UAW Execs Living It Up?

With the US auto industry crashing and burning, arguably because of the outrageous demands by the the UAW, surely the union is conserving every penny of the union dues in case of layoffs, right? Nope. They're spending money on a lavish retreat, only unlike AIG, the MSM gives them a pass. That's right, the interest from the strike fund pays for a lavish country club/golf retreat for the UAW brass. While this is their right, it makes me even less sympathetic to their whining for money. The union all but bankrupted the big three while lining their own pockets. Pres. Bush did not force them into bankruptcy, where the union mob's back could have been broken, and you can be sure Pres. Elect Obama will do everything he can to help the unions who helped win him the election. Remember this the next time you see a UAW rep on the news whining about corporate greed and government apathy.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everyone. May you holidays be filled with joy, family, thanksgiving, blessings and hope for the new year.

Erosion Of Liberty

Many people have asked why I harp on the War On Drugs so much. Aside from the fact that it is blatantly unconstitutional, it is also a Trojan horse to slip the erosion of our liberty past us, disguised as something that will never apply to us.

Drug war tactics were recently used on a home-based organic coop, aka the most harmless people in the world. Their account in their own words is here. As if the fact that they were harmless organic types wasn't enough, the only military aged male was not there, because he was serving in Iraq! That's right, a man who was serving in Iraq had his organic food selling family detained at gunpoint for 6+ hours and had personal property, including their food for the year, worth over $10,000 seized. The agents allegedly did not identify themselves as well as committing several other breaches of procedure. This was done by a SWAT team who ransacked the entire house.

Now, you're thinking, surely this was a dangerous group of radicals, maybe like the weathermen, or perhaps plotting some sort of civil disobedience, like chaining themselves to something. Nope. As far as anyone can tell, the charge is likely to be... running a retail establishment without a license. Not only that, the family claimed to have sent letters asking for the correct paperwork for over a year, and were ignored.

Now there is a lot of conjecture that this is a part of the government's plan to control food and to support Big Ag and Big Retail. I'm not going to get into that, though I think those claims may have some merit. The real issue is that everyone who takes the War On Drugs(/Liberty) lying down is guilty of contributing to this. It's just like the old quote about the Holocaust by Martin Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists.
I remained silent;
I was not a

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a .

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Thankfully, what we are facing is no where near the Holocaust. It doesn't compare as far as the atrocities, and honestly, I questioned whether to use this comparison. The crimes aren't comparable. But the progression is.

As far as civil liberties, they came for the druggies, they came for the Arabs, they came for the gun owners, now they're coming after the most harmless people in society. If you don't speak up for the civil liberties of people who aren't like you, who will speak up for you?

Speak up for liberty. Write the Governor of Ohio.

MSM Double Standard

Copious Dissent has a great article on media double standards. He lists five current examples which are extremely difficult to refute objectively. All the more reason to broaden your sources for news.

Eye For An Eye

Iran is going old school on punishment, requiring a scorned lover who doused a woman with acid, blinding her, to himself be blinded by acid. Since one of my faithful readers asked me for my thoughts on it, here goes.

I support the death penalty. I personally believe it should at least be an option for all violent crimes such as robbery, rape and murder. (Yes, there are many cases of innocent people being put to death. Yes, the justice system needs to be improved. But that is a separate topic.) If a person is guilty with overwhelming evidence, the death penalty needs to at least be on the table.

However, the why is what is important here. I believe in the death penalty not as punishment or deterrence, but as prevention. Dead people can't hurt anyone. Punishments such as, in this case, dripping acid in the eyes, do not prevent crimes, but simply seeks to even scores which can never be evened. To me, this is unproductive and simply creates misery without fixing anything. It is unlikely that an act as irrational as throwing acid on a person can be deterred.

At the same time, there is an argument for corporal punishment for some crimes. I know my liberal friends will argue this point, and I agree, it is mostly speculative at this point. The crime/punishment in many countries is a chicken/egg deal. However, I have to believe, for a certain category of crimes it may work very well. These crimes would need to be not governed by emotion, as there is no deterrence that will work there. Crimes such as car theft, burglary and certain extreme DWI's would fall into this category. I simply have to believe that public flogging for these offenses would reduce their number. It is likely to be an non-issue due to many reasons, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

As far as my direct reaction to this incident, it's simple: kill him. People like that can't be allowed to live. The chance he may reoffend is too high to risk.

The Islamic world also must realize that things such as the original incident here scar it's name far more than terrorism. There is no excuse for any group of people to treat other groups of people as property to be owned or destroyed based on their own emotion.

I also find it ironic that so many intensely traditional groups decry modern society/the media/Hollywood for "objectifying" women by showing any sexuality. It seems pretty obvious that the worst danger to women is the reactionary three part classification of women as relative/wife/whore. This is where the view of women as property comes from, and it is the view of women as property that creates the worst offenses towards them.

Above all, it is a tragedy that we are even having this discussion.

Off-Message

It looks as though Mr. Obama will not make it through the Blagojevich scandal unscathed. Though there is still no indication that Mr. Obama will be implicated in any of the shadiness, the hope of this fading away quickly is itself fading. There are continual suggestions that the Obama camp must manage. It is a horrible sign that Rham Emanuel is hiding behind "no comment".

The real damage here is the distraction. Mr. Obama has received near universal approval for his action thus far. He does not need a scandal this early, especially one that threatens to typecast him as a typical Chicago politician, and worse, undermines his key campaign theme. In a worst case scenario, such as Mr. Emanuel being forced to resign, this could cast a shadow over his entire presidency. Even less grave outcomes will hurt his thus far stainless image with voters. Mr. Obama needs to deal with this aggressively and quickly. It is a failure of his camp that he is dealing with this at all.

More Illinois Corruption

The Governor of Mr. Obama's home state, Mr. Blagojevich is charged with what the FBI called a "political corruption crime spree". The Nixonian accusations run the gamut from bribery to intimidation of the press. The FBI, granted somewhat self-interestedly, is making this out to be one the largest, clearest corruption cases in recent history.

The more interesting questions are about the links between the arrested Governor and the President-Elect. The two come from the same party apparatus and have worked together for some time. In fact, Obama aides and loyalists are now falling over each other to recant previous statements of closeness and discussions of matters under investigation.

It is unlikely that Mr. Obama will be implicated in any wrongdoing. However, his comments on the subject thus far have been shamefully weak. He has thus far only made wishy-washy statements expressing "sadness".

This is inexcusable. As a candidate who ran one "change" Mr. Obama should strongly condemn the actions "if proven true" and should bend over backwards to help the investigation. Coming from a state the FBI calls one of, if not the most, corrupt, Mr. Obama carried the burden of proving his campaign slogans.

Another Wave Of Speculation On Israel Bombing Iran

There are new reports that Israel is prepared to bomb Iran with or without US assistance. While the actual reports may be probes at judging Iranian or other responses, the news continues to confirm that military options are now off the table. Israel believes Iran will have the fissile material for a bomb by late 2009. Some believe that the current government will fall before using the bomb, likely sparked by the effects of the falling price of oil. In any case this has the potential to be Mr. Obama, and Ms. Clinton's first major crisis.

Gun Sales Keep Soaring With Obama Presidency

The centrist course and moderate rhetoric aside, many Americans are still buying guns in preparation for what they believe will be an Obama administration attack on the second amendment. Sales, and prices, of possibly banned guns have skyrocketed since before the election. Some models are actually on waiting lists so long that could end up not being filled if legislation did pass. I have talked to gun shop owners who have told me manufacturers are completely sold out of models. Ironically, Mr. Obama's election has been a huge financial boost to the gun industry. Most ominously, guns sales are up the most around Chicago, where they know Mr. Obama best. Hopefully, Mr. Obama focuses on the economy, instead of eroding the rights of Americans.

Small Bright Spots In The Economy

While it is doubtless the economy is struggling, there were some glimmers of hope. Initial jobless claims were down, Wal-mart sales were up, and oil is still falling. Combined with Mr. Obama appearing to take a centrist approach to the economy, there may well be hope for a end to the recession sooner than many had feared.

Big 3 Showdown

The heads of the Big 3 Detroit automakers are in DC today for hearing on government financing. Of course, one of the reasons they are there in the first place is because they focus too much on lobbying Washington for favorable treatment and money, and not enough on running a solid company. So far this year they have already spent $50 million on lobbying Washington. That amount of money is fairly small, however, it is more about the mindset. You can't, or at least shouldn't, run a company by sucking up to Washington. Ironically, Detroit can't even pick a winner in Washington. Rep. Dingall, who they have lavished millions on, lost the chairmanship of a committee long used to protect the Big 3.

The situation does look dire. There is talk of a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which may be more palatable than the regular kind. In an extremely ominous sign, the UAW is ready to make wage concessions. That is a definite sign the end may be near.

Chambliss Blocks a D60, But At A Price

Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) has won his runoff election, thereby blocking the Democratic party from achieving a filibusterer proof majority in the Senate. There is now one legislative check on the power of the Democrats as a party. Though Mr. Obama so far shows every sign of governing from the center, it also acts as a check on Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, who may not be so moderate.

Mr. Chambliss is likely a good man, and we agree on more than a few issues. However, some of his failings illustrate why the Republicans are now in the minority in both houses, have lost the White House and look likely to struggle to change the situation barring a failure on the part of the Democrats.

Many of Mr. Chambliss's weaknesses are stereotypical of a Republican Party that is increasingly dependent on a small group of reactionary political illiterates to win elections. His son is a lobbyist for an issue on which the Senator is one the committee for, though he is allegedly barred from lobbying his father. Mr. Chambliss advocated "arresting every Muslim who crosses state lines", though he later apologized.

Worst of all was his 2002 election tactics. Mr. Chambliss dodged the draft for the Vietnam War by receiving 6 deferments for various issues. He is what is known as a "chicken hawk", one who dodged the Vietnam draft with connections, then voted for the Iraq war and impugned the patriotism of anyone who opposed it. The Bush administration was full of them. However, Mr. Chambliss took it to another level.

His opponent, Max Cleland was a decorated Vietnam Veteren, who lost three limbs in the service. Mr. Chambliss, referring to votes cast by Mr. Cleland to protect worker's rights in the new DHS, accused Mr. Cleland of being soft on terrorism and the war, and implicitly attacking his patriotism. That's right. The draft dodger attacked the patriotism of a man who not only served with distinction in Vietnam, but left three of his limbs there! John McCain(R, AZ) said the ad was "worse than disgraceful, it was reprehensible" and Sen. Hagel(R, NE) said it was "beyond offensive to me".

At the core, the Republican party is based on solid ideas. In fact, these ideas should resonate with young voters, who are independent and grew up with no expectation of job security. However, the party needs to make a conscious choice to renounce the fear based mudslinging, xenophobia and jingoism that it has recently relied on.

The Republican Party needs to lay out a clear, positive vision for what it stands for, and then mobilize for the 21st century. If it does not, it is destined to be the permanent opposition minority.

Northern Command

Traditionally, the Northern Command, which is responsible for the United States, has not been assigned troops. That is because the US does not use troops for law enforcement, and we weren't exactly worried about getting invaded by Canada or Mexico.

That is changing now. There will now be 20,000 troops deployed to the US to prepare for a large scale event. They will allegedly be used only for that purpose.

I am torn about how to feel about this. On the one hand, what is stated as their mission is completely harmless, and seems to be specifically tailored to meet the objections of people like me. There will be minimal troops tasked to security, and they will allegedly be only for the defense of the unit.

However, this is a dangerous precedent, and the type of event that has been used elsewhere to transition to using the military more and more against civilians.

So far the plan seems to be sound. However, as has been stated many times and observed less, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Obama Continues Moving Toward Center

As more and more of the Obama administration is announced, the most striking feature is the centrism of his appointments. In fact, they are so centrist, there are already cries of protest from the left, and Karl Rove has offered tepid support. Though in one way such a move is somewhat surprising, it also underscores the lack of a knowledge base about President Elect Obama, from which predictions could be drawn.

For those of us who opposed Mr. Obama's candidacy, this is a welcome surprise. Though it is very early to make any judgements on what policy will actually be in the new administration, the early signs point away from a significant swing to the left, the outcome most feared by most who preferred Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama benefits from following Mr. Bush in many ways. Not the least of these is that by moving so far to the right and fake-right, Mr. Bush in effect enlarged the middle of the political spectrum. By moving into this space, Mr. Obama can protect himself from both a midterm challenge, which a President who has a party majority in both houses usually faces, and cement his lead with the moderate voters who gave him the presidency. Freed from ever facing a challenge from the left, he can virtually assure himself a second term, assuming a moderately successful first term, where he can move to the left if he so chooses. Whether he chooses to do so or not, he very well may have that option.

The Follies Of The New Prohibition

Once again, the new prohibition has shown how pointless it is. There are now reports of immune systems being wiped out by a cutting agent used to dilute cocaine. The entire modern justification of the war on drugs is to protect us from ourselves, because we can't be trusted to make choices for ourselves. However, this is counterproductive, because people will always continue to use drugs because they like them. Thus, instead of "suffering" a cocaine high, along with the repercussions of it, they essentially die, because they were forced to make a blind choice, not knowing what they were taking. Yes, it was their choice to take an unproven substance. However, the government had no right to deny their right to use cocaine. The foundation of modern government is to protect people from others infringing on their rights.

When the government goes beyond that basic principle, unforeseen ramifications occur. In this case, the effect of prohibition was worse than the likely effect of the banned action. The vast majority of drug deaths are due to the prohibition rather than the actual drug. Most overdoses occur because there is no way of knowing how much active ingredient is in a dose of drugs. If they were sold as any other consumer good, it would be as simple as reading the label. Yet the government does not trust you to use drugs safely, so it becomes a guessing game.

Once given a power, the tendency is for the government to abuse it. Because voters cowardly allowed the war on drugs to flourish, the government is applying the principle to other areas. Governments are increasingly regulating food, with trans fats being the first victims. All data so far points to trans fats being very bad. However, it should be a personal choice. The reason goes deeper than many realize.

Starting a few decades back, the government urged people to eat a grain based diet. For now, I'll leave aside the possibility this was pushed by grain producers with political sway. At the time, there was preliminary data to suggest a grain based diet was healthy. Today, we know that, depending on your body chemistry, this is not the case, and in fact, in many cases, those things which we were told to eat were borderline poison. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes today is caused in large part by the grain and starch based diets of Americans. By and large, it is not cause by the fat intake the government said caused it. At least those guidelines were voluntary. Imagine if they were put into law. This is yet another reason to not allow government to outgrow it's role.

Could the Mumbai Attacks Be Replicated In America?

As news of the terror attacks in Mumbai dominate the news, a critical question to ask is how similar attacks can be prevented. There are likely to be several schools of thought as to the best way to prevent attacks such as these, depending on the beliefs of those asked.

One school will insist that we need tighter security regulations and more law enforcement. While these may be helpful, they can only go so far. India has been at war with Muslim extremists much longer than the US, yet clearly was still vulnerable. Indeed, there were reports that the police station was the first target.

Another school will insist that this is the time for more gun control. This, of course, ignores the fact that those who are going to kill many people do not mind violating some government regulation. Banning guns will not have an effect on their availability to terrorists for several reasons. One, by banning them, their value will increase, along with the reward for trading in them. The prime example of this is illegal drugs. No one has any problem finding drugs if they want them, despite their illegality and the resources wasted on trying to reduce their supply. Second, guns are very easy to make. The technology for an machine gun is about 150 years old. Nothing that old is that hard to build. Guns can be made in any machine shop. They are routinely made covertly in prisons. To go back to the drug example, it is infinitely more difficult to make cocaine than a gun, yet anyone in America could get cocaine in a day if they tried hard.

Rather, the necessary solution is more guns, that is, to allow concealed carry by any and all sound minded citizens who do not have a criminal background. This is how Israel prevented shootings like this from occurring. They generally now only take place where Israeli citizens have been disarmed. This tactic has also been proven to prevent such tragedies in the US. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that most mass shootings in the US now take place at schools, which are "gun free zones". What they really are is free victim zones, where the law abiding cannot defend themselves. Until we extend the single most basic right, self-defense, to all citizens, we will always be subject to these types of attacks.

Obamanomics

As Mr. Obama starts his transition to the presidency, we start to see which campaign promises will be glossed over and which will be pursued. There are indications that he is at least attempting to govern somewhat from the middle. It appears he will go forward with his infrastructure rebuilding, which will act as a intermediate range stimulus, and also eventually boost the business community. Infrastructure spending is one of the less offensive forms of government spending, if done correctly. He also looks likely to appoint Mr. Volcker to head his economic advisory board. As I noted earlier, he is also open to at least delaying the tax increases he proposed for the top bracket.

If Mr. Obama is able to focus his party on center-left economic policy, and to minimize their unpopular social policies, such as gun control and wealth redistribution rhetoric, he will prove a powerful force, unstoppable in 2012. Mr. Obama is also smart enough to realize that if he wants his more radical agenda, he will need to postpone it until his second term, and that the key to getting a second term is to fix the economy without making too many people upset.

Obama Keeps Gates

As much as I criticize Mr. Obama, his decision to keep Sec. Gates on was a good one. With so much on the country's plate right now, it is wise to retain someone who can handle crisis #2 while the administration focuses on crises #1. Sec. Gates was fairly popular for someone in such a position, as has done a fairly good job, considering what he was working with. While I'm sure they will not agree on everything, hopefully they can find a common ground on which to work.

Taxes Vs. Deficits

It now appears that Mr. Obama will not move to raise taxes on the highest bracket under his initial legislation. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I have strenuously opposed higher taxes for the top bracket. I do not believe in punishing success. If taxes are lowered on the lower brackets, the tax burden will still shift in ways that could become very important down the road, however, it will be the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, without some form of tax increase, the deficit will be out of control. There have already been estimates of $1 trillion dollar deficits under Mr. Obama. As the depth of the recession becomes clear, that may be optimistic, even with tax hikes. Without the additional revenue, all bets are off. Though there are all sorts of technical points and subtopics, generally speaking deficits are bad. Ironically, those who embraced deficits in the past have been the somewhat irrational far right, such as the neo-cons. Some who were essentially anarcho-capitalists and/or corporatist actually viewed deficit spending as a way of permanently crippling government.

More interestingly, this points to the possibility the Mr. Obama may in fact govern from the center, though in some cases that may be a worst of both worlds proposition, rather than a true centrist policy. This would have many implications for 2010, 2012 and beyond.

Children Need Play Time

Finally, a group of experts is saying we are harming our children by not allowing them enough time to play. In modern America way too much time is taken up in children's lives by school and other structured activities.

First, speaking with only my personal experience as a guide, much, if not most, of school time is a waste. I was homeschooled for one year. In that time, I jumped what I estimate to be at least 4-5 years of public school. I did what felt like 30-60 minutes of work a day. In my experience, most effort in public school is forcing children to obey rules. Much of the rest is make-work to take up time. Granted, I was somewhat adept at academics, but I was no savant.

Second, too many parents want to delegate their responsibility of raising their children to others, such as coaches, the schools, TV, and anyone else. This is what leads to young children having booked 14 hour days. It's not healthy. Children need time with books and open-to-interpretation toys in order to be healthy emotionally and mentally. In my personal opinion, over-exposing children to TV is borderline child abuse. My own parents did an excellent job of this, and that is one of the reasons all of their children are successes(well, some would argue about me).

I sincerely hope that this new evidence is not brushed aside by the establishment, and is instead embraced as the critical truth that it is. Playing to "what about the children" is standard justification for all kinds of issues. In this case, it really is about the children, not the transference of adults.

News Sampler

Here are a few articles which caught my eye:

Scientists now have enough DNA to study the Woolly Mammoth, as well as possibly clone one. Hopefully the techniques will allow us to still study species which have become extinct in the modern era, which has a huge potential upside.

It appears that insurance will soon start to cover maggot therapy. I really have no idea why this took so long, but it's always nice to see that insurance will cover something that isn't patented.

A teenage girl has lived 118 days without a heart. Our ability to extend human life is truly staggering.

A version of the science fiction deflector shields has been developed. Though so far it only works against a specific type of particle, it will be interesting to see where this technology eventually leads.

To the surprise of few, a study has found that banning fast food advertising would significantly reduce childhood obesity. While my belief in free speech and a free market preclude me from supporting such a ban, I can't say I'd lose a lot of sleep over one. More importantly, it is another reason to limit the amount of television watched by children to an absolute minimum.

IAF Chief: We Can Bomb Iran

The head of the IAF has said they are able to strike at Iran's nuclear program, if given the order by the political leadership. He emphasized that the decision was now solely political. I have speculated before that Israel may strike at Iran during the transition period of US politics. Political turmoil in Israel now may well preclude such a strike. However, it is still quite possible, especially if the Likud party makes gain.

Romney On Detroit

Mitt Romney wrote an editorial outlining how he would fix Detroit, and it's an interesting read. I was not a particular fan of Mr. Romney during the primaries, mostly due to his political flip-flopping. However, his business experience may well have been able carry him to the White House, had he been the nominee in the homestretch. It may have also hurt him, as CEO's were not held in high esteem at the same time. However, regardless of Mr. Romney's particular qualifications, political parties should be open to successful businessmen as candidates. As the office of the President is increasingly about managing the nation's economy, they will always have more experience than politicians in managing the bottom line. They are also more in tune with the challenges faced by businesses.

It is too early to know if Romney will run again in 2012. It will be interesting to see both whether he runs, and whether he is tapped as a VP candidate.

Daschle Pick Illustates Difficulty Integrating Change And Effectiveness

As the New York Times pointed out, the rumored pick of Tom Daschle, former majority leader in the senate and current unofficial lobbyist, shows the fine line the Obama administration is trying to walk by hiring experienced Washington insiders to execute the policy of "Change". Mr. Obama is pulling heavily from the Senate and the former Clinton administration to staff his administration. Some had hoped that Mr. Obama would appoint people with unconventional backgrounds to his cabinet, something that so far has shown no signs of occurring. There is also some conflict between Mr. Obama's strict restrictions on previous lobbying, and some of the people he would like to be in his government, something long predicted by insiders.

The core issue will revolve around how strong of a leader Mr. Obama will be. If he is willing to set the agenda, and define how his subordinates will carry it out, he may be able to carry out his idea of "Change" with a cabinet full of establishment types. However, if he wavers in exactly what he wants to do, or does not enforce his will strongly, the result will be typical establishment proposals, policies and results.

Pirate Update

Russia is now joining the fight against Somali pirates. Since they are sending warships and not nuclear subs(which they don't have a great record of safety with) they should be fairly effective. As I implied in an earlier post, I'm not sure why countries which don't fight wars often aren't jumping at the chance to get their troops some cheap experience. The US, while in possession of far and away the largest military in the world, has more combat experience than it wants. Russia has arguable the same amount of experience in it's military. One would think emerging powers, or countries that may face conflict would want at least some veterans with combat experience, something that cannot be taught. Indeed, this may play a role in why India was the first to sink a pirate ship recently.

Indian Navy Sinks Pirate Ship

The Indian navy stepped up to the plate and sank one of the pirate ships which have been operating with impunity off the coast of Somalia. I hope the other navies of the world take this as a challenge to not let themselves be surpassed by India, and that the competition wipes out this practice.

Good Riddance To A GOP Senator

It now appears that Senator Ted Stevens (R, AK) has lost his senate seat. Faithful readers know I slightly prefer the GOP to the Democratic party, and that I shudder at the thought of a Democratic super majority. However, Sen. Stevens was emblematic of the problems with the Republican party. He channeled billions and billions of pork to his home district. He, along with Sen. Byrd (D, WV), is the poster child for wasteful government spending. Not content with merely plundering the public treasury, he also openly took bribes, and was convicted of a felony in Federal court. The fact that the RNC didn't disavow him and sue to keep him from running as a Republican shows their political greed and cowardice. Fortunately, the voters finally had enough and stopped the madness. In this case, it was worth it to lose a senate seat over principle.

The Shores Of Tripoli Redux?

Apparently, despite trillions of dollars of global military spending over the past decade, no one can, or will, take on a couple of Somali pirates with AK's in bass boats. The US military whines that it can't do everything, despite the fact that this is the exact reason the Marine Corps was created. The European militarys/armed welfare groups, who rarely, if ever, fight anyone, won't act. The only ones up for a fight, are, believe it or not, the Saudis, who aside from also never fighting anyone, are widely considered to be one of the least effectual governments on earth. (Side note: when the Saudis referred to the pirates as "terrorists" the word lost it's last shred of meaning.)

Now, since they strike fear into the hearts of all the world's armies, you would think they're pretty fearsome. Nope, they seem to be kinda like slightly more heavily armed Bloods or Crips, but in boats. Well, then, they must be elusive. Well, at sea, yes, but we know where they live.

Well, if no military will take them on, what will save us from these pirates? Are we doomed to be at their mercy? Fortunately, there are some experts who have found some good techniques for dealing with them. Apparently, spraying them with a hose discourages them. Also, greasing the ladders on the sides of the ships keeps them from coming aboard. Nope, I'm not kidding. Apparently these are the tried and true solutions. It's too dangerous to send in the SEALs, we've got to stick to grease and hoses. Talk about $550 billion a year well spent, huh?

How Obama Got Elected

As I was glancing over my blogger feed, I noticed a new item from Copious Dissent, where he linked to a website for an upcoming film, entitled "How Obama Got Elected". There is an extended trailer of the film, where Obama voters are interviewed, and are just missing basic questions about the election. As I watched it, I kinda chuckled, figuring the producers did a good job of finding some uninformed voters. Then I went to the website, and scrolled down past the video, and saw that they actually commissioned a Zogby poll to confirm the tendencies. Just as in the video, the majority of Obama voters did not do very well answering the questions.

Of course, this is not to say only uninformed people voted for Mr. Obama, nor did all of the uniformed people vote for him. There are plenty of idiots who vote Republican, too. However, the larger issue of the uninformed voting has to be addressed, at some point. The founders never intended everyone to vote, and there was a reason for that.

Burn Baby Burn

As I read about the LA suburbs burning and Mr. Obama talking about the need to save Detroit, I was struck by a similarity between the two. Both groups put themselves in a situation where a reasonable person would have foreseen trouble, and are now astonished to find that they are, in fact, in trouble.

A reasonable person could have predicted that if you sold low-quality cars made by overpaid employees, paid out all of the profits as "compensation" of one form or another, mounded up debt, and refused to save or innovate, you will eventually go out of business.

A reasonable person could have predicted that if you build flammable homes in the middle of a forest with a hundred year history of wildfires, a tendency towards period of drought, and then watched as year after year there were fires, and saw that while the fires themselves were contained, the fuel for them continued to mound up, chances were very high your house would eventually burn.

The common link is the American cult of the victim. We have, as a culture, become a nation of whiners who always want to blame someone else for their problems, and worse, want someone else to fix them. Until we start to take responsibility for our problems, and separately and more importantly, fixing them, this nation will continue its descent.

Hillary As Sec. State?

There are rumors that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State. The parties emphasis that the talk are, at best, preliminary. However, one of the most interesting reactions I read was that of Dick Morris, a former Bill Clinton adviser. His reaction is interesting in two ways. One is that he thinks that Ms. Clinton would undermine Mr. Obama. The other interesting thing about his reaction is that he thinks that Mr. Obama will have to fight Congress to stay towards the center, and that Congress will be pulling far left. Mr. Morris certainly has experience in this area, and it will be interesting to see if time proves him right.

More On The Detroit Bailout(s)

The Senate is now debating a new $25 Billion bailout for Detroit. No, not the old $25 Billion that was already approved, but hasn't been implemented yet, a new $25 Billion. The only upside is that this bailout would have a provision for the government to benefit if Detroit makes some sort of miraculous recovery. However, this issue has always been that it is likely that the money will never be recovered due to bankruptcy. Detroit is so horribly run, the real surprise is that they are still in business at all.

However, with Mr. Obama deeply indebted to the unions for his victory, this may well be only the first of many bailouts for Detroit. The Big 3 are in such bad shape that each $25 Billion will buy them less than a year. That would mean another $50 Billion at least during the first Obama administration.

Numbers On Post-Obama Gun Binge

We now have numbers on the amount of increase in gun sales after Mr. Obama was elected. Gun sales soared a staggering 49%, a huge number for a economy in recession. From personal experience, I was at a gun show over the weekend, and many dealers, especially those who were selling semi-auto rifles, which are seen as likely to be banned under Mr. Obama, were selling unprecedented amounts of weapons. Many political observers doubt Mr. Obama will commit the political resources needed to enact much new gun control, especially after the devastating effect the last gun control measure had on the Democratic numbers in Congress. Mr. Obama is also hamstrung by the new Supreme Court decision declaring the second amendment has not, in fact, been somehow deleted. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's previously state taste for gun banning left many not wanting to take a chance.

Automaker Bailout Talk Increase

With all three of the major leaders in Washington in favor of baling out Detroit, it seems likely to happen. GM, in particular, is in such bad shape it may not make it until Mr. Obama is inaugurated. Republicans are surprisingly showing some backbone and resisting, however, since they have long since used up all their political capital, it is unlikely they can affect the outcome.

As I've written before, I do not believe that Detroit should be bailed out. At the rate they are burning through money, it would never be recovered, and would only delay the inevitable. Both the executive teams and the unions need to have their positions completely reworked. The best thing that could happen is that the Big Three were sold to Toyota, or to a lesser degree another Japanese car maker. They could then take the company into Chapter 11 and rework the absurd union deals, or better yet, scrap them. They could then institute modern manufacturing techniques and teach them that you need to make a profit, and also set money aside for market downturns. However, this will not happen, because Americans believe in babying American corporations. One of the reasons Detroit is in the position it is is because they were always treated as the spoiled favorite child who got special treatment from the parents. Americans would rather give tax money to Detroit, and still have it run into the ground, than let itself be saved by the Japanese. The free market needs to work, and as long as sentimentality keeps it from being brutally efficient, the problems will remain.

Paul On The Republican Party Post-2000

Ron Paul has a great, if a little vague, article on the mistakes of the Republican Party after 2000 at CNN.

The War On Drugs

I'm excited to write this post, because it is a direct response to a reader comment. If anyone has a request for something to write about, please post it.

I was asked what my position was on the War On Drugs and on legalization of drugs. They are separate, if related, topics, and I will address them individually.

The War On Drugs is an absolute failure that was ill-advised from the beginning. The effects of this war have been a large amount of money wasted, a creation of a violent industry that has killed thousands, and a trampling of the constitution. It has cost nearly $45 Billion this year so far alone. Total cost is in the hundreds of billions. The worst of it is, it simply doesn't work. Those who want drugs can get them. The real result has been a large amount of money wasted on allocated law enforcement, prisons and other enforcement. The other result has been that law enforcement has become extremely intrusive and rights are being trampled.

The root of all this is simple. People want drugs. Period. When people want something, and that something becomes more difficult to obtain, they are willing to pay a higher price for it. The profit is the price of breaking the law. This makes breaking the law very profitable. When there are a lot of profits to be made, there is a lot of competition. When competition cannot be regulated through the courts, the only recourse is violence. Hence, making drugs more difficult to obtain leads to violence.

If there were plenty of drugs to go around, there would be no extreme profit, and thus no need to resort to violence. So by not artificially manipulating the market, we can reduce drug violence significantly. Besides, it's not as though it's impacting the availability of drugs. I've never seen a case of someone stopping their drug addiction because there were no more drugs available. Because people want them, they will always be drugs. There are drugs in prison for crying out loud!

Let us look at the other cost as well. Civil liberties have been greatly eroded under the guise of the War On Drugs. We now have police units armed to the teeth, ready to kick down any door based on the smallest tip. We have mayors of small towns being attacked by police, dogs shot, people handcuffed for hours, and all on virtually no evidence. The protections against search and seizure are all but nonexistent. No-knock warrants are being handed out on the slightest suspicion, and any resistance is met with lethal force. Police forces are using the absurd seizure laws to target property they want, and using the slightest justification to seize it with no due process or compensation. These departments are just like any other drug gang, except they are sanctioned by the corrupt legislature and courts. All this to keep people from doing things that the President-Elect has admitted doing and the sitting president is strongly suspected of doing.

The typical (liberal) response is that drugs make for dangerous situations. Well, so do matches and gasoline, yet anyone can buy those. Any police officer will tell you a drunk is every bit as dangerous as someone on drugs. The point is that the government is not supposed to be your mother, keeping you from things that might have the potential for trouble. The government is supposed to keep you from infringing on another's rights. I'm all for throwing the book at those who commit crimes while high. If we ended the War On Drugs, we might have a place to put them. But we have no right to arrest someone for doing something that might be dangerous. Until they infringe on someone's rights, or are imminently about to, they have the right to choose what they want to do. If they want to get high and sit around, it's their right. It's a waste of resources to stop it.

As far as my opinion on legalization, it's simple. Any adult (eligible for the military) should be allowed to use whatever substance to get high that they want to. Children should need the consent of their parents. Quite simply, it is not the government's place to tell you how to run your life. The line is simple. If you are going to infringe on another's rights, it's a crime. If not, it's your right. If you get high and drive recklessly, that's a crime. If you get high and mind your own business, that's your right.

Let's look at the benefits of legalization:

1. Puts drug cartels out of business.
2. Virtually eliminates accidental drug overdoses. Right now, there is no way to tell how much of the active ingredient is in a bag of drugs. There are no labeling laws. Legalize and regulate, and viola, you know exactly how much your taking.
3. Eliminate adulteration of drugs. Many of the worst effects of drugs come from cutting agents and other drugs mixed in with the named drug.
4. Allow those who use drugs responsibly to have more productive lives.
5. By reducing the price of drugs, the need to commit immoral acts to afford drugs is reduced.

This is a short list, and does not contain all of the benefits of just ending the over enforcement of drug laws.

The other question is, why should the government ban drugs? Because they might be harmful? Does that mean the government should ban junk food, tv, not working out, video games, all of which lead indirectly to more deaths than drugs do, or whatever your favorite vice is?

The idea that the government should be an all-powerful nanny, forbidding you to do whatever might be dangerous is a liberal one. It has been shamefully usurped by "conservatives". It is not the government's job, nor is it in any way constitution for the government to regulate such things.

The original prohibition didn't work. This one doesn't either.

The Death Of The Republican Party

The Republicans have no one to blame for their losses but themselves. Even Sarah Palin, much derided as a political neophyte, knows this. Such was Republican incompetence that Mr. Obama even won the group he demonized the most, the wealthy.

The reason for this is simple. Instead of standing for something, the Republicans came to define themselves as opposed to things. This applies to issues across the board.

Let us first define what the Republican party is alleged to stand for. They are supposed to be the traditional conservative/classical liberal party. That philosophy can be summed up very simply: Government should only protect us from those things that we cannot stop from directly hurting us. That is, government should protect us from invasion, violent crime and fraud, as well as doing a small handful of other regulatory things. Now, let us examine what a platform based on these beliefs would look like:

Essentially the first item of business would be to reduce Pentagon spending. This is the single largest expense on the government budget, and has no justification under conservative philosophy. Though it is euphemistically labeled "defense", it is nothing of the sort. The overriding mission is to accomplish and maintain invasions. The US military is in roughly 130 countries. To have a military in another country, regardless of their consent, is maintaining an invasion. It is not defense. To the contrary, it is our presence in other countries that brings attacks on us, more often than not. The defense of the country lies with the National Guard, and perhaps a small nuclear deterrent. There is no need for standing invasion fleets, which is what we have now. Wars not involving the defense of the nation are luxuries, and should not be be paid for by the public.

The massive law enforcement/domestic intelligence octopus is also completely against conservative ideology. The only federal law enforcement needed is a small agency handling interstate affairs. The absurd war on our own citizens masquerading as the War On Drugs and gun control are fundamentally liberal policies. Liberal ideology is that the government should save you from yourself. Conservative ideology is that you should be responsible for yourself. The War On Drugs is a liberal war on liberty that no real Conservative can support. As far as the ridiculous spying on our own citizens, once we stop making enemies overseas, a lot of the justification for that goes right out the window. Even if it didn't, it is an unconstitutional infringement of liberty.

Next up is the red tape wrapped welfare state apparatus. There is no need for the Federal government to be issuing standards for education. Again, you are responsible for yourself, not the government. The same goes for welfare type programs. That is the mandate of private charities, not the government. The same goes for the ridiculous corporate welfare. If you can't run a business profitably, that's your responsibility, not the government's (noticing a pattern?).

Now that we've streamlined government down to reasonable, constitutional level, we can start ramping down taxes, while using the surplus to pay off the national debt. Then we have an efficient government which does it's small part, and leaves the rest up to you.

Now, the above platform might be a little too radical for mainstream politics. The point is, however, that the Republicans, rather than standing for some version of the above, settled for being Democrats lite. Indeed, the only part of the party which stood for something like the above was the Paulites, who were also the only energized part of the party. The next question is, how did this happen.

The short version is this: After the Great Depression, the Republicans allowed the Democrats to bully them away from their beliefs. Having become afraid to stand up for what they believed in, they took the course of many who, not having anything to believe in, content themselves with opposing those who did believe in something. They found liberalism and Communism, and made these their focuses ever since. Along the way, they added other to their negative coalition, and made concessions to get votes from them, selling their soul along the way.

One of the most distasteful additions was the so-called Religious Right, which really isn't Right at all, but a bunch of liberals with different beliefs. That's right. As much as the "Religious Right" whines about liberals, the differences are only superficial. What they agree on is that the government should save people from themselves. They only thing they disagree on is what to save people from.

There is nothing conservative about repression and censorship. Both are intrusions by the government into private life. Things such as the War On Drugs, government repression, censoring art in any form, and forcing their beliefs on others are anathema to true conservatives. Yet they are the cornerstone of the "Religious Right".

If the Republicans are going to regain power, they need to stand for something more than a watered down version of the Democrats. Both President Bushes were as guilty as anyone, including Mr. McCain, of this. Indeed, there are precious few actually conservative Republicans left. Unless they take charge, the republicans may well go the way of the Whigs.

Silver Lining

It's always important to find the best in any situation. For instance, with the economic downturn, one small bright side is that there will be a reduction in junk mail. Not surprisingly, some of the first to go will be credit card offers and home refinance ads. Never mind that most of the credit card offers should never go out, at least the ones with your info already printed in. Don't expect to see that curtailed, though, especially since we just elected a VP from the capital of credit. More broadly, one of the functions of an economic downturn in a free market is to prune sick or wounded companies, or industries, in order to make the market more efficient.

This is, by the way, why we should let the domestic automakers die. Instead, they are likely to get $50 billion in loans. Unlike the so-called "bailout" the likelihood of the government ever getting this money back is pretty low. All of the "Big 3" are fatally wounded by staggeringly incompetent management, and bankruptcy is all but a forgone conclusion. However, it seems likely that President Elect Obama will hand them some cash.

Economic downturns are much like forest fires, destroying the dead and paving the way for new growth. Some industries, in this case junk mail, may be either trimmed back, or die entirely. However, when the fire is not allowed to do it's job, such as in California recently, or if the Big 3 are bailed out, the system starts to break down.

There is a difference between the Market Stabilization Bill and this bailout. A liquidity crunch is not the same as being fundamentally headed for bankruptcy. Furthermore, the government contributed to the liquidity crunch by it's policies. On the other hand, the government has done nothing but help the Big 3.

The problems at the Big 3 are deep and there is plenty of blame to go around. On both ends, the executives and the unions, there was a complete lack of long-term thinking. The economic rot is so deep at these companies, it is likely that the cleansing fire of bankruptcy is needed.

Technology Is A Powerful Thing

Two technological developments recently caught my eye. The first was a new technique to use an extremely common type of rock to trap CO2, the alleged nemesis of our generation. The second is a burgeoning technology which allows for spray on solar panels.

While it remains to be seen how useful these exact technologies will be, the larger point is that seemingly insurmountable challenges can be humbled by a series of technological advances. We must move cautiously to deal with problems who seem to only be able to be solved by the wholesale infringement of rights and/or growth. It would be foolish to rashly legislate roughshod over people, when the next year may bring a simple, noninvasive solution.

Obama Election Sells Guns And Stocks

The two groups with the most to lose in an Obama administration have reacted in predictable ways to his election.

Many gun shops are reporting records sales, with the only point of comparison being 9/11. The buying is being driven by fears that Mr. Obama will either prohibit, inhibit or tax guns and ammo. Though Mr. Obama has been extremely vague on this issue, has flip-flopped on it, and obscured his views, many believe this may be their last chance at firearms ownership. On a personal level, I couldn't begin to count the number of people who have told me, or asked me, about buying a gun, including many people who are the farthest thing from the stereotype of a gun owner.

The election was also followed by the largest post-election sell off ever. Though the causes of the sell off can be debated, it will be interesting to see how the market responds to the economic plans and taxes presented by the new administration, especially those which will single out the investor class to bear virtually the entire cost of the government.

News Potpourri

Here are a couple random news stories which caught my eye:

Speaker Pelosi says that Mr. Obama must govern from the center. Democrats claim to have learned their lesson about overreaching when they have command of Congress and the White House. It remains to be seen if this is in fact the case, and also if Speaker Pelosi actually knows what the center is.

The Domestic Automakers are yet again claiming they are victims of circumstances not of their making, and that they may not survive to see Mr. Obama inaugurated without help/welfare. For the love of Adam Smith, let capitalism work and let these worthless companies die much deserved deaths!

With the price of oil falling to below what is needed to support his socialist programs, Mr. Chavez has diversified his thievery/nationalization into the gold industry. It remains to be seen what it will take for Mr. Chavez to be forced from office. What is already apparent is that "new" populist-mild-socialism also does not work.

In a news piece which is likely to be buried, it has been discovered that parts of nature can reduce global warming on their own. Apparently, things besides "awareness" can affect the world.

Good News In Ballot Initiatives

The futility of the War on Drugs is slowly being realized across the nation. Michigan joined the growing ranks of the states that have reached what should be a completely obvious conclusion: very sick people should be allowed to use things that heal them, or reduce their pain. How this is not standard practice already is simply staggering, and quite frankly, criminal. Why would we deny them this? We allow people to use a substance which is interchangeable with heroin to treat their pain, but not something that is far less addictive and harmful? I have yet to hear a good reason for this from a prohibitionist.

Conservatives should be ashamed that one of the great liberal bogeymen, Massachusetts, has trimmed back governmental interference that they embrace. Massachusetts has decriminalized personal quantities of marijuana, a good first step. Quite frankly, one cannot be a real conservative and support the criminalization of drugs, especially marijuana. It goes against the core beliefs of government non-interference and personal responsibility. To be a prohibitionist conservative is to be a hypocrite.

Obama Wins

The election is over, and Mr. Obama is our President-Elect. I congratulate him on an extremely effective campaign and a clear victory. I also congratulate him on becoming our first black president. I hope his presidency helps to heal the racial wounds of our country.

Indeed, I hope that his presidency brings a new tone and new priorities to Washington. I hope that he will embrace his campaign promises to bring Republicans into his administration, and to govern in a post-partisan way. I hope he chooses to govern in a centrist, moderate way.

I pray that his presidency will be as successful as his campaign. I can only pray that he will embrace the best ideas of his candidacy and party, while compromising on the polarizing issues by working with the Republicans. I hope that he will foster diplomacy and peace. I hope that he will decriminalize marijuana and start to roll back the senseless War on Drugs. I hope that he will rely on his advisers who are most qualified and make choices which grow our economy as in the Clinton years, rather than embrace class warfare. I hope that he will reverse the shameful Patriot Act and other criminal violations of our civil liberties. I hope he will close Guantanamo bay and prosecute the War on Terror with respect for human rights and our allies. I hope he chooses to embrace transparency and ends the secrecy and criminal mischief of the Bush regime.

I do not expect many of these things to happen. But I hope they do.

Who I'll Vote For And Why

We have finally reached election day. Even I'm sick of it, which means most of America must be miserable. The time has come for my last post on this election. I generally don't do endorsements. I'm just going to share who I'm going to vote for, and just as importantly, who I'm not going to vote for.

It will come as no surprise to those who read this blog on a regular basis that I will not vote for Barrack Obama. While there are a few things I agree with him on, for the most part I believe he will take this country in the wrong direction. Socialism, regardless of how mild, is not the course the US should take.

I also cannot, in good conscience, vote for John McCain. While he is the lesser of the two major evils, that cannot justify voting for him. Compromise on principle will not lead to victory. It is for a lack of people taking a stand that we are in this position in the first place. Mr. McCain is an admirable man, but his policies are all too often Obama lite.

I wish I could vote Libertarian, however, they nominated Bob Barr, the worst of both worlds, Republican and Libertarian. There are many reasons not to vote Barr.

Nor can I vote for any of the potpourri that Ron Paul endorsed, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin or any of the other crackpots. All of them have positions or temperaments which are unacceptable.

Instead, I will be writing in Ron Paul, despite his wishes. I will be voting not for the man, but the principles. They are the only hope for America. There is no other vote I can cast with a clear conscience.

Many believe I am throwing away my vote. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, voting for the lesser of two evil because you won't stand up for your beliefs is throwing your vote away, conceding to a system which gives you only a ceremonial choice. Everyone should vote for what they believe in, regardless of it's popularity.

Evolution Of The Role Of The President

Becky, over on one of my favorite blogs, has a great article on the role of the president as it has evolved from the day of the founders to the present. As always, a very well formed look at an issue that is often overlooked.

When Will The Bailout Madness End? Apparently Now.

So the Bush administration finally said no to a corporate bailout. The lunacy of giving two failing companies money to merge into a bigger failing company was too much even for them. It's a shame they couldn't have found this kind of fortitude earlier, when it may have actually affected the presidential race. Now they are forced to rely on finding Mr. Obama's missteps and pointing them out, such as his plan to bankrupt the coal industry.

Obama Wants A Paramilitary

Although there are few details, apparently Mr. Obama wants some sort of Paramilitary apparatus. Because, you know, those always work out so well. I'll refrain from more in depth comments until more details are available, or until it becomes clear they are not forthcoming. If anyone has a link to details, please post it in the comments sections. Here is some somewhat related commentary until then.

Obama: Wanting To Keep What You Earn "Selfish"

As the election nears it's final days, and as more and more people believe Mr. Obama has this election in the bag, he is starting to show his true colors more. He recently declared that it was "selfish" to not want to pay higher taxes for succeeding. He explained that he, in fact, wanted everyone to be rich, which of course calls into question if he knows what that term is. His next comment revealed a little more. He believes that when "we"(the people that actually pay significant taxes, about the top 20%) provide health care, college, and spending money to "everybody", the economy will grow, and everyone will be better off, even the rich. So basically what he is saying is, when you cut though the rhetoric, is that he will take resources from the successful, spread them around, but not take quite all of them, so the successful will still have some left, and then everyone will be rich, but those who actually earned it will have a little more. Opposing this, he says, is selfish.

The New Frontier of Censorship

The Australian is going forward with a program pioneered in China to censor the entire Internet in Australia without any opt-out available. The program was originally designed to be targeted only at child pornography, but has already been extended to other topics, such as anorexia and euthanasia. Of course, the websites that are targeted are repugnant, but that is not the issue. It is a clear pattern that once the tools are made available to governments, under the guise of sacred cows such as child porn or terrorism, they are almost always then used against a much broader range of targets. For an example, the expanded wiretap authority granted to the US government was used in the exact way it was promised not to be.

I would have no issue with an opt-in program to protect children, but that's a world of difference from a universal censorship program at the hands of a government bureaucrat. There is little doubt in my mind that this program will be used for political purposes, and quite likely without that facet being announced.

A much more efficient way of combating child porn would be giving up the pointless, resource intensive "War On Drugs". These resources, rather than being used to persecute harmless personal drug use, and it's supply, should instead be directed to a productive goal. The fight against child porn is a much better use of these resources.

When France Thinks You're Weak On Defense, That's Not Good

Apparently the President of France thinks that Mr. Obama's position on Iran is "utterly immature" and "formulations empty of all content". Of course, you won't hear this in the MSM.

It is not good when the President of a country that is the home of both modern mainstream leftism and philosophically abstract political theory says such a thing. Granted, Mr. Sarkozy is center-right in France, but that's not saying much. Even Mr. Obama is far to the right of Mr. Sarkozy.

The suppression of anything critical of Mr. Obama by the mainstream media is so overwhelming, it's staggering that Mr. Obama isn't leading by more. The MSM have completely forfeited any credibility after this election.

More Corporate Socialism

As much as I rail against traditional socialism, there is another type of socialism which is just as repugnant, corporate socialism. This is when some company who can't run itself goes running to the government for a handout. These are usually big companies which are far removed from it's founders, who were usually entrepreneurs, not beggars in Gucci. Though the Market Stabilization bill was characterized as handouts, most, if not all, the money was used either for legitimate transactions or loans.

The prime example of this is the $10 billion that GM and Chrysler are asking for to allow them to survive long enough to merge. This is on top of $25 billion in loan assistance they already got. This is repulsive. These are two companies that have been absolutely run into the ground by pure incompetence by everyone involved, from the greedy, idiotic unions, to the brain dead executives who couldn't run a mint profitably. So they come asking for another handout, and they'll probably get it. Which means another decade or so of whining while companies who aren't run by idiots beat them by running a business instead of a charity, before they finally go under.

In a perfect world, they would be bought out by Toyota, so the factories would be run efficiently, the non-worthless jobs would be saved, and the handful of good models would survive. But instead the big 3 will become the big two, and continue to be showcases of poorly run corporation losing tons of money. This is making a mockery out of capitalism, and everyone involved should be ashamed, from the dirty politicians buying votes and campaign contributions, to the incompetent executives, to the short-sighted unions who sealed their own fate.

Don't lecture me with the Buy American! nonsense. First, the Japanese car companies provide plenty of American jobs, while the Big 3 outsource plenty outside the US. Second, Japanese car companies pay their workers competitive wages, and those workers are happier with their jobs than the those that work for the Big 3.

More to the point, since I believe in the market, I buy the best product, period. There may be a few extreme exceptions, but for the most part, that is what makes the system work. What, really, are you saying when you say that American industry will survive only on charity? If they can't run a profitable company, they should shut down or sell it to someone who can, not survive on pity sales built on protectionist nonsense.

Mark my words, we will be asked to bail these idiots out again before long. Corporate welfare is just like regular welfare, it destroys industriousness, and makes slaves out of workers. It is an addiction which can only be fixed by first admitting the problem.

Who Are The 5%?

One of the mantras from the Obama campaign is that 95% of people will get a tax cut under his plan. The implication by the campaign, and the media, is that only very wealthy people would be taxed. Setting aside for the moment whether it is right to tax the successful punitively, let us examine who would fall into this 5%. Fortune had a great article on this, one of the first in depth pieces I've seen in anything close to the MSM.

The conception of the rich that Mr. Obama wants people to have is multi-millionaires and billionaires. However, these are not those who will be most directly impacted by the tax increases under Mr. Obama. There are several reasons for this. The first, simplest reason is that the very rich pay someone to hide their money from taxes. I would be lying if I said I knew exactly how to do it, but I understand the general outlines. Second, most of the very rich's income is not taxed in the way that most people's is. They generally aren't filing W-2s. Yes, Mr. Obama's increased capital gains tax will hit them, but it will still be lower than the rate on employee income. Third, the absolute wealthiest won't even notice. Take away $10 billion from Warren Buffet, and it wouldn't affect him in the least. Now, the stereotypical wealthy do pay taxes, make no mistake, however, it is not the impact on them which is most dangerous.

There are five million households who take in between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. This is where the real pain hits under the Obama plan(though also to an extent, the McCain plan, just to a lesser degree). Generally speaking, these are professional families with children. They often live in places where the cost of living is high. Most live sensibly, saving much of their after tax money for their child's schooling and for retirement.

Let's start by looking at the typical expenses of one of these families, especially how they differ from stereotypical middle class families. They have enormous childcare expenses, since both parents usually work, and rarely just 40 hours. They save large amount of money for their children's education, since the children will likely be ineligible for any need-based aid. They also save massive amounts for retirement, for several reasons. They are often middle aged, and spent much of their youth either in school or building their business or career, so they are often behind in saving. They also have jobs that are not easy to replace with similar income, or they may have income that is directly tied to the economy, or an industry. Thus, they need to save a higher rate than many. Many are also ineligible for the best retirement plans, such as Roth IRA's, and thus need to save more money to get the same returns. However, all of this comes after taxes, and these families experience taxes differently than the stereotypical middle class. Outside these families and those wealthier than them, most people pay an effective tax rate that is much lower than their marginal tax rate. This is because most Americans deduct a massive amount of their income from their taxable income, everything from other taxes paid to mortgage payments. However, all these deductions are phased out for these families. So they pay many times more in taxes than families that make half as much.

These are the people who made good decisions, got extra education, started a business or worked very hard in their career. They did what everybody knows you are supposed to do, but few people did. These are people who were studying instead of partying, were working instead of watching tv, who worked long and hard. Now they are being punished for succeeding.

They are also critical to the economy. Who do you think buys products (besides poorly made cars) made in America? Not poor people, they buy imported cheap crap at Walmart. Who employs people? The 660,000 companies owned by those who make over $250,000 and are taxed on their company profits as personal income. The high-wage earners, who are responsible for most of the productivity growth in corporate America. The people who spend all their time either working, or with their family, so they hire someone to do all the other things, from mow their grass to fix their car. Self-sufficiency is not good for the modern economy.

Here is what Mr. Obama doesn't understand. He claims he wants to create high paying jobs. But how? Unions? How did that work out for the domestic automakers? It does you no good to be guaranteed $65 an hour for every hour you work at unskilled labor when the company is bankrupt. Have everyone work for the government? The government needs the private sector to leech off of, it can't sustain itself. Even Europe has figured that out. Order people to pay more? Same problem as the Union. If you tax these families into oblivion, you do real damage to the economy. There is a point at which if you punish success enough it will deter it.

The Real Question: Honesty

As you may have already heard, an audio clip has surfaced of Mr. Obama endorsing wealth redistribution, and suggesting the common interpretation of the Constitution was flawed for not including it. While this further confirms why he is, to me, the greater of the two major evils to choose from this election, I think many are drawing too complex of a conclusion from the clip.

The views Mr. Obama espouses in this audio clip, which not surprisingly is so far being ignored by the MSM, are radical for US politics, but not really for academia. Loyal readers will remember that I indeed speculated that these were the type of beliefs Mr. Obama picked up in academia, which is where they are most commonly held.

The real issue here is that this is directly refutes countless statements by Mr. Obama and his surrogates. Honesty is the question. If Mr. Obama held these views, then discarded them, and was honest about the process, few could fault him. However, deceiving the public is another story.

Election Violence

In the final, heated days leading up to an election, there is a lot of emotion ready to boil over. This election is likely going to be the worst in memory. Although a victory by Mr. Obama is likely to lead to smoldering undercurrents of resentment, especially in rural areas, this pales in comparison to what may happen if he loses.

A McCain victory is not as unlikely as the media would have to believe. The polls which was most accurate last election was IBD/TIPP. Mr. McCain is very close in this poll, actually right at the limit of the margin for error, and with almost 12% undecided. I believe that voters who decide late will break for Mr. McCain. I also believe if Mr. McCain wins the election, he very likely could lose the popular vote.

If indeed Mr. McCain does triumph, there could very well be large scale unrest and possibly riots. The ground is already prepared, with Essence already running articles quoting people saying that the Republicans are disenfranchising black voters. Some think it could be bad either way:

"If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”

Many cities will see increased police presence. Hopefully this will deter the worst of it. The place which is likely to see the worst violence is Chicago, Mr. Obama's hometown. It is already the murder capital of the US, surpassing cities with well over double it's population. (Side rant: This, by the way, happened while Mr. Obama was on the city council. It also happened in a city with extremely totalitarian gun control. Note that these things do not help crime. I, for one, will be glad not to be in Chicago, without a means of defense for myself, when the election occurs.)

I hope that America's long history of peaceful election nights will hold. But I fear it will not.

A Common Enemy

As even hardcore political junkies like myself are getting sick of talking about the election, I decided to switch topics entirely.

Two NFL stars have been in the news recently for battles with infection. Kellen Winslow II was suspended for talking about his staph infection and making negative comments about his organization. Tom Brady, the reigning superstar of the NFL, has had to have multiple surgeries to clean infection out of his reconstructed knee. Mr. Brady's infection has not been clarified as staph or not, though it is hardly unlikely that staph is the culprit.

The infection of two NFL players reminded me of the danger that staph poses. These should be among the least likely people in the world to get an infection, as they have quite literally the best health care money can buy. They are also in peak condition, and are resilient human beings. In fact, I believe resiliency and toughness separate out the good from the great in the NFL, as it often comes down to who can survive or endure long enough to have a great career, more so than who has the peak talent.

Staph should not be underestimated, it kills more people in the US than AIDS. Yet it is rare to hear about it on the news, unless there is a local outbreak, usually at a high school.

This election season, it is easy to get wrapped up in differences of opinion and politics, and lose sight of the fact that any way you view it, we have common enemies. I am guilty of it myself. Let us not be completely blinded by these differences that we ignore the things that threaten us all.

More On The Powell Endorsement

Since there has been an unusual amount of feedback on my criticism of Gen. Powell's endorsement of Mr. Obama, which I am glad to see and welcome, I thought I would go more in depth with my opinion, which seems to be a minority one. I am going to post the meat of the endorsement, along with my line by line response to it. Transcript. (My responses in bold)

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you're prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I've known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I've gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. (It is simply factually incorrect that going from Bush/Cheney to McCain/Palin is moving to the right.) And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president."

And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. (This ignores the fact that Mr. McCain and the Republicans tried to regulate Freddie and Fannie years ago and were stopped by the Democrats.) And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. (Well, Mr. McCain was unsure what to tell people who wanted government handouts to fix everything. It took him a while to be able to stomach that, and to his shame, he did. Which is the only reason he still polls in double digits with swing voters.) And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. (However, Gen. Powell explictly and on stage endorsed Vice President Cheney, who exemplified the right wing that Gen. Powell decries.) She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made. (The debate over Ms. Palin's qualifications to be Vice President vs. Mr. Obama's to be President have been done to death, with each side unconvinced of the other.)

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.(Note: No specific policies cited.) I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. (Perhaps because that is characteristic of the candidate trailing in the polls?) Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values. (How exactly is he doing this? If it's because he's young and black, that's not really something it's possible for Mr. McCain to duplicate.)

And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? (Why does the Obama Campaign bring up the Keating 5, from which Mr. McCain was all but exonerated from?) And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship(This is, to say the least, an opinion. It was double digit contacts that lasted over many years.) that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. (Imagine this: Mr. McCain had the same type of links to someone who bombed abortion clinics. What is the Democratic response?)What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. (Again, what basis is there for this? Can anyone explain to me how Ms. Palin is to the right of Mr. Cheney?) I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. (Isn't one of the things Mr. McCain got his "maverick" reputation for by being one of the Republican Senators who voted in the Clinton choices for the supreme court, over objections from the Republican party?)I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. (As though the DNC does not use this as one of it's major talking points, and employ people with this exact assignment to go to Union strongholds.) Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. (Even now Gen. Powell still insists on linking 9/11 and Iraq. Old habits die hard.) Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the (Note: no longer "my" party)party, we have these kinds of expressions. (But no one who supports Mr. Obama supports anything offensive? Mr. McCain is responsible for changing, single handedly, all his supporters views?)

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.(Note: still no policies cited.) I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

End of transript.

I still fail to see what policies of Mr. Obama's that Mr. Powell supports over Mr. McCain's. In fact, the issue Mr. Obama based his early campaign on is that the Iraq war was wrong. Mr. Powell was deeply involved in waging that war. Even when it is pointed out that Mr. Obama's position is opposed by Gen. Powell, Gen. Powell's response is that the next president will not affect Iraq policy that much. That's pretty weak justification for the lack of agreement on the defining issue of the early part of Mr. Obama campaign.

Gen. Powell's endorsement boils down to liking Mr. Obama's personality and style more than Mr. McCains, wanting to get back at the Bush administration and the belief Mr. Obama will win. He is entitled to vote on that basis. However, he should be honest about his reasons.

There are legitimate, internally consistant reasons to vote for Mr. Obama. These would include any of the following being your primary issue:

1. Gay Rights

2. Pro-Choice

3. More Gun Control

4. More distributed income

5. Anti-Iraq war

6. Union empowerment

7. Enviroment

8. Anti-Free Trade

9. Universal Health Care

10. Climate Change

The list goes on, but the point is clear. If any of these were your major issue, it would make sense to vote for Mr. Obama. Gen. Powell did not list any of these.

Powell's Betrayal

Today, Gen. Powell endorsed Mr. Obama for president. Today, I lost a fair amount of respect for Gen. Powell. The reasons are not the most simple, so allow me to elaborate.

From the beginning of my opposition to Mr. Obama's campaign, I have said the one motivation of his supporters I could not argue with was the desire of their children to have a President who looked like them, so they would know they could be President one day. I still do not begrudge this reason, and would not begrudge it from Gen. Powell.

Gen. Powell said that his endorsement was not about race, and I believe him.

Sadly, it appears that the reason is political opportunism.

As Gen. Powell is widely considered one of the most respected Americans, this is a surprising, and probably to many offensive, statement. Allow me to defend it.

The platforms of both parties have been known for months, if not years. If the endorsement were based on this, it could have been made long ago. Instead, it was used as an October surprise against Gen. Powell's own party. If it were a simple personal feeling, there could have been a press release, and Gen. Powell could have answered questions about it in a single media appearance. Instead, it was stage-managed, with suspense raised to magnify it's effect. It was a calculated move.

Gen. Powell gave several reasons for betraying his party, but they all revolved around the notion that the Republican party is becoming too right wing. This is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe he said this. Gen. Powell served in the two farthest right administrations in modern history. He can plead duty for the Reagan administration, but he has no such defense for the second Bush administration. It is a distinction without a difference anyway, as most of the people are the same, just with different titles. These are people, by the way, who hate, loathe and revile Mr. McCain for his liberalism. Who believed that it was so important that he be prevented from defiling the Republican party with his liberalism that they were willing to slander a war hero, to break any code of morals, to defeat him. He chose to be part of this type administration with his eyes wide open. Yet he now claims he cannot support their once rival from the left, becuase that (relatively)leftist rival is too right wing? He points to Ms. Palin's selection as evidence of this rightward shift, yet Ms. Palin is Vladamir Lenin compared to many in the Reagan/Bush II administrations. Gen. Powell's explanation is insulting to the public.

This leads us to Gen. Powell's real motivation, whether completely conscious or not, political opportunism, a political application of the vaunted Powell Doctrine. Throughout Powell's career, he resisted action, even while implementing it. This earned him the nickname "The Reluctant Warrior". Of course, this also allowed him to play both sides, taking credit for success while hedging against failure. This can be seen most clearly in the run up to the second Iraq war. Gen. Powell again appeared reluctant to attack, while at the same time implementing his part of the action. When it went bad, he washed his hands of it and quit. His hedge was successful, and he escaped much criticism. The act of courage would have been to resign in protest of the invasion, but that would have denied him the credit if it succeeded.

Now, after withholding his opinion until a late hour, when the polls and prevailing belief favor Mr. Obama, Gen. Powell has attacked, again with overwhelming force, parroting the Obama campaigns talking points. This time, instead of outgunned, conscripted Iraqis, the target of his attack was his own party.

He has once again hedged his position as well, contributing the maximum to the McCain campaign.