The Economic Stimulus Blog

I've been putting this off for a long time.  I've been researching this for six months.  Steadily watching the news for stories about the good or bad effects of the different plans.  I've watched two presidents sell two different bailout plans to Congress.  I've read both of them.  I've also watched the automotive companies and their suppliers ask for some of the cut.  I've heard about states and cities ask for TARP money because they think they need some free money.

I've stored some 350 articles away in my bookmarks so that I could pull out quotes and site sources for different thoughts.  I'm instead going to take just one quote from an unexpected source, Laura Linney in the acclaimed and awarded HBO mini-series John Adams: 'You don't have to quote great men just to prove that you are one.'  I'm not going to use any of those articles at all.  If you have a question about something relating to anything going on with the economy over the last six months post a comment or email me and I'll send you a link.  I'm just going to write what I know and hope you guys take my word for it, I think I've shown in previous articles that I know what I'm talking about most of the time.

There are millions out of work.  There are millions who are losing their homes.  The national debt is in the trillions and there is no end in sight.  As earlier stated in a different blog, nothing seems like it will get better before it gets worse.  That is true.  I find that we are in a situation in which we have broken the rules and must now be grounded.  Of course our GDP is going to fall, it was too high for the wrong reasons.  With the end of the Bretton-Woods Gold Standard in 1971 we started working with fake money.  You remember Y2K?  That's because of fake money that only exists in computers and only slightly less fake money that exists only on paper.  Yeah our GDP is in the trillions and not the billions, that's great.  How much is each dollar worth compared to the old days?  Practically nothing.

We have started giving companies money from the taxpayers because they are going bankrupt.  Nevermind that the taxpayers are already bankrupt from financing two military occupations that are neither legal not necessary.  Not only does this go against the veryeconomic fiber that we used to defeat the Communists just 18 years ago, but it falls in line with our fallen former foes.  With the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 (it was already pretty much dead after other congressional actions from the decade prior), the banks themselves lost their minds and now we are seeing that not only are our banks, investment companies, homes, major companies, and nation deep in the red, but we have also bankrupted the rest of the world since we have done such a great job of both inserting our companies into foreign markets and making the dollar the international currency of business.

Now the Democrats in Congress are taking a bad bill from President Obama and making it worse.  The little bit of Republican support that Obama built up in his three visits with congressional leaders is squandered and the bill will face even bigger scrutiny in the Senate.  If any Democrats in the Senate vote against it at all and it passes, Obama would be very wise to veto the bill and try again.  See Bill Clinton's Presidency for what happens when you lose Congress after two years.  Reagon's economics worked great in 1980 because we were in a recession.  Bush's economics didn't work because he was using a form of Reagon's economics and we were in a boom.  Obama needs to do something even more daring than Reagon and Roosevelt put together.  He needs to do what is bad for politics.  Congress needs to sign on with him even though it's bad for politics because if it works everyone will be re-elected.

First, we need to bring all troops home to cut Defense spending to something maintainable.  I don't mean troops in Iraq.  I don't mean troops in Afghanistan.  I don't mean troops in the Middle East.  I mean troops everywhere.  Every American soldier that is on foreign soil, or American soil since bases and embassies in other countries are considered American, needs to be brough home.  Go to Washington, D.C. and you'll see many foreign embassies, but you don't see the army of every other nation in the world in our nation's capital.  If we want to send an ambassador to another country that's fine.  When John Adams was Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (Ambassador to England), I don't remember him getting a large embassy with a full staff and a regiment of troops.  My memory is pretty good, he didn't get either.  He lived in an apartment and had one assisstant.  When all of our troops are back in our country not only will we save a ton of cash, but we will also see our diplomacy options improve.  We have used Teddy Roosevelt's big stick for beating for too long and it is brittle.  We must give a new tree time to grow so we can make a better big stick and replace the old one.  What I mean is that we saw starting as far back as Vietnam that nobody is using conventional armies anymore.  We don't fight conventional wars.  We aren't fighting conventional enemies.  So we must give our armed forces time to train new recruits in the new ways of war against new enemies.  And while we are building a new big stick, we can take our voice, which is hoarse from all the loud talking we've been doing and return to speaking softly and with influence rather than power.

Second, we have to return power to the states.  The alphabet soup of government agencies, as my history teacher used to call it, is too big and too ineffective and far too exepnsive to keep around.  If states want to take their tax money and create these sort of agencies, good for them.  That's not the federal government's job.  If you want to know what the federal government's job is, read the preamble to the Constitution of the United States.  It says that any power not specifically listed as a power of the federal government MUST be left to the states.  That cuts spending, cuts the size of government, and keeps government agencies easier to keep in line because each agency would be smaller.

Third, we must reduce taxes.  We must remove the capital gains tax.  If someone gets lucky in the stock market and makes money on their investments, good for them; they now have more money to spend or reinvest.  If someone puts a lot of money into savings and makes money on that, good for them; they now have more money for life's surprises, investment, or retirement.  We must lower income taxes.  I want to say remove, but I think it will take a little bit of time to pay off the debt and I'd like to do that before completely doing away with income taxes.  They must be reduced dramtically.  When one in every six dollars I make goes to the federal government in taxes, and that's the low tax bracket, something is wrong.  If each person had more money in their pocket along with a new initiative to make savings more attractive we will see a return to a savings-based demand-side economy.  Spending-based supply-side works for a little while to make a lot of money, but it will always fail.

Unfortunately, all of those things are bad for politics.  One shinigng example proves this wrong though.  Ron Paul has been saying these things and more for years and somehow he keeps getting elected by the good people of Texas.  I'll leave you with the lyrics to a song near and dear to us all: the theme song to All in the Family.

"Boy the way Glen Miller played, songs that made the hit parade, guys like us we had it made, those were the days, and you know where you were then, girls were girls and men were men, mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again, didn't need no welfare states everybody pulled his weight, gee our old Lasalle ran great, those were the days!"

Partisanship

A lot of people are blaming Barack Obama for the complete and through lack of Republican support of the stimulus bill he's backing.  The problem is it wasn't his bill that the House voted on.  Before the bill went to committee, Obama met with Republican leaders to put tax cuts and other incentives in the package to encourage bipartisan support; maybe not unanimous, but still better than nothing.  Then the bill went to committee and then Nancy Pelosi and other leaders of the Democratic Party got ahold of it.  They put out a bill rife with Democratic agenda-based spending that Republicans couldn't vote for.  So that puts Nancy Pelosi on the list at #2 as the dumbest woman in government.  Stay tuned for who the dumbest woman in government is.

Econ 101 lesson 5: Inflation

Good morning class. First, let me say that i am sorry for being away so long. Here is a bit of insight into the life of the LibertyHound. I am taking 18 credit hours this semester at a private college so i can get out of there in May. I carry a full time job in sales and study and teach Gracie Jiu Jitsu. Today, I am bereaved with the death of Grandmaster Helio Gracie, so I turn to the warm bosom of Economics to make me feel better.

First, a review. Supply and demand: The more of something that exists in an economy the less value it has. Value: Remember, Value is not only measured in dollars. We best determine the value of fuzzy dice by looking at the tradibility of them with several other goods. If fuzzy dice trade for 5 dollars or a car, then 5 dollars is not a fair measure of the value of said dice. so it can be said that the value of one dollar is about one McDonalds double cheeseburger, or not much at all. For a better understanding of how inflation works please watch the following animation.



See, when the Fed prints more and more money prices go up and the value of your savings drops. This takes up away from a savings based economy. (see earlier blog entry) All prices go us as a result of inflation. This stabilizes quickly enough domestically if wages increase to meet the new prices (this NEVER happens quickly), but we get most of our important goods from other places. When we inflate our currency it takes more dollars to buy other currency. Therefore, prices on foreign goods go up fast, first, and forever. These prices do not stabilize as easily as domestic ones. Thinks like oil spike in price and do not fall again easily. Fora an example of this look at the past and future stimulus packages. Gas spiked immediately after and will again.

To see how this phenomenon is happening in our nations economy today, please watch this clip from Glen Beck. My respect for seems to keep growing. I hope Fox News doesn't ruin him.



For your homework, keep studying America's unique economy and PAY ATTENTION TO REALITY!! Class dismissed!

I'm Sorry

I'm watching a comedian on television and he reminded me of the time when Congress was investigating steroid use in baseball.  I was among the people who said that Congress had better things to do than deal with Mark McGuire.  now they are trying to deal with the important issues that I brought up at that time (e.g. healthcare and the economy and the 'war on terror'), and I'm yelling at them for being stupid and not knowing how to fix those problems.  I'd like to apologize for being an unpleasable dissenter.  However, in the words of Eleanor Roosevelt:

- Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

The Children

The Obama Administration has said that the economy will get worse before it gets better.  Joe Biden is saying that Afghanistan will get worse before it gets better.  Won't something just get better?  Anything?  For me?  The American people need something more than great speeches to make us push on for another day.

Eight Guys, a Girl, and a Legal Place

Bad show, decent pun, good point.  The nine Supreme Court Justices (eight males and a female) preside over the highest court in the country.  They make sure that the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the executive are in line with the original law, the Constitution.  If a law is unconstitutional then the precedent of Judicial Review, as set forth by Justice John Marshall during Marbury v. Madison, allows the Supreme Court to revoke the law.  It's in Article III of the Constitution.  What isn't in Article III is that the judicial branch gets to make laws.  The founders saw fit to write Article I about the legislature as a way of allowing 535 people do the job of deliberating what should be future law instead of 9.  Those 535 are elected by their constituents every 2 or 6 years not appointed by the President for life.  Yes, I said life and not term of good behavior like my government teacher says.  Take that!

The reason that the court isn't supposed to make laws is that it somehow takes them longer to act than Congress.  Don't ask me how because  I don't want to go into it that deeply, it's on Wikipedia.  Recently the Supreme Court decided that the handgun ban in Washington D.C. was a violation of the Second Amendment.  Some people argue that the Constitution has been silent on personal ownership.  Some argue that the very language requires personal ownership.  The linked article raises a very good question: just how much does the Supreme Court get to decide?  Do they get to decide that it is unconstitutional to place limits on number of weapon purchases per month?  How expensive is that amount of litigation going to be?  Is it worth it?

Even when the Court decides that their ruling is only effective in that specific case, as in Gore v. Bush, there can be unexpected consequences.  If a law passed by Congress eventually gets outdated or ineffective, the legislature can either write a new law replacing the old or vote to erase it.  Once the Supreme Court decides something, it is forever decided.  There is no stopping it, it's the nature of the beast.

Even good ideas have bad applications.  Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.  Good job, Congress.  In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that businesses could not give tests to employees or applicants for promotions or jobs respectively.  In 1971 that was fine because tests were written to descriminate.  Now, things like tests for promotions in a fire department aren't allowed because few enough minorities don't pass the test that the fire department is afraid that they'll be sued.  I'm glad to know that the Supreme Court 30 years ago is still able to prevent businesses from promoting the best of the best because maybe just maybe the urban kids didn't get a good enouh chance to be better.  Now business has to fail because socialized education fails and nobody wins because the spectre of racism looms.  In a few years white males will be the minority.  Will we get to have affirmative action too?

Judaism in Star Trek?

You heard me right, listen to Leonard Nimoy tell you how.

Honest Politician: Not An Oxymoron

It isn’t often we find a politician who is both honest and quick in the execution of their plans, but already just a mere three days into his presidency, Barrack Obama has already made two executive orders related to major pillars of his campaign. 

In these economic times, Obama believed that the lack of government oversight over the banking industry is one major reason why it is in such a financial crisis. He was also quick to condemn lobbyists working in their own self interest, and said time and time again that he wouldn’t stand for this kind of government corruption. 

His first big step in fulfilling his promises came yesterday as he announced that he would freeze his senior staff's pay: 

"During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts and so should Washington… And that's why I am instituting a pay freeze on the salaries of my senior White House staff." 

Obama also said that he had set an order that people who previously had worked as lobbyists could not work on the matters they had previously lobbied for. 

This sends a significant message to me that Obama really meant much of what he said about government oversight, that he believes that people in both private and public sector have had too long a leash and took advantage of it to cut corners ethically. We’ll have to see how he now handles the private sector. 

In addition to the aforementioned change, Obama made executive orders relating to CIA prisons and the treatment of “Enemy Combatants” – most notably the eventual shutdown of all CIA secret prisons, including Guantanamo Bay.

Obama once again cited the ‘false choice’ of having to choose between security and civil liberties and believes that we can win the fight against terror while still upholding the values of our founding fathers. 

Both of these orders are in complete contradiction with the previous administration’s policies who believed that in both private and public sector that government oversight was a hindrance and that in this dangerous times that liberties had to be sacrificed to ensure security.

Over the course of the next few months, we’ll see who is right, and we will also see if President Obama follows through on the rest of his promises.

A New Political Actor

With that historic speech, Barack Obama became the 44th President-elect of the United States of America. Since that Tuesday we as a nation have seen economic collapse, automotive bailout, and foreign combat. We thought during the summer that getting out of Iraq and fixing education were the most urgent and important issues for the next president and we were wrong. Obama was elected largely because he seemed to be the antidote to the political system. He was the Anti-Bush. He said exactly what everyone wanted to hear and he seemed to actually mean it. Now things have changed. Across the board situations have gotten worse. CEOs can't even afford private jets anymore. The lofty language of Obama's campaign has shifted as well.  He is no longer talking to get elected; he is talking to lead.  As someone who has been on the campaign trail and said some things that were a little on the rosy side, I understand what it's like to try and get elected.  You're not lying to the voters, but you don't want to be completely realistic.  People like to be sweettalked.  You're a little more optimistic about time-tables and all those little variables like the credit-bubble bursting don't enter into your equation.

Obama is pledging the largest public works program that has been introduced in 60 years.  Rather than giving banks and companies money in return for bad business practices, or just giving people cash and flooding the market with currency, Obama is promising to build schools and upgrade roads; things we need anyway that are the government's responsibility to spend money on that we have been sorely lacking.  More on the economy later.

Soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is also on the leading edge of Obama's other main job: foreign affairs.  No longer are we the go-it-alone cowboys of the West... ern hemisphere but rather we are (hopefully) going to be a leader internationally with diplomacy.  The President recognizes that there are problems abroad that need to be dealt with and that our military strength can't solve them.  Especially in places like Gaza.

Obama took a nostalgic whistle-stop tour from Philadelphia through Baltimore stopping at the Lincoln Memorial that reminded the nation of that great leader who took us through equally, if not more, difficult times.  The links on the names are to the text of his speeches at each location, please take the time to read them.  When he arrived in Washington people started really noticing that all of this was happening and the hard questions started getting asked.  Can he do it?  Can he restore the American faith in the government, create jobs, and build a better life for all?  The Economist had this to say:

Then, on Tuesday at noon, Barack Obama stepped up to the podium and addressed the nation as the new President.

Wow.  When a program works we'll move forward.  How do we know when it works?  We'll know that programs work when people stop questioning the basic principles upon which this country was founded.  We can't become isolationist, Herbert Hoover tried and the Depression became not only worse but also global.  We can't become socialist because our system won't support it.  We must instead do what made this nation great: make money.  We started as a colony and started making so much money that when the motherland needed money they had to tax ours.  We split off so that we could make more money.  The best medicine, science, technology, and other vasts ports of ingenuity come from our deep desire to make lots of money.

Much is at stake over the next four years.  Our new leader has asked for a lot.  If Obama and his cabinet keep up their end of the deal, the American people have shown through history that they will keep up theirs.

Out With the Old

The linked article is very long but a worthwhile read. The International Herald Tribune is an unbiased paper that has a global perspective. Their take on the most recent former president is both in depth and informative. With that, let's begin.




George Bush came into office amid much controversy but with no less confidence than he showed at any other time during his presidency. His lofty inaugural speech contained many of the same words as other great leaders, unfortunately his rhetoric was simple politics. Bush has said that time will tell if he was correct in his boldness and single-mindedness. In fact, some former leaders of the Republican party have attempted to begin praising his works while opinion polls show that a meager 28% of Americans approve of him.  In the beginning of 2001, Democrats were fearful of what George Bush would do to business as usual in Washington.  Then something happened that no one could predict or prevent.

Another powerful speech from a decent speaker.  Bush's approval rating shot through the roof as he led the country on a crusade to defend her honor against terrorism.  For the rest of his two terms Bush would refer to this catastrophic event as the basis for all of his reasoning.  The safety and security of America, which he states he has maintained, was the premier concern of the administration.  Many have worked over the last few months to assess the Bush presidency and compare it to others.  Unfortunately for historians, they'll have to wait a few years while the damage done by his dismal economic policy plays out and a more unbiased approach can be taken to the final aftermath of his terms.

I still can't believe I get to finally get to say this, George Walker Bush is no longer the President of the United States.

>

His final speech was shorter than either his or Obama's inaugural speeches, but America didn't want to hear any more.  While he said a lot in a mere 13 minutes, there was also a lot he didn't say.  One of the things he didn't mention that I think is shameful is that he will only recieve Secret Service protection for 10 years.  A former president is a precious piece of our living history and he, especially Bush, will always be under threat of danger.  If the government really needs to save money they should cut his salary or something similar to that, but cutting the Secret Service off is absolutely wrong and embarassing.  He apparently didn't want to fight the issue and on January 20th he returned home.  He said he was glad to be back.

The rest of us is glad he's gone.

New Author

The Road is getting more traveled everyday. I would like to thank my friend, GodlessLiberal, for joining my writing team. His views are sometimes very different from mine, and very very different from LibertyHound's, but I think that it is important to have multiple outlooks on news. I am most intrigued to have him join because his reading list is different from mine and what he finds to be important is different than my values. I hope you all enjoy his writing as much as I do.

For the Sake of the Day

I have nothing to say about this except that it is perhaps the greatest speech ever delivered.

Please remember that the spirit of the day is to honor a

man who fought for equality, not superiority.

Quota Maintained

The Senate is swearing in Roland Burris to their ranks.  The soon-to-be junior Senator from Illinois has had a bit of trouble getting to the illustrious halls of Congress though.  From the scandal tied to his nominator, Rod Blagojevich, to the national poll showing that few people thought he should take the job to Harry Reid and other Senators trying to block his appointment, Roland Burris has weathered the storm with surprising grace considering his blusterous personality.  Good to know that the Senate will still have a black guy among their ranks.  Just the one, yeah.  Good thing Strom Thurmond isn't still around, he'd call him Token.

Speaking of minorities trying to get office, a Jew wants in.  Al Franken was actually elected by a mojority of voters.  In spite of this fact, neither has he already been seated nor will he be until a law suit is completed.  It could take until February.

So a Democratic governor, who has been accused of widespread corruption including but not limited to attempting to sell Obama's seat in the Senate, picks a black Democrat and the Democratic leaders of the Senate get him put in but a Jewish Democrat is elected and he Republican governor is able to block him by not allowing the Attorney General to sign his permission form?

Congress on the Nets

Congress is now on Youtube.  The liked video pretty much sums up how it works.  I think it's great that our elected officials want to sell us the official line through our own means of transferring information.

Yipe! Skype!

British intelligence agents are being frustrated by terrorists, and all other manner of criminal, who are using the internet phone techonology, Skype, for their calls.  The main problem?  It is difficult to track who called whom, from where, and for how long because the internet service has no reason to keep records because it doesn't bill for calls; just a monthly fee.  I wonder how long it will take other Americans to hear about this.  Maybe we will finally have our fourth amendment right to privacy from illegal search and seizure.  Our conversations are our property and even though a few dozen terrorists are using the technology, 300 million Americans should be able to chat about what Shelly wore to the dance without Dick Cheney listening.

No More Cover Sheets

Great scene from a classic movie.  The linked article discusses a small business that started going paperless.  More companies need to be doing this.  I do everything paperlessly now.  I don't print pictures, I have them on Google Pictures.  I don't buy a newspaper, I read 125 a day with Google Reader.  I don't have a wall calendar, I stay organized with Google Calendar.  I recognize that I am a person and not a business.  Having worked in a law firm before I got to witness firsthand the process of digitization.  We had to make a hard copy of something, scan it into the computer, and mail it.  When we got the return item, we had to scan it and file it.  We had hard and digital copies of everything.  What a waste.  The purpose of digital information is to replace hard copy information.

Even more important is a paperless classroom.  Kids already have better computer skills than the generations before them, let's use those skills and stop cutting down the world's rainforests for algebra homework.  I never did my homework anyway, and so it was a complete waste.  Sorry, Mother Nature.

Booze is Good for Economy?

But it's bad for our health!  It's immoral!  It sells!  A study shows that allowing liquor sales not only improves the economy because people are buying liquor, but the area also gets more restaurants and spin-off businesses.

With the economy the way it is, don't you think everyone needs a drink right about now?

Through Free Market Eyes

All the world is abuzz with the looming financial crisis. Most people are so focused on what do do they aren't slowing down enough to see what is happening. Just over the past few days those of us with eyes to see the free market at work should be reassured in our beliefs. Hyundai is offering anyone who buys one of their cars the ability to return it in the next year if their income is lost. Payments disappear without damaging your credit. Colleges like the one in my home town are offering free classes to people who have recently lost their jobs. Verizon Wireless has packaged their services and dropped the price considerably. Businesses react to these market downturns and lower prices and offer safty to consumers. These are all things the government cannot do. I want the record to show that the market began correcting itself from all the damage the FED and the government have done by debasing the currency and falsly inflating the market for the sake of popularity and the illusion of control. While a sales promotion may not seem like as much 700 billion dollar TARP bill, they can be even more effective without driving our coffers even further in the negative and causeing more damage by inflation and perpetuating bad business practice.
Bravo Hyundai, bravo Verizon, bravo Pikeville college, and bravo free market.

It's For Your Own Good!

The linked video is the title song from the film "Thank You For Smoking."  I really like the song and that's why it's there.  I'd like to discuss the argument surrounding smoking bans especially in Kentucky for two reasons: I actually know the laws there and it is the last place the conversation is still being held.  Most states have either already placed bans in effect or it is completely out of the question.

Kentucky got a failing grade on its tobacco policies by the American Lung Association.  This has led to people suggesting a higher cigarette tax, a tighter smoking ban in some places, or a full statewide ban.  The advocates of these practices point to studies showing that smoking bans are saving lives and improving living situations, even in prisons, as proof that they are correct.  I can not argue that smoking is bad for a person's health.  I lost my grandmother to lung cancer and my father has been allergic to smoke all my life.  I am not blind to the studies that have shown how much better people's lives are because there isn't any smoke in the air around them.  Kentucky has one of the highest rates of cancer in the nation and many blame the low cigarette taxes promoting smoking as a leading cause.  In fact, the designee for the Secretary of Health and Human Services is an anti-smoking advocate.

Wow, Leviathan, you pretty much nipped smoking in the bud didn't you?  I guess so.  There's only one problem.  These bans aren't being enforced.  In fact, some disputers of the law are downright rebellious.  In most conversations about smoking bans right now I would point out that caffiene and alcohol are also bad for a person's health but they are legal.  Then my opponent points out that they don't harm others like second- and now third-hand smoke.  I have to admit, harming others around you for the sake of your own addiction is downright rude.  In fact, in other cases of such activity, it's downright illegal.  I keep ripping holes into the legality of smoking aren't I?  What's the answer then?  Stricter laws to enforce tougher penalties when the cops feel like enforcing them?

Well I have two answers.  The first is one of my old campaign strategies: let individual business owners decide.  This fallback on free market economics is sure to settle the problem once and for all.  If we let individual owners decide whether or not to allow smoking, then consumers and employees can decide if they want to accept the risks of the environment and shop/work there.  If the market doesn't like smoke in the same environment as the good or service, they'll stop shopping there and the business will either change its policies or go out of business.  With proper signs marking smoking or not smoking near entryways, consumers will be able to decide for themselves.  All without the help of the government.  Another option is to completely ban smoking outside of private areas: specifically the home and the car.  This option uses strong-arm government control, and with proper enforcement would force people to curb their addiction to tobacco to stay active members of society.  There was a map that showed that the only states to get failing grades from the ALA were the former Confederate states and Kentucky.  With the passing of the increased cigarette taxes, Kentucky and Tennessee would get D's.  Surely we don't have any reason to fear this selection of states being upset at the federal government exercising authority not given to it in the Constitution, right?

It seems pretty much inevitable that the second option I proposed will be the one that is eventually adopted.  I hope that everyone is proud of how they stomp on the rights of business owners.  Just remember that as long as the government says they are acting on your behalf, you don't have to make any decisions for yourself.  Surely you don't have any other rights that can be removed because they aren't safe.  Say, you don't own a gun do you?  Studies show...

Is it Ever Wrong to Do Right?

That is the question at the heart of the 2009 Great American Think-Off this year.  The event is held in a small town in Minnesota and asks people to send in essays of up to 750 words answering the question.

While I'm still debating writing a submission, I would like to take three stories from the news to say both yes and no.  I can say both yes and no because I am a politician and that kind of double-speak comes as second nature.  Deal with it.

December 10, 2008 was a very important day for many in the country.  Do you know why?  It was Day Without a Gay.  Advocates of homosexual marriage in California wanted to stage a national protest to Proposition 8 in CA and similar same-sex marriage bans in Florida and Arizona by showing the country just how important homosexuals are to the economy.  If they would have wanted to do this a year prior it would have been perfect, but their timing was off.  By December 08 the country was in the middle of a recession and people couldn't afford to lose their jobs.  What if Day Without A Gay, which ended up not doing very well for these very reasons, went off without a hitch and employers realized that while they were hurt by the loss of employees, they were not only still making money but they no longer had to make the painful budget cuts because they could just fire the striking workers.  Good for the businesses but detrimental to the cause of same-sex marriage, which I personally support fully (more on that on another day).  By trying to do right and improve the nature of their cause, the founders of this movement could have caused irreparable harm to the economic status of homosexuals; which in this country is almost synonomous to power.

I might touch on this at a later time but the issue is too expansive to discuss in this particular post, but the Civil Rights Act followed by Affirmative Action were started with the best of intentions.  However, at the present they are unintentionally falsely affecting the market and repressing those people they are supposed to help by widening the gap.  Read about it here.

Libertyhound and I have had many conversations about the ability of charities and coorporations to carry on just fine without the government.  This argument lies at the heart of the libertarianism v. statism debate.  One man has decided to make money by doing things that are good, taking what would otherwise be charitable and making it profitable.  Several organizations have booed him, however his tactics have brought more money to his causes than most aid organizations can dream of.  How dare he make almost $400,000 a year for helping people.  Why can baseball players, movie stars, and congressman make large sums of money doing nothing other than play silly games involving balls, imagination, and lies but one man can't make a buck helping people with cancer?

It is, I suppose, not a question of ends justifying means or intentions being good or bad.  Hitler wanted world peace and he killed countless millions of blacks, gyspies, homosexuals, and... oh yeah, Jews.  Andrew Carnegie wanted to make money and he connected the nation with railroads.  I guess sometimes you just have to hope for a little providence and luck to decide.

Global Warming

Oh gee thanks Leviathan, thanks for going from a riveting topic like national economics to an even more exciting discussion like global warming.  Well, actually you're all out of luck, as anyone who actually reads the linked articles before they read my commentary would know.  I'm actually going to talk about the changing climate of global economics.  Let's try and make this as painless as possible and get right to it.

The linked article is from last July and ponders the death of globalization.  It is from before the financial crisis got kicked off and I think it delivers an interesting perspective in lieu of current events.  Please do read it, it's worht the time.

The Economist, a weekly publication, did a series on globalization in September which I will be using to base most of my discussion.  September was right at the beginning of the housing bust but long before the banks started crashing and well before anyone thought that Detroit would need a lifeline.

In any discussion of global issues, especially economics, the two forces at hand are developed and developing countries.  Post-industrialist is now 'developed' and industrialist is 'developing' and third-world countries are either becoming 'developing' or aren't in the conversation.

That being said there are two sides to each of these coins: soveriegn-wealth and free market.  Russia and China are good examples of developed sovereign-wealth economies while the United States is the last bastion of pure free market idealism in the developed world.  Refer to the last post for why it should remain that way.  Globalization started with the developed nations exporting goods to developing countries and trading goods with each other.  Some developing nations became displeased with the amount of economic and political intervention other countries were imposing.  Many Middle Eastern countries are very angry with the United States over the Westernization process they are seeing through the importing of Coke and KFC.  They do have a good point.  We are now seeing the problems with Rusian-owned oil companies dictating whether or not Europe gets oil for political reasons.

The developing nations also have soveriegn-wealth and free market economies and they are looking at their developed brethren to see which form they should adopt.  While the United States' economy is seeing downturns in profits, many developing economies are seeing a boom due to better management and growing demand within their own countries.  Every American is already a consumer, so Ford has to sell car owners new cars.  Villagers in rural India have never owned a computer or car before, so those companies are able to tap into a consumer base that is completely new.  While developed nations tend to outsource companies and jobs to developing countries for cheaper labor, developing nations outsource companies to other developing ntions because they have a better chance of competing in the emerging markets and jobs to developed nations whose workers are slowly losing their jobs to better technology (a worse enemy to the American worker than outsourcing).

What the next step in the globalization process will either be very intriguing or very scary.  It will be frightening if developed economies turn protectionist to protect domestic companies.  Not only would this harm the developed economies who depend on developing countries for outsourced goods and services already in place, but it would also harm the developing economies who do receive a lot of money from developed consumers.  It willbe intriguing if American and Russian companies can take a page out of the management book of the developing economies to see how to make cheaper products like India, make more desirable products like Taiwan, and how to have effective governmental regulation of the economy like United Arab Emerates.

Hopefully American politicans will warm to the idea of globalization in that we are no longer the only power driving it.  We need to learn how to be diplomatic like we were when we started, otherwise we will receive the cold shoulder from the future powers of the globalized world.

Freedom Under Fire

You know those multinational coorporations that have been blamed for ruining our economy over the last few years by removing jobs from our work force and for using cheap labor across the globe?  Thank goodness they have been because otherwise the current recession would be much worse, similar to the Great Depression.  The linked article describes how current relations between countries is already making sure the problem isn't as bad as it was eighty years ago and how they could be better to prevent future dips.

There are two dialectical sides in the discussion for free trade: one is that the current downturn is proving that American-style capitalism is failing and dead, the other is that the system is fine but government is screwing everything up.

Even before most Americans knew that there was a problem with the system as a whole, many across the world were feeling the pain of globalized free markets.  Rising oil prices were raising food costs, not terribly noticeable to most Americans, but in Africa and South America the already struggling peoples were even more detrimented.  Then the market tanked due to the housing bubble bust and the shit hit the proverbial fan.  Economists started saying that there was a huge problem with the system and government needed to intervene.  The problem isn't greedy CEOs or overreaching globalization or lax regulators, the problem is the free market system.  Even Alan Greenspan, the champion of the American economy and free markets, was shocked at how badly the market fell.  He was sorry for all the pain that his principles hadcaused people and started asking governments to step in and rescue the innocent bystanders.  I won't go into the irony of who governments are actually helping today, but it is coming soon, promise.

In a week we inaugurate a new president.  He has said that he wants to roll out $800 billion in new bailout funds to jump start the economy back into shape.  Unfortunately for him, he doesn't just have to save our economy right now; he has to save our way of life.  Government spending is all well and good in small doses when it is aimed at a direct problem with strict oversight. Example: nobody has complained at the government giving everybody a $40 coupon to get the cable converter box.  This is effectively a bailout for the cable companies.  They can't afford to send out analog signals and Congress decided to help those people who receive analog cable and can't afford to buy the convertor themselves so that they can still recieve basic information like the news and Jerry Springer.  How much is that costing the government and saving the cable companies?  Nobody has asked because it makes sense to do that.  It is a relatively small dose of money given directly to people who need it.  That's what we pay taxes for right?

The system works when it is used properly.  I hate to say this, but the problem is user error.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government organizations that told banks that they had to give out mortgage loans to people who could not afford houses.  Does that sound like free markets?  No.  That is government intervention.  If the banks had been left to their own devices, they wouldn't have given so many people home loans.  "But Leviathan, if they don't get loans then they can't afford homes, where will they live?"  In an apartment, a smaller house, with family, or in a box.  Housing is not a basic right of humanity.  It is a basic need.  It is why people get up in the morning and go to work.  It is why women used to marry men and have kids.

There are many lessons to learn from this crisis.  The most important lesson to take away from all of the evidence is that the government needs to remember what the United States government is supposed to do.  I am, unfortunately, not smart enough to tell anyone what the United States government should do, so I refer to the preamble of the Constitution for the answer: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Free market capitalism has ups and downs.  Bankruptcy lawyers and repo men are feeling the ups right now while everyone else is feeling the downs.  Just because you are losing money doesn't mean that the system is broken, in fact it means that the system works.  I think we have seen enough evidence to stop trusting what the Bush cabinet says and has anyone ever trusted their broker?  Stop complaining, keep working (even if it means at a job you don't like), and start putting money into savings.  We've gotten through worse and we will get through this.  We have to do it together and without government regulation.  Otherwise we will have a FEMA for the economy: badly put together, shows up too late, and led by someone who doesn't know the difference between a flood and a horse's ass.

Nanny Jersey Allowing break ins

The City of Newark, NJ has imposed a citywide ban on all barbed wire and razor wire. This includes over fencing around storage lots and businesses. Burglaries are increasing by leaps and bounds in the city. Business and home owners have been storming the city officials begging for the repeal of this ridiculous law. The city's official stance on the subject so far has been, "but, someone could get hurt if they try to climb over it." Business owners reply with, "NO SHIT!"
This kind of over protection of citizens from their own decisions is preposterous. Why should honest innocent citizens be put at risk and their property be at risk for the sake of some criminal who tries to climb over razor wire to steal from someone trying to feed their family honestly. We have to stop this kind of coddling of those who are the dark side of our society. With stupid laws like this one and the over control of guns in this country, before long it will be considered a right to take something from your neighbor. Hmmm, the fall of property rights, sounds like communism to me. Or at the least all the criminals we are protecting will kill off all the honest good poeple. This kind of government will be the downfall of America. I am going to go watch "Idiocracy" again. I am starting to think it deserves a second chance.

Hooray Beer!

Guinnes is 250 years old this year.  They are releasing a special brew, probably around St. Patrick's Day in celebration.  So everyone grab a friend, open a bottle, and remember this:

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin

The American Dream

The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Those words are etched on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty.  Nashville, TN desires to make English the official, and therefore only allowable, language of the government.  Similar measures have been attempted across the country.  This is quite possibly the most un-American ballot issue ever proposed.  While it is true that a common language is most helpful, it is also true that in 232 years of American government we have allowed people to speak any language they so desire.  If there is a sufficient population in a city, county, state, or district to make the government think that a Spanish, Korean, Japanese, or to go so far as Ebonic version of the form would better serve the citizenry, why should we limit the future government's ability?  Just because many in the city of Nashville don't like the emergin latino population, it should not be acceptable to have this covert racism pass.  We used to have literary tests to prevent African-Americans from voting.  Key word in that sentence is 'used.'  We realized that just because a person can't read, or in this case comprehend, the local language doesn't remove that person's rights to service and representation.

WASPs aren't the only people who are guaranteed the American dream which is precisely why we are the greatest country in the world.

The Gaza issues in 2 mins

Curious about whats going on in Gaza? Take 2 minutes and watch this. Its a pretty nice summary of how we got to where we are.

Don't Be Stupid!

The linked article is far more interesting than the two I'm going to talk about, but I'm tired tonight and I want to go to bed.  Please read the article, it brings up some good points.  One of them is that Sarah Palin exemplifies the stupidity of American culture.  It's not that citizens of any other culture are necessarily smarter than Americans, it's that we put the dumbest individuals on a societal pillar.

Sarah Palin has even said that the news media is reporting about things that aren't news.  She is fed up with people following her and her family around.  Time was she couldn't get enough media attention.  Then she met with Katie Couric.  Katie didn't wear her kid gloves and her punches were dirty.  Or were they?  I thought they showed just how unqualified Mrs. Palin was at even being a Governer, much less President.  Sarah needs to go home and play with her grandbaby.

She makes the rest of us look bad because the rest of the world is watching.  Russia can see her from its house.

Defrosting the Kremlin

The linked article describes the relationship between Russia and NATO, the group designed to destroy the Soviet Union in the Cold War.  NATO is going through the process of picking their next leader and I think the article does a really good job of not only describing the dynamics of the group's members, but also naming some possible candidates for the top post.  Please do read the article, I don't intend to go any further into NATO politics right now.  With that said, let's talk about Russia!

The Cold War is over.  It's been over for 17 years.  Putin is a Cold War politician and he is very good at it.  I wrote a blog to that effect.  Fortunately for most of the world, Medvedev isn't Putin.  Putin is a very powerful man, but I think he is taking a temporary reprive from the headlines to allow the possibility of him getting back into the presidency.

Dmitri Medvedev has learned what India, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria have also had to learn the hard way: terrorists don't have borders.  I don't intend to write two terrorism blogs in a row, but it does at least have to be mentioned as a base for foreign policy.  The new Russian president is hopeful that he and the new American president can open a new dialogue about an issue much closer to home in Russia, which shares a border with Afghanistan, than the United States, which felt the sting of terror seven and a half years ago.  Russia, and everyone that voted for Obama, is hoping that the United States makes a swift change incourse when it comes to unilateral military action.  While Russia doesn't really like NATO, it prefers a group acting to a rogue invasion.

Russia certainly needs to work on its relationship with the United States after that little incursion into Georgia.  We can certainly understand what it's like to be overextended diplomatically and militarily.  Russia was also trying to fight on two fronts.  There was the diplomatic bluster with NATO over the military incursion of Russia.  The Kremlin has also been trying, somewhat lacklusterly, to woo China.  The more times that power is divided, the more dangerous it is to start trouble.  If Russia can secure China as an ally, it would be more able to fend off NATO.  China has to be careful in this power play because they are finally cozying up to us after years of bad relations.

China and Russia have a very long history due to their shared border and communist ideology.  Even though both nations are under less strict regimes than they were during the Cold War, diplomatic ties are rarely lost because of time alone.  China wants to make peace with Russia just as badly as Russia does, because having to maintain a high defense budget due to aggressive neighbors is a waste of money.  Easier said than done.  China has its own allies to worry about and the chess game of international politics is a messy one.  China used to be able to justify the relationship because of weaponry and oil imports, but they are getting their oil from elsewhere and Russia's weapons were old.

The Georgian pickle did, however, succeed two things for Russia.  It showed NATO and the EU that Russia still has a little bite behind its bark and it showed some of the weaknesses of the military.  Necessary improvements are being made so that Russia's military is joining the 21st century.  If Medvedev is successful, their foreign relations will too.

Russia has even been fortunate enough to be given a chance not only to show off her naval prowess, but also her willingness to work with NATO and the EU.  Pirates!  The driving purpose behind America's navy is the source of Russia's diplomatic future.  If Russia fights the pirates with the United States, rather than fighting the United States, then everyone is happy, and it will be a very plesent spring after a long, Cold, winter.

Indian Reservations

About six weeks ago, on November 26, terrorists stormed the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, India.  Since then allegations have littered the air that the perpetrators are from Pakistan, with whom India has had a long history of violence.  The Indian government has plenty of proof that the terrorists are Pakistani, but the Pakistani government is denying all claims.  The Pakistani government, now headed by Benazir Bhutto's widower Asif Zardari, is still under the surviving leadership of a military coup in 1958.  The militant government has said that they are committed to aiding the United States in the war on terror and that they are taking the fight to the terrorists in the northwest quadrant.  However, India is not very convinced of this as they are continually attacked.

Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.  We just signed a nuclear arms deal with India and have been allies with Pakistan since we started the war on terror.  Our government has tried every possible way to apologize for the failures of the Pakistani government as a surrogate to apologizing for our own inability.  The United States military already tried following the insurgents from Afghanistan back to their bases in Pakistan, and were both scolded and unsuccessful.  We were told by our ally that invasions of their territory for the purposes of combating terrorism "would not be tolerated".

I guess India is on its own for this one.  India does not have the ability to idly stand by as terrorists flow across the border through the Kashmir territory.  Since both nations have been fighting for a very long time, people in both nations are agitated with the actions of the other nation.  Building armies for a war would not be difficult, they have fought several times in the last fifty years.  Also, because they are both nuclear powers, all parties involved are trying to prevent open warfare.

That leaves one course of action: diplomacy.  Many in India feel that a return to old school politics, closer to Otto Von Bismarck's realpolitik, is necessary.  Attempts at UN sanctions have been unsucessful and without proof that the government is directly involved in the attacks the world court is powerless.

With no one fully in India's corner, it is very difficult for them to be able to be strong without being belligerent.  This gives Pakistan a hand up in the diplomatic battle for the international community's support.

At least someone is trying to fight with words even though they are far more justified to try a militant course.

The Pot Called the Kettle What?

The Japanese have compared our military occupation of Afghanistan similar to the Russian military occupation of Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War.  A lot of critics of the "War on Terror" have mentioned the irony of fighting against the very eople that we armed to fight the Commies.  Funny story, the Afghanis feel the same way.  That might be why Al Qaeda and the Taleban, two separate organizations, are both doing so well at recruiting new members.  It's not even really difficult since most of them are either from or travel regularly to Pakistan, which I'll address in a different blog, and Iran.

It especially doesn't help that so many of the victims are women and children.  The problem with bombs is that they neither recognize nor care about what they destroy.  Smart bombs are only smart in that they are more accurate.  For every woman, child, or noncombatant that is killed, the Taleban are able to intelligently follow up with the family to recruit new members.  Every bomb that goes off only strengthens our enemy.

We aren't fighting a standard war any more.  Afghanistan does not have a national army that is going to meet our army on the field of battle for prearranged terms.  Hitler, Napoleon, and Genghis Khan all fought armies.  We are fighting insurgents.  We are fighting very dedicated individuals on their land under their terms.  As we saw in Vietnam, the Army is not equipped to fight against these guerilla tactics.  Terrorists do not follow the rules of engagement because they are not government-sanctioned; they don't have to follow the rules they are fighting against.  

We can not afford to go into a ninth year of pointless, and expensive, combat.  With the economy drooping its head more every day, how much longer can we afford to waste money in a country that isn't ours?  We don't even import anything from Afghanistan.  While more ground troops would be very good at going through every home and killing every person who is the least bit suspicious, that won't do anything except make the problem worse.  We must use diplomacy to achieve peace, and time to achieve progress.

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, we can't do it alone.  Afghanistan is half a world away, we don't share any cultural background that would help us to know the best negotiation tactics.  Who does?  Iran.  Did I say Iran?  Yes.  Positively?  Yes.  Aren't they evil?  No, they are a long-standing Middle Eastern democracy whose leaders are attempting to impose Western standards.  Mahmoud Ahmadinajed has wanted to open conversation with the United States for several years now and has already tried to open talks with Barack Obama, who said he would talk with Iran during the primaries.  Iran shares a border with Afghanistan and is tired of opium and terrorists flowing freely through the borders as people flee our bombs.  George W. Bush has said that Iran is evil because they want to build nuclear weapons.  Iran wants to do anything it must to be taken seriously as a world power.  Serious talks with Iran to allow a Muslim-led force to take over anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan would go a very long way to improve relations between Iran and every other country in the world.

Does America always have to unilaterally decide what course of action is best for everyone else?  Is the current push to universalize liberal democratic capitalism so much different than Stalin's drive to globalize communism?

It's the Economy, Stupid

I'm sorry I haven't gotten an economy post up yet.  I'm working on compliling sources for the TARP/auto bailout blogs.  I found this video from the U.S. News and Report.  It's an hour long and the figures inside show what is wrong with the economy right now.

I have been joking for years that feminism is destroying the economy and the home by taking women out of the home, depraving children of parenting, and putting them into the economy, flooding the market with workers and destroying demand.  I was only kidding because it made enough sense to tick off most of the progressive women I went to college with.  However, here are some solid facts in support of that line of thought.  Any ideas how to keep progressive women's rights while returning to family values and a better economy?

A hard transition

Today's post was more inspired by the linked article rather than in response to it. FINALLY, the economy is on every tongue in America. While it should have never left our public conversation at these levels, I will take what I can get. There is a huge part of the current economic problem that no one is mentioning. It is the element of the economic problem that will drag this problem out for quite some time and the reason that no stimulus package will truly solve the problem. There are a few necessary elements for any capitalist economy to work and prosper. One is that the economy must be savings based and the other is that it must be free. As the federal reserve and the government began to strangle the natural, free economy with regulation and the switch to fiat money we slowly slipped from a savings based economy to a debt based economy. It doesn't take Milton Freidman to see that there is a problem with this. A debt based economy can only grow as more debt is accrued. The debt pond gets fished out really quickly. The same principle can be appliet to our fiat monet system. the currency can only be inflated so much before it collapses. No matter how many 600 and 500 dollar checks you send out to the American people, the money will usually go toward payment of debt. And before Stan even says so, the government buying the nation's debt would be one of the worst things to do about it. This would not only put the final nail in the socialism coffin but further ravage the economy as well. This issue is why we are seeing the problem in the lending institutions first. The average American is now so far in debt that they cant accrue anymore. This stops any debt based economy in its tracks. We will have a rough transition back to a savings based economy, but it is on the way. Americans are becoming afraid and starting to save again. Hang in there and deregulate and this thing will pass. Okay, I will stop here before this turns into a complete rant. BTW guys sorry I havent been around a lot. Been workin on a book project. I will keep you updated over the next 20 years until its done. Thanks for reading.

War is Good for the Economy

The old adage is that war is good for the economy. I'd like to add to it: unless you are fighting it. Robert Gates sent a letter to Congress saying he'll need more money to keep up the war, and that doesn't even take into account an increase in troops in Afghanistan. Soon I'm going to be writing about how much I dislike the idea of the 17.4 billion dollar auto bailout. That's, unfortunately, chump change compared to the 136 billion dollars... that Gates wants this year. Don't even get started on the near trillion we've spent in the last five years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm fairly confident that when a country's economy goes down the drain they pull out of all active military conflicts. That's what the British and French would do. They fought a near-constant war for centuries, taking breaks only when they couldn't afford to pay their armies. Maybe if we stopped shipping 200,000 of our workforce overseas and allowed them to stay home to buy cars we wouldn't have to bail out Detroit. Also, we would need more support workers for the extra workers. Tertiary in nature, if we let the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves, then they will want to buy guns and ammo and food and vehicles from us, which is good for the economy.

Mitch McConnell is an Idiot

Sorry I haven't written anything on the bailouts (plural yes I know) yet.  I'm prepping a huge piece on it, bigger than my Russia one.  I got really behind on the news with the holidays and I don't want to miss any of the viewpoints on the issue.

Mitch McConnell helped push the first bailout because helping homeowners helped him overcome Bruce Lundsford.  Now that the elections are over he doesn't really have to worry about what the voters think.  He's got six years before he comes up again and the political memory of the nation is on average 6 weeks.  I said average in case anyone wants to get upset because they will vote against McConnell next time because of his decision to kill the auto bailout.  If that is you you should probably stop reading anything by either of the publishers of this blog.

Now that Mitch doesn't have to worry about votes he returns to the original conservative views of government that make him completely unpopular among Kentucky liberals and a leading member of the Senate Republicans.  When I write about the auto bailout I am going to herald the leadership of Mitch for killing it, but I would like to take the opportunity now to say that he is both an idiot and a very good politician.

When the voting public has a longer political memory than 6 weeks, when the people of this country hold their politicians responsible for the hypocrisy and flip-flops, when 24 (or 18 in other cases) years in office is seen as a tyranny not a legacy, then we will see a better government.

What???

North Dakota has a what?  A surplus?  How'd they manage that?  I don't know but I'd like to find out... Oil?  Huh, I thought their main export was cold, but that stuff must be a hard sell... Global warming?  Meh.  Speaking of meh, it's in the dictionary now, so eat that.  One of the cool things is that the legislators want to be cautious with the surplus money because they know that hard times are coming.  That sounds like responsibility in government to me...  The governor wants to give some property tax relief, only a quarter of the surplus mind you, and even then the legislature is unsure if he can do that ince property tax is set on the local not state level.  The legislature questioning the practices of the executive?  Absurd.  I hope nobody follows the practices of North Dakota, stupid Yankees screw everything up right?

Oy Vey!

I have been avoiding the subject of the Israeli-Paliestinian conflict for some time. It's a 4,000 year old battle that my opinions can't really impact, but now I have to say something. I think it's incredible that Israel has actually sent ground troops into Palestine. They are saying that this is the final battle and that they are in it to the end. Perhaps this time they will finally cleanse the area of the last of the peoples that God told them to kill so that they could have the promised land... though I rather doubt it. The Arab world which surrounds Israel has been rather silent on the issue (from the American point of view) as referenced by the following cartoon.

I'm sure that this newest battle will turn out similarly to the 1967 war and Israel will think it has won something when the only it has actually won is more enemies. Hopefully one of these days the United States will let go of Israel's leash and go back in the house so that we are no longer associated with them. We have no reason to be in that entangling agreement except guilt over a genocide that we didn't commit. Now look who's doing the genociding...

Bad Pledges

The linked story refers to a new study. An old study has shown that people who make a pledge to hold off sex until marriage are more likely to wait later until having premarital sex. (Still breaking the pledge, but whatever) This new study compares people who make the pledge and people who don't make the pledge but wait longer to have sex anyway. (Living up to higher standards without the fancy vanity of being a member of a club) It shows that people who make the pledge are less likely to use condoms than those who just wait of their own volition. I hope someone out there in the world of education is paying attention. Not only is abstinence-only education completely and thoroughly ineffective, but now those people who are to be held in higher esteem because they are willing to stave off temptation neither hold up their commitments nor break this vow in the safest manner possible. I hope someone is proud of this.