NRA Goes After Obama

As I expected, the NRA has gone after Mr. Obama with a new ad, as the homestretch of the election is in sight. With football on TV and hunting season coming up, the timing is perfect for their message. Despite their disdain for Mr. Obama, the NRA has not endorsed Mr. McCain.

While the exact claims of the ad can be quibbled over(here is the objections and here is a response to them) it is generally understood that Mr. Obama is generally less supportive of gun rights, to say the least, and would like to see more gun control passed. What he would have the votes for may be another story, as Democrats learned their lesson when their ludicrous "Assault Weapon Ban" helped to cost them their congressional majority.

The ad makes a passing reference to a quote by Mr. Obama which disparaged gun owners and the religious. Don't expect it to be the most subtle or the last reference to what sums up many people's objections to Mr. Obama.

Federal Reserve Acts Instead of Congress

The House defeated the Market Stabilization Bill, much to the applause of many, on Monday. Many people who I tend to agree with hailed this as progress. I take a slightly different view. First, though there were flaws with the original bill, the one that Congress voted down was actually a pretty sweet deal for the taxpayers, as it all but assured a profit, along with reforms. In addition, the money would have been slowly portioned out with a lot of conditions. Still, a lot of people said well, we saved $700 billion and didn't bail out a bunch of people who were the cause of the situation. Well, the conditions on the money were so stringent, I'm not even sure many firms would have bit, as the bill imposes brutal conditions on them. In fact, the term bailout is simply incorrect. While there have been bailouts in the past, this was not one. This was a bitter pill that would only have been taken to avoid death. However, none of this is really relevant.

That's because, since Congress didn't act, the Federal reserve did instead. Some of my beloved fellow econ-nerds will point out that the mechanism is different, but I would argue it is not different enough to quibble over. They loaned out $630 billion, about 2.5 times as much as would have been available immediately under the house bill. In addition, while there will be some minimal interest paid, there will not be the profit potential of the house bill. There will also not be any of the reforms proposed, nor limits on executive compensation that some cared so deeply about. The Dow fell almost 800 points on the news, hardly helpful, especially to consumer confidence. Also, this is a more inflationary move than the House bill, yet will not directly help the CDS and CDO situation. Basically this move has all the problems with the legislation, but none of the benefits. Careful what you wish for.

This entire crisis has caused me to re-evaluate my stand on the Federal Reserve. I used to believe it was critical to economic growth. I am no longer so sure. Those that predicted this, such as Mr. Ron Paul, will carry more weight with me in the future on this matter. Moreover, in the big picture, the Fed essentially overruled Congress. The bill was defeated, and the Fed went against certainly the spirit of that vote. There are many cries for more regulation of Wall Street. Maybe there should be cries for more regulation of the Fed. Or maybe a conversation about weather it should exist, and if so, in what form.

Who Is A Taxpayer?

With the Market Stabilization bill being discussed as well as the Presidential Campaign going on, a word you hear a lot of is "taxpayer". It is virtually never defined, but is usually used to mean all American citizen's. You hear talk of "$700 Billion of the taxpayer's money" and "we don't need taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street". Then Mr. Obama goes and says things like:

"And the reason is, is because we've got to make sure that the 95 percent of folks get a little bit of relief. We've got to stop borrowing from China and running up the credit card on the next generation.

There is a sense of fiscal responsibility that we've got to have here in this country, and the notion that those of us who have been extraordinarily lucky can't pay a little bit more so the waitress down the street or the guy making $40,000 or the guy making $70,000 can get a little bit extra so that he can put away some savings and watch his child eventually walk off that stage with a college diploma in her hand."

Given all this, you would think that pretty much everyone pays taxes. You would be completely wrong. 41% of the population pays no taxes. That number would rise roughly equally under Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama. If you're in the middle 20%, you pay virtually no taxes, about 2-3%. The second highest 20%, at little more, around 6-7%. Only the wealthy pay much in the way of taxes. How much? The top 1% pays almost 40% of total income taxes, and the top 20% pay almost 85% of all income taxes.

So when you see the talking heads on TV, or politicians talking about "Taxpayer Money" "bailing out the rich" or "why can't the working class get bailed out" just remember, "Taxpayers" means the rich.

Israel/Iran Update

Looks like I'm not the only one who would not be surprised by an Israeli strike on Iran.

Tragedy Of The Common Medicines

A study has found that senior citizens choose more expensive, branded drugs, when Medicare picks up the bill, but generics when they pay for them themselves. There are actually two distinct switches, due to the Medicare gap where benefits phase out, then phase back in. The seniors choose branded drugs initially, under the original coverage, then switch to generics when the gap hits, then back to the branded when they resume coverage.

This is predictable human behavior, and why the market is the most efficient regulator. There is only an incentive to control costs when you bear them. It is the same reason people use more gas/oil/water when it is subsidized. Subsidy is the enemy of conservation and efficiency. When gas reached $4 a gallon, all sorts of things happened that "couldn't" happen before. People carpooled and cut back unnecessary trips. Car companies announced electric and hybrid cars.

The solution is not interfere with the market, but to allow the market to operate freely, and find solutions within it. Distortion of the market will only lead to delayed and exaggerated forms of the problem that was originally avoided.

House Finally Acts On Rangel

The House has finally started an investigation into Rep. Rangel, though Mr. Obama remains silent. The committee will look into his tax misconduct as well as inappropriate use of congressional stationary for fund raising and his use of rent-stabilized apartments.

In other shameful behavior by Congressman news, Rep. Hastings(D, FL) said that Ms. Palin "[doesn't] care too much about what they do with Jews and Blacks" since she was a hunter. One could only imagine the outrage if a Republican had said such a thing about, for instance, Mr. Biden. There is, of course, a double standard about such things.

Ron Paul's Take On The Crisis

Mr. Paul has written a piece for CNN, which lays out his take on the roots and cures for the ongoing financial crisis. My biggest reservations with Mr. Paul had previously been with some of his economic proposals, such as eliminating the Federal Reserve. However, as time goes on, his ideas become more and more appealing. It is unfortunate that Mr. Paul has squandered his political currency with endorsements that are puzzling to say the least. It is even more unfortunate that his ideas have been so ridiculed, minimized and ignored by the mainstream media. Hopefully, the public will learn from their mistakes, and adopt many of the proposals of Mr. Paul.

Biden's Honest, Perhaps Too Honest.

In a week of gaffes, such as saying he didn't support clean coal when he was supposed to, and getting his history wrong on the Great Depression, Mr. Biden earned some respect from me. He admitted his campaign was wrong for an attack ad against Mr. McCain that included attacking his inability to use a computer due to war injuries. Both sides have crossed the line in ads, but only Mr. Biden admits it. That is to be commended. Of course, the Obama campaign forced him to "clarify" later.

In contrast, Mr. Obama criticized Mr. Biden and simply ignored the hypocrisy when he slammed Mr. McCain for changing positions on AIG, when Mr. Biden had done the same thing. Mr. Obama could learn a few things from his running mate about integrity.

Congressional Democrats Preparing Spending Bill In Secret

With the Market Stabilization bill taking all of the headlines, the Democratic leadership is crafting another spending bill, which is being kept secret as long as possible. Much of the spending is for already approved plans and agencies, but already there is leaked news of significant pork being slipped into the bill for stealth passage. This includes the loan guarantees for the Big 3, and a doubling of an already 5 Billion dollar heating oil subsidy.

(Side note: When I was in some of the worst financial shape of my life, my heating oil costs were several times higher than I expected. I cut expenses and worked more. Then I acted to solve the problem, and not use heating oil anymore. It just takes discipline and thinking. Apparently that's asking too much of people.)

Of course, subsidizing oil products is one of the things that causes the price of oil to rise. But I digress.

Also in the bill is various bribes for the poor to vote Democrat, such as more food stamps, more unemployment spending and the like. We'll know more when we can actually read the law, when it's passed.

Market Stabilization Bill Porking Up

As Time puts it, it's politics as usual. Rather than moving quickly on the $700 billion bailout proposed by the administration, congress is filling it with pork and red tape. Though not all the ideas are bad, notably a brilliant idea by Sen. Schumer(D, NY) to take stock as collateral for the bailed out, most are pork for various constituents. It seems nothing can get through Congress without everyone tacking on some unwarranted spending.

Though there are certainly different schools of thought of how to deal with the current situation, no one with any sense could propose that a pork-laden version of one of the ideas is better than the idea in central form. Congress should be ashamed of it's looting, but it has already been established that Congress has no shame.

Guilt By Association?

A column in the Wall Street Journal today delved into the links between Mr. Obama and Bill Ayers, one of the Weatherman responsible for violence during the Vietnam war era. The issue is also the subject of an ad by the AIP. The Obama campaign has long decried the raising of the issue as unfair guilt by association. This is a ludicrous charge from a campaign whose main attack on McCain is guilt by association with President Bush.

It is not a crime to be associated with leftists such as Mr. Ayers. While many of their beliefs are misguided, they were correct to a degree about Vietnam and Iraq, and are needed as part of an open political debate. The Republican party also has it's share of extremists.

However, Mr. Obama has been very deceptive about his connection with Mr. Ayers, which is cause enough for concern. As noted earlier, the association with Mr. Bush is a majority of Mr. Obama's campaign rhetoric. This certainly makes Mr. Obama's associations fair game.

As the column notes, though, there is now evidence that Mr. Obama was far more than an associate of Mr. Ayers. He was an integral part of his organization, and was trusted by Mr. Ayers. He was on the payroll of the organization which was Mr. Ayers founded to put his beliefs into action.

Many people drift towards radicalism, especially leftist radicalism, during their college years. Most drift away from it as they enter the workforce and so-called "real world". If this is the case for Mr. Obama, he needs to clearly delineate this. If he has not steered away from this type of thinking, he should make that clear. Either way, the voters should demand more answers.

Reflections On The Wall Street Mess

As the details emerge about the massive bailouts which are to be voted on this week, there is reason for cautious optimism. It seems that at least as far as the public is being told, the bailout is well-structured. Final comment of course must be reserved until after the final legislation and absurd "signing statements" favored by President Bush, have been reviewed.

The meat of the plan is simple, the government will buy up CDO's and MBS's for very small percentages of their believed worth, and sell them after the market has stabilized, hopefully for a profit. Each of the parties has put forth a sensible suggestion, the Democrats that executive pay be limited, and the Republicans that all profit be earmarked for the national debt. Other, sillier proposals have also been made, but hopefully they will be ignored.

Somewhat ironically, Democrats also want more "protections" for homeowners, ignoring the fact that unsuitable homeowners are arguably at the root of the problem, and the easiest way to deal with the problem, though not least painful, is to let these people, most of whom don't want or can't afford their houses, lose them. The historical root of the entire crisis lie in the government's creation of Freddie and Fannie as a way to make home ownership easier for the poor. That's where the problem stems from, and this seems to be overlooked. The Democrats also blame "deregulation" and want a bunch of new bureaucracy and red tape for the markets. While there still needs to be some investigation of how this spun out of hand so badly so quickly, the real regulations needed are a couple pages long at the most, and simply address the grading of CDO's and other derivitives, not entire new agencies or piles of red tape.

There is plenty of blame to go around, from Alan Greenspan, to the unchecked deceit and greed by Wall Street along with the blind eye turned by both parties, but especially the Democratic party, which blocked reform proposed years ago. Mr. Obama was particularly deceitful about this, blaming Mr. McCain for the problem when in fact, Mr. McCain tried to address the issue in part years ago. Mr. Obama continues to completely lie about the issue, ignoring the fact that his party was to blame for the majority of the problem under the guise of "helping poor people get mortgages". When people who shouldn't get loans get them, bad things happen.

Mr. Obama ignored the history of the issue and instead waited to see what would be popular and spout that as his rhetoric. Mr. McCain responded with a devastating and accurate assessment, which of course was all but ignored by the left wing "mainstream media":

"Whether it's a reversal in war, or an economic emergency, he reacts as a politician and not as a leader, seeking an advantage for himself instead of a solution for his country,"

Mr. McCain is often wrong, in policy and tactics. However, he has distinguished himself as a leader rather than a political opportunist. Mr. Obama should strive to meet that standard consistently.

Rangel Continues To Embarass Congress, Himself

Rep. Rangel(D, NY) continued to show why Mr. Obama must ask for his resignation from at least the Chairmanship of the House Ways and Means committee. Fresh after paying the first part of his debt to the IRS, whose rules he writes, he claimed he was simply the victim of a "guerrilla war" by the Republicans. He claimed he did nothing dishonorable and did not violate the public trust, despite not only significant tax irregularities, but using three rent controlled apartments rolled into one as a residence, and a separate one as an office. In addition, there was some questionable fundraising tactics. Mr. Rangel claimed this was all "insinuation and half truths" despite admitting it was all true.

As if this was not enough, he felt it necessary, or perhaps funny, to call Ms. Palin "disabled", and that she should be pitied, rather than taken seriously. There is really no lack of ways that this is offensive, ranging from the fact that Ms. Palin's newborn son has Down's Syndrome, that she is a woman, that she is Mr. McCain's running mate, who is somewhat disabled due to war injuries or just the fact that pity and dismissal is hardly the appropriate way to handle someone who is disabled. In fact, it is hard for there to be an innocent explanation.

Advocates for the disabled of course were upset and noted that FDR was disabled. More to the point, is Mr. Rangel seriously saying that wounded veterans should not serve in political office? That disabilities would disqualify someone from the presidency?

Of course, the Republicans have plenty of unethical members as well, such as ex-Rep. Mark Foley. However, with Mr. Obama running primarily, if not exclusively, on changing Washington, he must not overlook such a blatantly unethical man in such a powerful position. Rep. Rangel simply must resign as at least the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Corporate Socialism Being Cemented Federal Policy

As a state of panic grips both parties, due to their financial ignorance and fear of losing power the upcoming election, they seem intent not only on spending every dollar they have(well, I guess they always do that) not only every dollar they can barrow, but actually printing more money, and selling countless future generations into financial slavery. What do they care, they'll be dead well before this is paid off. The US is embracing the worst parts of socialism and the worst parts of capitalism. This is the type of stuff third world dictators pull that eventually destroys their country.

The government is working on a proposal to bail out all the idiots who were smart enough to spin all manner of insanely complicated derivatives of mortgages, but not smart enough to understand high school economics. Well, actually, the smart ones made their money and got out. The idiots are the CEO's and other management that let it happen. In addition, it has handcuffed the market by banning short selling, a critical tool for the market. The proposal is being rushed through as quickly as possible. That's where the problem is.

The gold standard for this crisis is the AIG model. Personally, I oppose all bail outs, but realistically, if they are going to occur, you want what happened with AIG to be the model to follow. You loan them money at a very high rate, and take 80% of their stock as collateral.

God only knows what congress is going to slap together and call a recovery package. It will be packed with pork and breaks for big contributors. Rest assured, this will be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever. It will cost the taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars, let the guilty off the hook, give out billions in pork, and throw a huge tangle of regulations on the market. The bills that are rushed through are the worst, because there is no time to review them. No one even knows what they are voting on or signing. The classic example is the PATRIOT act, which basically flushed away a good chunk of the rights of the American citizen.

The market should have been allowed to work. The bad debt would be written down, bad companies punished and good rewarded. It would have been painful, but it would have been done. Now it will drag on indefinitely, at the taxpayers expense.

This has allowed us to see what we face in the election. Mr. McCain was forced from his logical pro-market stand, and now is forced to back this nonsense, because the voters don't understand economics, and he would forfeit the election if he spoke the truth. Ron Paul actually has guts, and tells it like it is, and that's why he isn't the nominee.

Mr. Obama waited until he could see what was popular, then backed that. His running mate, Mr. Biden, told the wealthy that paying more taxes was patriotic. That's why they shouldn't worry that under the Democratic Plan, they pay all the taxes.

What Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden don't understand is that in this day and age, those of means choose where they will live. With the dollar being intentionally devalued, the Democratic tax plan could be the last straw that convinces the wealthy that there are better places to live. Depending on preference, it could be anywhere from the EU to Dubai to South America. With the wealthy gone who will pay the taxes?

Of course, the real answer is devious. Regardless of weather the wealthy leave, the high taxes that Mr. Obama promises "only the top 5%" will have to pay will eventually hit everyone. See, tax brackets aren't indexed for inflation. People tell me, Mr. Obama's just restoring the Clinton tax code, and we did fine then. Well, there's a longer answer to that, mostly that Mr. Clinton was much closer to the moderate Republican Mr. McCain is than the socialist that Mr. Obama is. But also, $250,000 in 1993 was a lot more money than in 2008. With the government taking on all this debt and intentionally devaluing the dollar, inflation is going to soar. When $250,000 is middle class income(ignoring that fact that in many areas it already is for a family), or a working class income, do you think Mr. Obama will cut those taxes? Nope. He'll levy new taxes against those making over a million, claiming it's needed to pay for all his social programs, and that only the rich will pay it. Then, as inflation continues, the process repeats, until we are fully socialistic.

Update On Israeli Strike On Iran

As I previously noted, it is fairly likely that Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear program between election day and the inauguration of the next president. Another piece of the time line has been revealed. Russia will sell advanced anti-air missiles to Iran for the protection of their nuclear program. Although the delivery date has not been announced, it will likely not be before the end of the year. Since this is the type of thing that prods Israel into action, expect any strike to occur between US delivery of bunker busters to Israel and Russian delivery of SAMs to Iran.

Obama Wants You To Argue With Your Neighbors?

Apparently listening to those in his camp shaken by Mr. McCain's post-convention bounce, Mr. Obama has switched away from his "politics of hope", which had been focusing on positivity, and has bizarrely gone so far as to instruct his supporters to argue with their neighbors, not about legitimate things such as not voting for him because of race or party affiliation, but on much more questionable issues. He told them to tell their neighbors that he supported the second amendment, which prior to a recent flip-flop, is at best a deceitful statement, but in generally understood terms is simply false. He told them to tell them that he will lower their taxes(clearly Mr. Obama has simply abandoned the wealthy vote outside Hollywood), which may be technically true for poorer taxpayers, but especially in implied comparison to Mr. McCain is somewhat oversimplifying the issue. Not only does he want you to have a polite conversation with them about what for many people are two very uncomfortable topics, he wants you to "get in their face and argue". This is Mr. Obama's vision for America? Browbeating neighbors over questionable positions on wedge issues? Where is the civility Mr. Obama promised?

What is equally disturbing is that this was a irrational response to a bump in the polls for Mr. McCain following his convention and a slew of negative ads. Anyone who has the tiniest bit of experience watching politics knew it would be temporary, and it is in fact already over. How was Mr. Obama baited into going so very negative over a temporary situation? He has been allowing his frustration to show, which is really political immaturity. With cracks in composure already showing, it looks to be a long road to Nov. 4 for the politics of hope.

Under Obama's Plan, ATF Is A Criminal Organization

Literally. Under one of Mr. Obama's proposals, which would cause innocent people whose guns are stolen to be charged with a crime if the stolen gun is used in a violent crime, the ATF would be guilty of at least one felony. The ATF lost 76 weapons last year, more than half because of agents' "carelessness". That's right. According to Mr. Obama's plan, the ATF would have committed a felony, because one of their carelessly stored guns was used in a violent crime.

Essentially, unless your weapons are locked down more than the federal agency in charge of firearms, you could be charged with a felony.

Mr. Obama's hatred of guns is of course well known, as even his hand picked crowds call him out on it. Mr. Obama was forced to resort to saying he didn't have the votes anyway, so not to worry about it. Even staunchly Democratic crowds know that he would if he could. His record is clear.

Thankfully, after decades of Supreme Court cowardice, the current court stood up for the Bill of Rights and said that the second amendment had not, in fact, expired. Mr. Obama's flip-flopping on the issue aside, the court ruled his proposals were unconstitutional. Ironically, Heller v. DC may have helped Mr. Obama, as single issue voters know he is constrained constitutionally when it comes to guns, and are thus free to vote for him if they otherwise agree with him. Without Heller, no gun owner in their right mind could vote for him. With it, some may, if everything else lines up.

My Take On The Bailouts

With yet another government bailout announced, this one for AIG, some of my faithful readers are doubtlessly somewhat surprised that I have not been railing against them. True, they do go against my belief that government should not interfere with the markets and yes, it is unfair to pick and choose which companies to bailout. However, in the scheme of what is on the table as far as government intrusion into the marketplace, it is one of the better options that has been presented. The reason I say this is quite simple. These type of bailouts often do not cost much, and sometimes turn a small profit.

That of course does not make for a moral justification, but in contrast to the other proposals by candidates, they look fairly inoffensive. Compared to Mr. Obama's platform of tax the oil companies and the wealthy and throw the money around like a rapper at a strip club, it's pretty acceptable. Mr. Obama's "policy" is mostly a list of money he'd hand out to his supporters. Mr. McCain's policy is a bunch of vanilla, though likely effective, tax cuts, and a "pledge" to cut spending. (Note: I am aware of Ms. Palin's oil windfall tax in Alaska. She's better than average, not perfect, and I believe there is a difference in that oil fields in Alaska are owned by the government, and all drilling there is subject to negotiations of royalties.)

The most important part of the bailout is that the government must make every effort to make back the people money, if not turn a profit. Lobbyists must not be allowed to turn these into subsidies. In fact, whenever possible, as large of a profit as possible should be made, and used to pay down the debt. This would also discourage future bailouts, and make them a last resort.

Election Getting Truly Ridiculous

The presidential election is spinning further and further away from any sense of reality. Mr. Obama had a fundraiser with assorted Hollywood types and raised around $9 million. This comes after his campaign criticized Mr. McCain for being out of touch with ordinary Americans, and for raising $5 million at a fundraiser, saying it wasn't donated by fireman, police or nurses, because they didn't have that kind of money. You know, because when I think, who has the financial situation and priorities of middle America, the answer is Barbara Streisand. Not to be outdone, Mr. McCain claimed he would rather be in Ohio than anywhere else.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, apparently looking for attention after being one of the women passed over for Mr. Obama's VP nod, randomly decided to play the race card after asking if people knew Mr. Obama was black, saying race may be a factor in the race. Never mind that it has been mentioned a few times, by say, the entire media that Mr. Obama is black, and that Colin Powell absolutely destroys Mr. McCain in polls.

Finally, the most absurd item in the news. Lynn Forester de Rothschild says she will not vote for Obama because he is an elitist. That's right. A Rothschild will not vote for Mr. Obama because he is an elitist. A member of perhaps the wealthiest, best connected, and most privileged family in the entire world, thinks Mr. Obama, born in poverty and who still has a net worth of perhaps, on a good day 0.1% of Ms. Rothschild, is too much of an elitist to be voted into office, even though she is a member of the DNC. I am simply speechless.

Clarifying Where We Stand

This post is a slight detour from what I usually post. I was speaking to a friend today and asked him what he thought of what I had written so far, and he responded by saying some very nice things. But then, like a true friend, he gave me some constructive criticism. He noted that while I've taken my ideological potshots, I had not clearly defined by political belief system. I asked him to jot down his thoughts and here they are:

" I enter the discussion by saying I have the utmost respect for every person that has taken the time to add something to an already wonderful page. The editor has done a tremendous service by not only bringing up relevant issues but also making those issues fun to discuss. Those that provided feedback continue to capture my attention with their insightful comments. I probably, as much as it pains me to say, am the least well read and least educated person that has dared to contribute to the discussion. Ahh well….its all good.

I’m attracted to the editor’s libertarian perspective. I see it as a form of being an almost “through back” conservative. A conservative that really does believe and holds true to the fundamental economic, social, and moral constraints that have proven to lead to a stable individual, family, and nation. I love the idea of empowering the individual to be responsible for seizing the opportunities that life provides. I’m also not naïve enough to think that every person starts from the same point, has the same circumstances, dispositions, talents, abilities, training, parents, schooling, perspective, morals, or personal coaching. But I’ve been through enough to say, that most people in our nation really do have an abundance of opportunity that is simply undeniable.

The questions that I continue to ask of all the learned people that I converse with is simple. What is your belief about these issues at the very core? What is the most basic set of idea you subscribe to? Do you think that the government shall or can pave the path of prosperity for the nation? Do you think that expansion and proliferation of private enterprise can help nearly all people live life they want to? Is there a subtle mix of both that will allow the world to be at peace? I just would like to cut through all the nonsense about who said what to who because this person is all about saying this to get elected and all that stuff that wont matter when they get into office because they lied anyway.

I’d really like to find out what the root of the discussion is. Obviously if a person believes that the greatest good for the greatest number can be achieved by high amounts of taxation and government control then Mr. Dem would be a great president for your set of beliefs. And if another person thinks that the government needs to ease up on how, when, why, they intervene with private citizens rights and resources than may Mr. Rep or Mr. Libertarian would be the best president for this person. Hopefully, I’m clearly expressing my self.

I would like to get to a point where the true intentions of each individual could be clearly articulated. The conversation should not be about who can find the better obscure fact to prove another incompetent. The conservation should be who’s objectives and plans are best in accomplishing the mandate as human being of creating a better place for our fellow man to live. What the comments never addressed is this is how I think we can accomplish a better individual, and better family, and a better country. Who cares what the politicians say. Do we honestly believe them? Sorry, if Im cutting through all the intellectual clutter. Maybe, I’m not yet smart enough to comment on that level. But I believe if the simple people like me can get the thinkers like you all thinking in the right direction.. we might really start making a difference."

With this being said, allow me to attempt to sum up my political philosophy succinctly. I believe that government exists for one reason, which is to ensure the rights of the people and to prevent those rights from being infringed upon by other or by the government itself. I believe that people should be rewarded or chastised by the markets for their efforts or their lack thereof. In layman's terms, the government should be as small as possible, and should not interfere with my life so long as I do not directly interfere with an other's rights. I believe I should be able to make as much money as I can as long as I don't take it by force or deceit, and I don't think the government should take much if any of it. If others choose to give all their money away, not own guns or drugs or do something that I don't approve of, but won't harm me, I shall not interfere with it. In return, they should not interfere with me. Of course, this is an absolute standard which is unlikely to be enacted, but it illustrates what I think society should strive for. I am sure this will result in some interesting comments, and I look forward to hearing other people's personal political philosophy.

This Is Why People Don't Trust Congress

The Congressman in charge of the committee that writes the tax code, Rep. Charles Rangel(D, NY), not only cannot do his own taxes, he can't find anyone competent to do them for him, and he freely admits his taxes have been wrong for 20 years! That's right, the single person who is most responsible for deciding how much you pay in taxes is completely incompetent in the area himself. In addition he has admitted to an array of financial improprieties, which, depending on the intent behind them are anything from absolute incompetence to fraud, bribery and tax evasion. This is only what he has admitted, the investigation hasn't even begun yet. Is it any surprise that the government's finance's are a wreck?

Why is someone who is so incompetent and sloppy in charge of one of the most powerful committees in Washington, let alone one that deals with what he can't even manage on a personal basis? The taxes involved are not incredibly complex and advanced, and more to the point, any competent CPA could handle them. Why was this not handled by a professional? Does Mr. Rangel believe he is simply above the law? That since he is a congressman, the laws he writes(or more likely, are written on his behalf) do not apply to him?

If Mr. Obama is serious about bringing change to Washington, he should issue a statement demanding Mr. Rangel step down. A vigorous independent investigation should then begin as well as one by the IRS. Mr. Rangel should be punished just like any other citizen, if not more harshly.

Google Outsourcing... to the High Seas?

Google is considering creating "data barges" anchored off shore, to save on energy costs and possibly escape some taxes and regulations. The barges would house Google's servers. They may generate power from tidal energy, saving on energy costs, and could use the ocean to cool the mainframes, which is a very energy intensive process. Google emphasizes that the idea far from being implemented.

Google may eventually be forced to consider off-shoring more seriously if the Justice department goes forward with an anti-trust case against them, for having a near-monopoly on online ads. It seems ludicrous that something that is little more than lines of code and contracts could be a monopoly in need of government intervention. (Disclosure: I use Google Ads) Indeed, Google even permits websites to use both it's ads, and the ads of competitors. In extreme cases, the government may need to move against true monopolies. However, in this case, it would simply be punishing success. There is no allegation of anti-competitive behavior, simply too large of market share. Hopefully, the Justice department will recognize this, and decide to allow Google to reap the rewards of their labor.

Bunker Busters to Israel

A shipment of bunker busting bombs that is just about what it would take to carry out a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is on it's way to Israel. A similar request was rumored to be turned down a little while back. It is unclear why the request has now been granted. There are several possibilities.

The most likely is to ensure than Israel cannot strike before the US elections, which could have an unpredictable effect on the elections. Though events that highlight national security tend to favor Mr. McCain, if Iran reacts in a way that angers or scares the US voters, such as closing the strait of Hormuz and spiking the price of oil, Mr. McCain may feel the wrath of voters unable to turn it on Mr. Bush. A post-election strike would also allow the next president to take the credit if it were successful and for the Mr. Bush to take the blame if it goes poorly, as he has little to lose. Congress technically has thirty days to object, but rarely does. If they do, it could conceivably give Mr. McCain a way to attack the Democrat controlled congress, especially if the bombs are presented as for use against Hezbollah instead of Iran.

Of course, there are other possibilities. These would include a need to pressure Iran for one reason or another, as a retaliation to Russia for the Georgia invasion, new intelligence on Iran's nuclear program or a taking advantage of low oil prices. Any of these by themselves or in combination with each other or the reason above is possible.

But make no mistake. Once these bombs are in Israel's hands, it is only a matter of time before they are used. A former Bush administration official predicted a post-election, pre-inauguration strike back in June. Little attention was paid at the time. However, as the final pieces begin to fall into place, such a strike looks more and more likely, if not inevitable.

How Dirty Will It Get?

With both campaigns already going negative, the election has veered sharply away from the clean campaign that both sides promised to run. In the last week, there have been attacks with varying degrees of truth by both parties, and negative ads are starting to outnumber positives. More of the direct attacks and distortions have come from the McCain camp, but the media, which is viewed as a surrogate for the Obama camp, has been out for blood as well.

Indeed, the media may be hurting it's own cause with the blatant bias. More than half of the people surveyed think the media is trying to hurt Ms. Palin, however, this actually gains her a net 5% of popularity (24% more likely to vote for her vs. 19% less likely). The public is ten times more likely to think the media is trying to hurt Ms. Palin than help her(50% hurt, 5% help, 35% objective).

To drag the race further down into the cesspool, the people behind the Swift boat Campaign are back. They are operating under the name The American Issues Project and have already released the first of their ads, which links Mr. Obama to one of the Weather Underground members. To be honest Mr. McCain could use their help, regardless of the accuracy or appropriateness of the ads. Not only is the media against him, Mr. Obama flip-flopped on public financing and is not bound by the spending limits Mr. McCain is.

Who wins from the campaign going into the gutter? Probably Mr. McCain. Republicans are simply better at dirty politics(even against their own party). The real gains will come not from convincing anyone that either party is better or worse, but from newly registered and inconsistent voters, who are so disgusted that they simply don't vote. This isn't to say the Democrats will not use underhanded tactics, they just are not as good at it.

Who loses? The country as a whole. With people disgusted with the process, it is easier for the two parties in power to simply carry on business as usual, meaning more congressional pay raises for career politicians, more pork for votes and big donors, and none of the things Americans actually want getting done. This election, which both sides now say is about change, seems likely to bring more of the same. Until Americans demand more than the the lesser of two evils, this pattern is likely to repeat.

America's Most Pressing Energy Need

With gas spiking up to $5.50 in some parts of the south, it is clear that America's energy system is strained, and the slightest disruption is cause for large price jumps. However, the real problem is not so much a lack of oil, which can be found if the price is high enough, but a lack of refineries. The US has not significantly expanded it's refining capability in years, even as gas consumption continues to rise. Yet neither campaign has mentioned it as a problem, let alone suggested an answer. All we hear is either drill more, from the Republicans, or tax the oil companies and give subsidies to everyone from the Democrats. Neither is a solution to the oil issue, and neither address at all the refining issue.

Iran faced a similar problem, when it became obvious that they may be the target of sanctions, as it possesses plenty of oil, yet little refining capability. They solved the problem in a matter of months by switching all personal vehicles over to CNG, which does not require refining. By doing this simple step, they insulated themselves from sanctions on gasoline. While it is unlikely the US will face sanctions, it will face natural disasters, and may well face terrorism, and either would have grave ramifications for the economy.

It is likely that there are at least several possible solutions to this issue. However, as long as it continues to be ignored by both parties, it is unlikely that any solutions will be found. Until then, we will be forced to continue to simply hope for the best.

Is McCain More of a Feminist Than Obama?

Apparently, Mr. Obama, despite his rhetoric to the contrary, pays his female staffers less than his male staffers. Possibly even more surprising is that Mr. McCain actually pays his female staffers more than his male staffers. This begs the question: Who is the real feminist?

In both cases, the primary root of the inequality is the gender make up of top advisers, who get paid more. Mr. Obama has fewer women as senior advisers, and Mr. McCain has more. Only one of the Mr. Obama's top five staffers(by pay) is a women, as opposed to three of Mr. McCain's. The same dynamic extends out to the top 20 staffers(by pay).

This would be less shameful is Mr. Obama had not used the rhetoric about the need for women to make equal pay for equal work, and using the old 77 cents on the dollar figure. This is simply untrue. When all factors are equal, women make significantly more money than men. Men are simply more likely to prioritize their career.

This begs the question, who is the real feminist? The man who pays his female staffers less, has less female advisers and who passed over a more qualified woman for VP because she threatened to overshadow him? Or the man who pays his female staffer more, has more of them, and nominated a women to be his running mate?

Update

It looks like some people in Mr. Obama's camp agree with me on his need to engage Mr. McCain more directly in the run up to the general election.

Also, I found this more thorough write up on Mr. Biden's gaffes. It should be noted, though, that he is generally well-liked in the Senate and among his constituents. However, it is surprising that there have not been more questions about his candidacy, and it's benefit to the ticket.

Apparently many of the beleaguered Republican candidates for the House and Senate got quite a bit of help from Ms. Palin and the Republican convention. Though it is still doubtful the Republicans will gain control of either house, they may be able to par their losses.

Presidental Race Gets Muddier

As Mr. McCain's post election bounce evens out to a slight lead, the campaign for the presidency gets muddier. Not just in the polls, which likely will eventually even out to within most poll's margin of error, but in tone. Both sides are sharpening their knives for a close contest which, of course, only one will survive. Neither Presidential candidate in likely to have another chance, as Mr. McCain will be even older next time, along with a losing record, and Mr. Obama would find it almost impossible to defeat Ms. Clinton in a primary after losing a general election, and thus validating her strongest argument. Mr. Biden has not polled well nor performed well, and in any case has never done well in the primaries. Only Ms. Palin has a chance at redemption in 2012.

With the stakes this high, Mr. Obama has been, and willing increasingly have to, taking a little bit more negative tone. Mr. Biden has shown to be an ineffective attack dog, scoring few points and putting his foot in his mouth occasionally, such as saying Ms. Clinton may have been a better choice for VP and that pro-lifers don't care about disabled children. With little help from Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama will be forced to take on Ms. Palin, as well as Mr. McCain. This will undermine, to a degree, the mantra of new politics.

While Mr. McCain is most likely little intimidated by Mr. Obama, having endured some of the worst smears and dirtiest politics in the modern era by Mr. Bush in 2000, he will need to stay on message, and watch his famous temper, while letting much of the spotlight go on the very popular Ms. Palin. Having succeeded in using Clintonian triangulation to negate many of Mr. Obama's strengths, Mr. McCain has succeeded in doing what many believed he must do, which is to make the campaign a referendum on Mr. Obama, while avoiding making the campaign about Mr. Bush.

Mr. McCain must move cautiously in these last rounds of the election, throwing mostly jabs to keep his opponent on guard. While there may be an opportunity to throw a knockout punch, Mr. McCain must not force it. He must be content to go to a decision, an environment in which he is favored. He must manage this campaign, and not lose everything in a risky gamble. He should be content to look Presidential and let Ms. Palin and his other surrogates do most of the attacking.

Conversely, Mr. Obama must look for the knockout punch, to re-energize his base and regain a large lead in the polls, which will allow him to revert back to his preferred style. He needs to sweep into the polls with a large lead and momentum, as many of his voters are not as reliable as Mr. McCain's. He must also show himself to be a confident, bold leader, willing to weather the trials and push on. He must bring the spotlight back on himself.

If Mr. Obama does not do this, he risks losing to Mr. McCain as the democrats enlarge their majorities, and all indicators show he should have a cakewalk. His ambitions beyond the senate will be shattered, perhaps irreparably.

The Feminist Response to Palin

What would a legitimite feminist response to Ms. Palin's candidicy from an Obama voter look like? Probably something like this.

Thanks to Becky at Just a Girl in Short Shorts for highlighting the linked article in her blog.

Ron Paul Makes His Endorsement

Anybody but one of the two major party's nominees. And he means ANYONE. His open endorsement of the handful of crackpots running, after signing a pledge to pursue four broadly stated policies that energized his campaign, was a signal that breaking the two party stranglehold was more important than anything else to him. 

He notes that there is very little difference between the two parties. After all, there is no difference between a liberal Republican and a Conservative Democrat. None, other than party line votes and some rhetoric. 

Each major party is really a coalition of parts that could be their own party. The Democrats include center-lefts, socialists, labor, green, and a large host of smaller groups. The Republicans consist of center-right, far right, religious, and libertarian, along with a few others. These unwieldy collections of disparate interests lead to little action, since it must be inoffensive to each of the parts. 

Just as each party is not homogeneous, most citizens are not completely in line with either party, unless it stems from a decision to be. Having a variety of small parties would allow for temporary coalitions to pass the legislation that matter most to the American people. Politics should not be a zero-sum game. However, self-interest gives both parties, which share 100% of power, a very large reason to see that this never happens. 

Does Watching Crime TV Make You Eat More?

That is the findings of several studies that found that thinking about one's own mortality caused the purchase and consumption of more food. As if you needed another reason to turn off the TV, it's literally killing you. Not only is it filling your head with negativity, taking up time that could be used for exercise, bombarding you with ads for poison disguised as food and inhibiting reading and social relationships, but it also contributes to what will soon be America's biggest health concern: obesity. Eating up to 25% more than the already gluttonous US diet, unless you're an ectomorph or you doing a LOT of exercise, means obesity is a forgone conclusion. If you're an ectomorph, you won't get fat, but you will still have many health risks. 

It boggles my mind that people will not only watch other people live imaginary lives instead of living their own, they will shorten their own life in the process. Well, I guess if they weren't too focused on actually living it anyway, then it doesn't make much difference. 

"Justice" Department Threatens Witness

The Justice Department is threatening a document classification expert with (questionable) charges if he testifies against them in court. The case is complex (and a little boring)  but basically the Justice Department is threatening to file charges(that go against the spirit if perhaps not the absolute letter of the law regarding them) against a very senior former governmental official who was in charge of classifying data for the federal government. His testimony would be honest and non-classified, but damaging to Justice's case. He has clashed repeatedly with the Bush administration over their abuse of classification laws. 

Threatening to file bogus charges to silence a witness so you can railroad what very well be an innocent man should be a criminal act. If only there was someone to charge the government. This is the type of behavior we will not miss when the Bush administration comes to an end, and which we can only hope will not continue in the next administration. 

Chrysler Working On Plug-In Hybrids

Chrysler has been showing prototypes of advanced plug-in hybrids to some of their dealers. The cars hit 60 mph in less than 4 seconds, and have a range of over 300 miles. Such a car could have a significant impact on the US market, and pave the way for potential energy independance, at least for personal transportation. In fact, it might even keep Chyrsler from going bankrupt. This is what the domestic automakers need to be focused on, instead of whining to Washington for a handout. 

Kim Jong-il

There is growing speculation that Kim Jong-il, the absolute ruler of North Korea, is in grave health and possibly dying. While it is usually in poor taste to rejoice in another's passing, an exception should be made for this tyrant who has inflicted nothing but suffering on the citizens of his "socialist" nation. Thousands(likely more) have been shot, and millions have starved. His poor, starving, freezing nation stands in stark contrast to it's southern sibling, one of the world's leading economies. At least two lessons can be learned from his life.

The first is that power, once given to the state, is exceedingly difficult to wrest away from it. This is true regardless of whether that power is to tax, to strip citizens of civil rights for "security reasons", to spy on its citizens, to act outside the law, to go to war unilaterally, or to require a set of beliefs. This also applies regardless of the original intent of those that wield the power. 

Power is one of the most powerful drugs in the world, and as many drugs, it provides justifications for each compromise of morality it seeks. It's appetite is never-ending. Just as one cannot trust an addict to manage their own addiction, one cannot expect those in power to reign themselves in. Power, as with drugs, must only be given in the minimal amount needed, with a set ending point, and limits to its use. Exterior limits are critical to ensuring it is used as a tool and not a weapon. Excessive use of power cannot be justified on the grounds of ideological agreement.

The other lesson that can be drawn is the lengths that people, good or evil, will go to for self preservation. Kim Jong-il was willing to starve his own people to death in order to protect his position and life. He also gambled an enormous percentage of his countries resources that if he could develop a nuclear weapon, he would essentially ensure the US would not attack as it had threatened to. He was right. 

Hopefully, the world will never see another Kim Jong-il. However, they are not born. They may be psychopaths from birth or early childhood, but they will never become full blown monsters unless they are allowed to gain power, however it may happen. 

Death and Taxes

There has been a lot of bickering about taxes in the Presidential campaign. Each candidate claims they will cut taxes more. It is commonly agreed that Mr. McCain will give slight (percentage-wise) cuts to everyone, and Mr. Obama will give larger tax cuts to the poor and middle class, while increasing taxes slightly (percentage wise) on the wealthy. However, this only refers to the income tax, which, though the largest direct tax most citizens pay, is hardly the only one. 

Mr. Obama would tax income of over $200,000 for social security, even though that would mean that citizens would pay in more than they would be allowed to be paid back. This would institutionalize socialism in retirement. So far social security has been (allegedly) a government saving account. Money is collected from you, then is "held"(though really spent and replace with IOU's) and remitted back to you at retirement(though at a horrible interest rate).  For the first time, Mr. Obama's proposal would institute income redistribution through Social Security. 

This would also create an additional cost for employers, as they too would be forced to pay the tax. This would reduce incentive to hire for high-paying jobs. 

Mr. McCain proposes to set the Death(Estate) tax at 15% after 5 million, Mr. Obama proposes 45% after 3.5 million. In other words, Mr. Obama proposes to seize roughly half of any significant amount of money accumulated during a person lifetime at their death. After paying significant taxes (even more significant under his income tax plan) their entire life, the government will take roughly half of whatever is left, before anyone else gets anything. A rate even higher than the highest income tax rate under his plan. This is, plain and simple theft. 

Such a proposal can only result from the thinking that money is the property of the government, and is only on loan to individuals. How else can one justify this type of robbery: On any given 1000 dollars in income in the top bracket saved, income taxes would take all but $604, then the death tax would take $271.80 , and the heir would receive $332.20. The effective tax rate would be 66.78%. This is brutally punishing success, literally taking almost 70% of a person's life work. 

Mr. Obama would raise Capital Gains taxes along with taxes on dividends. Mr. McCain would keep them at current levels. Capital gains taxes inhibit investment. With an already negative savings rate, the last thing that we need to do is reduce the incentive to save and invest in the future. 

Source

While Mr. McCain has plenty of ill-advised policy proposals, Mr. Obama's tax proposals are not only dangerous, but very misrepresented in the media. By only focusing on income tax, they are giving a very large and unfair advantage to Mr. Obama. 

Mr. Obama also proposes to increase minimum wage every year indexed to inflation. This would create the possibility of a near permanent wage-price spiral, and thus out of control inflation. As indexing the minimum wage every year would not provide real benefit to the wage-earner, as the buying power would remain the same, by definition, the primary effect would be to inhibit the ability to create wealth. By insuring continually high inflation, it is very difficult to out earn it, much less it and Mr. Obama's high taxes. What this proposal is would create is not even wealth redistribution, but universal poverty. 

McCain Surges in Polls

Several new polls have good news for Mr. McCain.

Gallup has him up 48-45. 

Pollster John Zogby: "Clearly, Palin is helping the McCain ticket. She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party. The striking thing here in this poll is that McCain has pulled ahead among Catholics by double-digits. On the other hand, Palin is not helping with likely voting women who are not aligned with either political party. The undecided independent women voters decreased this week from 15% to 7%, but those women went to Obama. Palin is also helping among men, conservatives, notably with suburban and rural voters, and with frequent Wal-Mart shoppers, who tend to be "values" voters who like a good value for their money."

More critically, in one poll Mr. McCain is ahead double digits in likely voters, and had significantly increased the enthusiasm of his party base.

As Mr. Zogby noted, the reason for this is primarily Ms. Palin. Certainly, Mr. McCain sways few people with his oration, and even less so when contrasted with Mr. Obama. However, people just plain like Ms. Palin, especially those who Mr. McCain was targeting. These are the Clinton voters who he had a chance to grab, working class people who never really liked Mr. Obama, but who had no reason to vote for Mr. McCain. They couldn't relate to him. But they can relate to Ms. Palin. 

Once again I must congratulate Mr. McCain on a VP choice that was nothing short of brilliant. She did everything he could have hoped for, and more, by both energizing the base, and stealing a huge chunk of Clinton Democrats. Maybe not those who first were assumed, but maybe even better. 

If Mr. McCain wins this election, and it is very far from over, he owes an enormous debt to Ms. Palin.

Race For The White House Tightens

Gallup is reporting that Mr. Obama's lead has shrunk to 2% or a statistical tie, in their latest poll. Undoubtedly this is due in large part to Mr. McCain's post-convention bounce. Mr Obama enjoyed a similar bounce after his convention. Mr. McCain is also helped by his popular new running mate. 

One of Mr. Obama's edges in the race has been a certain aloofness, that with a comfortable lead he didn't need to attack often, and could pour his energy into abstract speeches, which played to his strengths. As the race tightens, he is forced to engage more, taking him away from his game plan. Mr. Obama has not been particularly good at attacking, and Mr. Biden, who as the Vice Presidential candidate has the traditional role of attack dog, has been virtually invisible in the media, though this is partly due to being overshadowed by Ms. Palin. The negativity also serves to alienate some of those who supported Mr. Obama because of his campaign's early positivity. 

Mr. McCain's campaign would be well served to pull Mr. Obama down, not into the sewer, but into real politics, where Mr. McCain can win due to experience. 

Mr. McCain also benefits from the face that Republicans dominate close elections. With the base energized with the selection of Ms. Palin, Mr. McCain's worst nightmare is averted, that of the religious right staying home, thus delivering the election to Mr. Obama, regardless of other factors. Statistically, those voters turn out. Statistically, the voters who make up Mr. Obama's core demographics, don't.

If Mr. McCain can keep this a close and competitive race, he very well may prevail in November. 

McCain vs. Obama in Taxes in a Format for Maxim Readers

Today I ran across something as great as it is rare. An article on tax policy that you could convince the type of guys whose only reading is Maxim to read. 

The article is at Just a Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever.

Most articles about politics and/or tax policy are either too simplified, too boring or too academic for most people to read. The problem is even more pronounced in libertarian-leaning sources. There is somewhat limited material that falls between someone who can tell you 3 facts about Ron Paul and someone who wants to bicker endlessly about a very minor abstract concept about governmental structure. 

So it is refreshing to have something accessible to the Maxim crowd (complete with eye-candy) so at least a few of them can learn a little bit about what will shape their future. Make no mistake, it's not dumbed down, either. It's simply explained very well. It's brisk, it's informative, and it's well written. What more can you ask for?

Flag-Gate?

Foxnews is claiming that 12k flags were thrown in the trash after the DNCC in Denver. It has also been reported in the Denver Post's Blog. Strangely, as of 3 pm ET, there has been no response from the Obama/Biden Campaign.

Mr. Obama would be wise to address this issue, either filling in unpublished gaps, or apologizing, before a firestorm erupts, especially before the blue collar swing states he has been fighting so hard for slip away. Many of these voters would not look kindly on anything that could be percieved to disrepect the flag. This also reinforces the worst attacks on Mr. Obama's patriotism, justified or not.

Quite frankly, this plays perfectly to the Republican message, and Mr. Obama would be foolish not to respond quickly and effectively to it.

Police Clear Themselves in Raid Which Killed Mayor's Dogs

The Prince George's (MD) Sheriff's office has cleared itself of wrongdoing in raid which left a small town Mayor's dogs shot to death. The raid was due to a 32-pound package of marijuana that was addressed to the Mayor's wife. The couple had no criminal history. The package was never brought inside the house, since it was unexpected and unwanted. The raid and subsequent justification raises some troubling questions.

Why were the dogs shot, when at least one of them was fleeing?

Why didn't the police know that this was the Mayor of the town?

Why did the police think they had one type of warrant, when they had another?

Why was there a dynamic entry, when there was no history of violence, nor any reason at all to suspect there would be any?

Why did the judge approve the warrant on such little evidence, IE only that the package was addressed to the house?

On a larger scale, this speaks to where the "War on Drugs" has taken us. There is literally no assurance that our doors will not be kicked in, our pets shot, ourselves and our loved ones handcuffed(in this case next to the dead body of the pets) and our lives turned upside down, because someone gets an address wrong on a package.

Remember, this was not an armed to the teeth crack house in the inner city, nor did police expect it to be. This was a typical suburban house, with no history of criminal activity.

Police are understandably concerned with their safety when executing warrants, and certainly these decisions were made in a split second. This incident is less an indictment of law enforcement than of over-adversarial environment, created by politicians playing to fears and stereotypes in order to score poll points.

The "War on Drugs" needs to be brought to a negotiated end, as we will no more win it than we did prohibition. Resources will be better allocated to addressing actual violent crime, instead of potentially violent crime, and the militarization of law enforcement can be rolled back as legalization deprives criminal gangs of their funding, making both police and civilians safer.

An excellent first step would be Barney Frank's(who I almost always disagree with) proposal to eliminate federal penalties for personal use amounts of marijuana.

Thanks to the Cato Institute, which is holding a forum on this topic.

Palin is (barely) More Popular Than Obama, McCain

One poll has found that Ms. Palin is more popular, by a percentage point, than either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama, and is significantly more popular than Mr. Biden.  This is significant for several reasons. 

First, Ms. Palin may be one of the first signs that Mr. Paul's presidential bid may impact the larger political establishment. Ms. Palin was mentioned early as a potential running mate for Mr. Paul. She certainly represents the libertarian wing of the Republican party. 

It also comes in the face of primarily extremely negative coverage by corporate media. Whether her popularity is a backlash to this coverage, or simply in spite of it cannot be discerned at this time.

This Republican convention may have unveiled the new rising star of the party, much as 2004's Democratic convention unveiled Mr. Obama. Whether she will contend for the presidency in 2012 or 2016 remains to be seen. However, it increasingly looks to be a when rather than an if. 

Corporate Socialism: A Bi-Partisan Tradition

In a shameless effort to pander to the Rust-Belt battleground states, both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have endorsed a 50-Billion dollar loan package to the beleaguered Big 3 Automakers (though proponents say it will "only" cost taxpayers 8 billion). 

Why is the government interfering in the functioning of the market? Is it because the Big 3 were the victims of a unforeseeable natural disaster? Were their plants destroyed in terrorist attacks? Did they divert their resources to build profitless war supplies for the government?

No. Simply put, they made countless poor choices which led to near-bankruptcy, and are now whining to the government for help. 

Toyota and Honda acted like responsible companies, evaluated market trends along with global economic, supply and political data, and enacted sound business strategies. They also ran disciplined corporate budgets.

The Big 3 lacked foresight, gambled on the price of oil staying inconceivably low forever, and generally blew through money like children through Halloween candy. In simple terms, they ran their business poorly. 

The market, as it is apt to do, rewarded the diligent and punished the sloppy. Toyota and Honda are sitting on debt-free billions, and the Big 3 are drowning in red. 

So what do the Big 3 propose to fix their dreadful condition? A commitment to financial austerity, bold new designs and a redesigned product line, with streamlined efficiency?

No. They want Washington to rig the market so they don't have to be responsible for their actions. They want the best of both worlds, the profit of the market, and the safety net of socialism.

Sadly, with the backing of the current government, as well as both potential successors, they seem likely to get it. 

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/04/news/economy/automakers_Congress/index.htm?postversion=2008090416

Honda's Answer to the Prius is... The Insight?

If you've been following the hybrid market, you know that the general consensus places a large amount of the credit for the success of the Prius to the fact that it is a Hybrid-only model. The fact that you can't get a non-hybrid Prius allows those that drive one to stand out, to be noticed for being different. That the little "Hybrid" tag on the back is insufficient advertisement that the driver is green/fuel thrifty/trendy/whatever. 

So it was only a matter of time before Honda launched it's Hybrid-only model.

So for a name they pick... The Insight? The name of that little underpowered go-kart that nobody bought because it embodied all the stereotypes of a Hybrid? Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think it was a bad car, it wasn't. It was ahead of it's time and would be more than sufficient for many people, and had they been bought in large numbers, the oil crunch wouldn't be so painful. 

But the fact of the matter is, not many people felt that way. That's why Honda did away with the original Insight. Why bring back a tainted name, when you're trying to make a statement, to define a brand strategy?

The actual release of the car is not until spring, so maybe Honda will reconsider the name. Let's hope.

This car will sell, regardless of it's previously tainted name.  First and foremost, it's supposed to be priced "significantly below hybrids available today". If Honda puts the price anywhere near, say the Civic, they may overtake the Prius in a few short years. Honda may be willing to make little or no profit on the car, at least in the beginning, simply to reclaim it's title as the Green Innovator. Considering the largest impediment to hybrid and electric cars is the relative cost of the battery systems, and that the economy of scale is simplest solution, this could radically change the car industry for the foreseeable future.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/04/autos/honda_insight/index.htm?postversion=2008090414