 12, 1914 the DJIA plummeted 24.39%. For some reason the experts don't want to count that drop. The only explanation for not including it that I can come up with is that the stock exchange had been closed since July 30, 1914 when the Secretary of the Treasury ordered it shut down. During that period the Federal Reserve System was put into place to regulate the banking industry and to prevent bank panics and failures. (Hmm hasn't worked out so well it seems.)

Just FYI, here's the original twelve companies that formed the original Dow Jones Industrial Average 112 years ago:

American Cotton Oil Company
American Sugar Company
American Tobacco Company
Chicago Gas Company
Distilling & Cattle Feeding Company
General Electric
Laclede Gas Light Company
National Lead Company
North American Company
Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company
U.S. Leather Company
United States Rubber Company


Technorati Tags:
, ,


Monday, September 29, 2008

To My Love: Happy 10th Anniversary!

Despite all the bad news today and recently, I have one thing to celebrate for sure.

Ten years ago today, I became one of the most fortunate men in the world.

For the past ten years, my wife Linda has stood by my side, supported me when I needed it, defended me even when I was wrong and comforted me when I was down. We are so compatible that in the than 16 years that I've known her, we've never had a fight!

Oh, we disagree in various things and have had our fair share of turmoil in our shared life, but nothing that has ever been bad enough to seriously argue or fight about. I think I may have raised my voice to her two or three times, but later felt ashamed of it.

We tease each other (well, MOSTLY me teasing her) and just try to have a good life together. I promised her many years ago that while we may never have a lot of money, we will laugh lot. That is one promise I've easily been able to keep. My darling wife is the one person who keeps me sane enough to be my crazy self.

So my love, here I am, saying in front of the whole Internet, that I love you, I thank you and I wish for us to have very long lives together.

Please join me in raising a glass to the love of my life and the best woman I know.


Technorati Tags:
, ,


Worse Than 9/11

Stocks crushed

"Approximately $1.2 trillion in market value is gone after the House rejects the $700 billion bank bailout plan."

Sadly I fear that this is just the beginning. And now all the House can do is point fingers at each other.

(Via CNN.)




Technorati Tags:
, ,


Economic Crisis Hits the Playboy Mansion: Hugh Hefner Facing Bankruptcy

Economic Crisis Hits the Playboy Mansion: Hugh Hefner Facing Bankruptcy | Bitten and Bound: "Economic Crisis Hits the Playboy Mansion: Hugh Hefner Facing Bankruptcy
Posted on: September 29th, 2008 by: Andrea

You know the economy has definitely reached crisis level when Playboy billionaire Hugh Hefner is being told to tighten his purse strings or face bankruptcy."



(Via Bitten & Bound.)




Technorati Tags:


Does This Sound Familiar?

About the Great Depression: "At least in part, the Great Depression was caused by underlying weaknesses and imbalances within the U.S. economy that had been obscured by the boom psychology and speculative euphoria of the 1920s. The Depression exposed those weaknesses, as it did the inability of the nation's political and financial institutions to cope with the vicious downward economic cycle that had set in by 1930."



(Via University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.)



Damn but this sounds a lot like the past 20 years.



Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Bailout Failure Causes Black Monday - Sep. 29, 2008

Bailout Plan Rejected: "The fate of the Bush administration's $700 billion financial bailout plan was abruptly thrown in doubt Monday as a House vote turned against the controversial measure."



Black Monday 2008.jpg

(Via CNN Money.)



The DOW dropped 600 points (6%), the UK's version dropped 5.3% to the lowest point in three years.

I'm not sure if I like this or not as I haven't had time to read the entire 106 page final bill. However, the draft version appeared to have enough in it that I felt as comfortable as could be with it. After all, anything that comes out of Congress which no one likes (the Congressmen who wrote it) means that it's probably best of us.

It's when Congress is HAPPY with a bill that I know we citizens are getting it in the shorts.



Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Sunday, September 28, 2008

A Prime Example of Our Economic Status

With no notice, the 11th largest dealership in the United States closed the doors on 13 dealerships around the country last Wednesday. Bill Heard Enterprises, based in Georgia, was been in business for 89 years (since 1919) and was the country's largest Chevrolet dealership chain of Chevy dealers in the country.

Two of the dealerships, Bill Heard Chevrolet and Vista Chevrolet were located in Las Vegas, Nevada. The rest were in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee and Texas with a total of about 2,700 employees.

While Bill Heard Enterprises didn't return any phone calls, they did release a statement to the media.

Business shuts LV auto outlets: "'Rising fuel prices, a product portfolio of mostly heavy trucks and sport utility vehicles, economic recession, unfavorable local market conditions for vehicle sales, the crisis in the banking and financing sectors, and other factors all combined to create a business environment in which the company simply did not have the resources needed to continue to operate,'' according to the statement."



(Via Las Vegas Review-Journal.)




Technorati Tags:
, ,


Bailout Alternatives

I haven't commented on this until now, but I'm sure everyone knows about the impending collapse of our economy. That is if you believe the politicians and the media.

Funny thing. Just a week or two ago, I was gathering information, quotes and headlines for a blog entry about how bad our economy had gotten despite what the politicians claimed.

Oh, and just to set the record straight, from MY research, McCain wasn't parroting Bush when he said that the "foundations of our economy are strong". McCain said it first last January. Then in February Bush said it and in March, Cheney said it. So it was the administration parroting McCain.

Face it, both camps, like most politicians, are liars.

Now back to the economy.

As I'm sure you've all heard, if Congress doesn't approve a bill to bail the banks out of their self-induced troubles, the world is going to end. "They" want the Federal Reserve to loan the Treasury Department (U.S. Taxpayers) $700 Billion so that the Treasury Department (U.S. Taxpayers) can purchase all those sub-prime and bad mortgages that the banks bought.

President Bush in his speech pointed out that only the Federal Government has the money and patience to hold on to them until the (home) market returns to normal and the mortgages could be sold at a profit.

There's the first problem. The home market IS back to normal. Those bad mortgages were all written when the housing market was in an unsustainable bubble. The bubble burst. Prices are just now getting back to normal. If prices go back up to what Bush calls "normal" then it'll be another bubble and we'll start this all over.

Giving the banks an out is wrong. Not having to take responsibility for their greed means that there will be more incentive to take high risks in the future as they know that "the government will bail us out".

Second is the power this bill gives the Administration.

"To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure
certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability
to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and
protecting taxpayers, and for other purposes."

That is the summary of the discussion draft of the bail out bill as of today.

Sounds rather innocent doesn't it?

I guess if I had to pin something down as what's wrong with it, it would be the "and for other purposes".

I'm thrilled that Congress has seen fit to eliminate part of the original Bush-Paulson-Beneke bail out. The fine print of the bill forbade ANY judicial oversight. Meaning that no matter the administration did, the courts had no say about it.

The original also made it less clear than this version does that the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve would have the power to nationalize ANY business as long as they claimed it was to stabilize the economy.

It never uses the "nationalize" but when a government buys a private business" there is NO other name for it.

Nationalization is something done by Socialist and dictatorial governments, not by democracies and federations.

The original proposal positioned the Administration such that any business or industry could be acquired with no notice and no options for the target to use for defense or protection.

Basically as it stands, the bail out still let's those banks off of the hook, makes the tax payer responsible for that $700 Billion (about $2,000 per family) and still leaves the door open for nationalization of industry, albeit with judicial oversight and the ability for a business to try to fight the government in court.

Ralph Nader had some good thoughts on the problem. He's calling for putting the regulations back into place that Bill Clinton and Congress took out back in 1992. All this crap that has collapsed our economy stems directly from that deregulation. He proposes to go further. Outlaw the selling of mortgages and loans. If you write a bad loan, you're stuck with it until it is settled. No more bundling the bad ones with good ones and passing the bundle on to the next sucker bank.

An average citizen on one of the forums pointed out an obvious alternative. If the Federal Reserve has the money to loan the U.S. Taxpayer to bail out the banks... then why not have the Federal Reserve do their job and loan it directly to the banks? Answer: Because the banks don't want to be saddled with that high risk debt. They want a get out of jail free card. Let the taxpayer take the hit.

The above solution of course flies in the face of the way Washington works. The answer to everything is more government!

While I normally don't think much of celebrities spouting off about things out of their area, I DO listen. Mostly it is the attention they get from the media that pisses me off. Over all, I rank their opinions right up there with my next door neighbors or people at work. We all have opinions.

However, Whoopi Goldberg has a different alternative to the bailout. Again, because the Federal Reserve can create as much money as we want to borrow, her solution is to bypass the banks. Give the money to the taxpayer by paying off up to 50% of all of our first mortgages. Only the homes we live in. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th houses? You're on your own and shame on you. This would spend the same about money play money at the Federal level. However, everyone would suddenly gain a lot of equity in their homes. Those with subprime loans could then refinance at better rates and lower payments thus pretty much eliminating the "bad loans".

The lower payments we could have would put discretionary funds into our wallets and boost the economy as well.

The banks could get free of the results of their greed.
Homeowners could get lower payments.
Homeowners would actually be getting something tangible for the bailout.
The economy would get a boost.

I'm one of the ones that got a loan during the boom. Due to various things we were considered sub-prime (just barely.)

I bought our home in 1998 for $78,500. When appraised for a refinance in 2006, it appraised at well over $250,000.

Countrywide tried to get me to go for $250,000. I held to my guns and borrowed $140,000. That paid off the original loan with Countrywide, paid off a lot of old credit card debt my wife had brought into our marriage, paid off our vehicles and left us some cash for things around the house.

Countrywide also tried to get me to go for an adjustable rate loan. They pressured me so hard I finally got fed up and told the guy if that if he mentioned it one more time, the deal was off and I'd go elsewhere. As I told him, "Interest rates are at their lowest in 40 years. Why would I take an adjustable rate when the only direction they can go is up?"

As a result, I converted my VA home loan at 7.25% 30 year fixed to a 6% 15 year fixed. While we got rid of a number of payments, our monthly payment doubled. With the payment schedule we're doing, it'll be paid off in about eight more years. Just about in time for retirement.

Yes it hurts sometimes. Especially now that my wife has been laid off of her job. That cut our income in half.

Sadly though, too many people (prime and sub-prime) fell for the housing bubble and took out low rate ARM mortgages, and watched as their house payments doubled in some cases. As they defaulted on their loans, their banks and other lending institutions discovered that the debt insurance they'd bought was worthless (fodder for another blog post) this being what REALLY brought down the house.

So here is Washington, using Big Government as the answer (again) to bail out private industry at tax payer expense (again) yet even a few John and Jane Does can come up with better answers.

As Will Rogers said "It's a good thing we're not getting all of the government that we're paying for."



Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Thursday, September 25, 2008

Beginning of the End

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1 - Army Times



(Via Army Times.)



This post is non-political in that I won't mention political parties or candidates, who is right, who is wrong, etc.

Actually, it started long ago, but I think we're seeing the end game now.

Here 're a few things from the news in the U.S. over the past ten years.

About ten years ago or so, American corporations were given permission to move jobs out of the country to Canada and Mexico. Truthfully, with the various tax breaks and the like, they were PAID to move those jobs out of the country.

Sadly, for the Canadians and Mexicans, businesses decided that they could move the jobs to ANY foreign country and thus accelerated the transition of the United States from an industrial nation to a service nation.

During the ten years, we've seen an increasing rate of foreign acquisition of American companies. Even Anheuser-Busch has joined the likes of Chrysler in being foreign owned.

American companies have had a field day with deregulation, the most telling in the financial sectors. Look at the various financial scandals over the past few years... Enron, et al. Mortgage companies almost begged people to refinance their homes and to buy more expensive homes than they can afford. Credit was given to those who normally wouldn't qualify. (Sub-prime loans.) Now whistle blowers are telling how MBNA call center employees were supposed to do whatever it took to get people to max out their credit cards with cash advances and at the highest rates possible. No matter if some of those sub-prime loans or maxed out credit card accounts defaulted, the profits from those who paid more than made up for the loss. Besides, they could sell the defaulted accounts at a "loss" to collection agencies (the loss being the interest they didn't collect) resulting in a lowered corporate tax bill.)

Government approved corporate malfeasance, unethical behavior and "perks" and bonuses for their highest levels of management have combined to sap this country of jobs and assets.

Now businesses are failing all across America, from Bill Heard Enterprises suddenly closing their 13 Chevrolet dealerships across the country, to the nation's largest (and smallest) banks failing. Detroit wants a Federal bailout too.

This US$700 Billion financial bailout will actually cost more like US$5 TRILLION before it is over and "paid back".

Analysts say that the worst case scenario from our financial collapse (even with the bailout) is likely to result in 40-50% unemployment and 20-40% inflation.

Sounds a lot like the 30s huh? The difference being that during the depression, the dollar was based on how much gold our government had squirreled away. Today though, the Federal Reserve can create as many dollars as we need. The chairman even said that to Congress last week.

Don't worry about your safety as our infrastructure collapses though. The returning active duty units of the Army are being assigned to respond to natural and man-made disasters, terrorist attacks and to "quell civil unrest and crowd control". The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team is the first unit returning from Iraq to be assigned to this 12 month tour for Homeland Security according to an article in the Army Times. After their Homeland tour, they'll cycle back to Iraq. (They've spent three of the last five years in Iraq.)

Personally, I think that the safest thing would be to (or have already done so) find a place in the boonies where you can live off the grid and off the radar, investing in food and precious metals (lead and brass) as we're going to need them.

I've never wanted to be wrong more in my life than now.



Technorati Tags:
, , , ,


Thursday, September 18, 2008

Which Candidate Will Get Your Vote?

No, I don't mean for President.

Quick, name the candidates in your state running for Congress.
Do you know?
Do you care?

Beeep! Time's up.

But you know the names of the Democrat and Republican Presidential candidates don't you?

Since Congress is the only body in the Federal government that can raise or lower taxes, spend money, regulate or de-regulate business, healthcare, etc., declare war (as well as fund war) and make laws, you'd THINK that people would actually pay attention to the 435 House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats that are up for grabs in about six weeks.

That's right. EVERY Representative us up for re-election or replacement.
Over 1/3rd of the Senate is up for re-election or replacement.

That mean that we have the chance to replace 88.9% of Congress in six weeks.

And most of us have NO clue as to who is running. Instead, there's a mad rush to buy eye glasses like Sarah Palin's. (Sales have shot from 2,200 a month to over 9,000 a month since McCain chose her as her running mate.) Instead we quibble over who has more or less experience. Instead, we listen to candidates from opposite sides of the spectrum promise us change.

Listen up folks, we can create more change in six weeks then either candidate could do in eight years.

No wonder we seem to get the government that we deserve. But as Will Rogers said "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."


Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,


Monday, September 15, 2008

Whatever will we do without their razor-sharp political advice?

There are many reasons to admire and respect many of our celebrities in the movie, television and sports fields. After all, they've worked for years to be able to remember their lines for up to five minutes at a time (check the blooper reels some time) or to move a bag of air up and down and playing field.

What is it though, that makes the media think that we care what these people think regarding subjects so far outside of their expertise? Why does the media and I guess some people put more value on what these folks say rather than any other citizen?

In the 2008 movie "Get Smart", there is a scene where the bad guys discuss nuking Los Angeles. To paraphrase, the henchman says "But what about all the stars?" and Siegfried's reply is "Whatever will we do without their razor-sharp political advice?"

Last week we got to hear from the Forrest Gump of actors, Matt Damon, about how Sarah Palin becoming President of the United States would be "like a really bad Disney movie."

This week, Ted Danson, known for his comedic roles as a bar owner and medical doctor blesses us with this wisdom based on his extensive experience. To be fair, this comes from a British newspaper who refers to Mr. Danson as "A leading Hollywood actor" so perhaps the Brits think more of his acting than we do.

Actor Ted Danson blames fish and chips for shark extinction threat



(Via Telegraph UK News.)





Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Matt Damon: Sarah Palin Presidency Would Be Like a 'Really Bad Disney Movie'

FOXNews.com - Actor Matt Damon said a Sarah Palin presidency would be like "a really bad Disney movie."

"I think there's a really good chance Sarah Palin could become president, and I think that's a really scary thing," he told the Associated Press, referring to the Republican vice presidential nominee.



(Via Foxnews.com.)



Would someone please explain to me just WHY Fox News thinks that the opinions of yet another actor really mean anything? After all, Matt Damon is the actor often lampooned as being mentally challenged. Why doesn't Fox report on what I think? Oh wait, I'm not mentally challenged. I guess that would explain why Fox doesn't care what I think about the Presidential race.


Technorati Tags:
, ,


Nano Meets Etch-A-Sketch * Life imitates humor.

You know... there's an old joke about Apple MacIntosh computers:

Q: "What's the difference between a Mac and an Etch-a-Sketch?"
A" "You don't have to shake a mac to clear the screen."

Well, Steve Jobs announced new iPod Nanos yesterday, one of the big features is to shuffle your music, you shake the Nano.


Technorati Tags:
, ,


Monday, September 08, 2008

Gun arrest at Obama rally opens up debate on rights

When is it proper to infringe upon the rights of a law abiding citizen?

No, that's not a trick question. For the past week, the message boards and forums have been crackling with discussions over an incident in Pennsylvania. A citizen in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania was detained by police, his handgun confiscated and then released, but his weapon was not returned. His crime? None. The charges? "Disorderly conduct and disrupting meetings and processions".

Note: The headline I used here is taken verbatim from the Ellwood City Register. As you'll find out when reading further, nothing happened AT the Obama rally. It all happened in another park across the street and away from the security surrounding the rally.

The facts:

Fact - San Francisco, April 6, 2008 - Barack Obama gave a speech at a fundraising event. At the speech he referred to working class voters in small towns who had lost their jobs as "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Fact - As per numerous media reports, folks from small towns across American took offense to Obama "looking down on them".

Fact - Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, August 29, 2008 - Barack Obama held a campaign rally in Ellwood City in Irvine Park.

Fact - Pennsylvania law makes it very clear that it is perfectly legal to openly carry a handgun in public without any kind of license or permission. (Note: My home state of Nevada is the same way, you only need a license to carry a concealed weapon.)

Fact - Ellwood City citizen John Noble normally wears a holster with his Glock 9mm handgun in public, openly displayed in accordance with the law and never bothered by police about it.

Fact - Prior to Obama's Rally, Noble posted to a web site calling for folks to meet at McIntosh Park (across the street from the park where Obama's rally was being held) to campaign against Obama.

Fact - In the web post and referring to Obama's remarks about clinging to their guns or religion, Noble encouraged everyone to bring their guns and Bibles.

Fact - Noble did in fact show up in McIntosh Park, wearing his gun and passing out leaflets or flyers.

Fact - Irvine Park, where the rally was being held was a controlled access area.

Supposition - Presumably if anyone tried to get in to the controlled access area while wearing a gun, they'd have been stopped by the police or Secret Service as they wouldn't have made it through the metal detector.

Fact - No one has reported, and Sheriff's Deputies and State Police have stated that at no time did Noble threaten anyone or draw his weapon.

Fact - Someone heading to the rally noticed Noble wearing his holstered weapon and complained to the police that there was an armed man across the street.

Fact - The Pennsylvania State Police created a disturbance by pulling officers from their assigned posts to confront Noble.

Fact - Despite not having broken any laws, Nobel was arrested and confined to a Secret Service SUV parked next to McIntosh Park for questioning.

Fact - The State Police confiscated Noble's legal weapon which had been legally displayed and did not return it to him.

Fact - The State Police charged Noble with disrupting the rally and disorderly conduct. (One count each of disorderly conduct and disrupting meetings and processions.)

Fact - Nobel wasn't AT the rally, wasn't heading to the rally and was in fact trying to stage a counter rally in a different park across the street.

Fact - As "evidence" of Noble's intent to disrupt the rally, State Police used the "bring your guns and bibles" post from the web site.

Fact - The Secret Service has stated that they won't file charges as Nobel at no time entered the park where the rally was being held. (In other words, he'd broken no Federal Laws.)

So, While not breaking any Federal, State OR local laws, John Noble was arrested, had his private property seized and had both his first and second amendment rights infringed. Meanwhile he has been charged with creating a disturbance which was actually created by the State Police and an Obama supporter.

The fact that someone going to an Obama rally would be concerned because of a citizen obeying all laws makes perfect sense in that it involves a gun. After all, Barack Obama is on record and has shown by his past actions that he is against the private ownership of handguns. The Democratic Party has also shown and proven that they are against and afraid of citizens owning weapons.

So all of this boils down to one scared anti-gunner causing the overreaction of law enforcement to infringe upon the rights of a law abiding citizen.

Now all this said, unless I was willing to deal with the consequences to make a statement, I wouldn't wear a gun anywhere near a Presidential Campaign Rally. That's just not smart. Luckily, being dumb isn't a crime as our jails and prisons are already overpopulated from the "War on Drugs" amongst other things.

Then again, you wouldn't catch me near an Obama rally anyway. One because I don't support him, two because he's a very big target. No way would I want to be anywhere in the vicinity if bullets start flying or bombs start going off. (To a much lesser extent, the same applies to a McCain rally.) This second part has nothing to do with how I feel about the men, but just the threat that they are to those around them who could be caught in the crossfire. The threat is real as shown by the Secret Service contingent surrounding both candidates, the metal detectors at the controlled access points, etc.

Pennsylvania Statute 18 P.C.S, 6106 defines when a person is breaking the law: "Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree."

(Via Ellwood City Ledger.)



(Via Map of Incident from PAOpencarry.org.)



CNN Coverage of Obama's inflammatory statement.





Technorati Tags:
, , ,