Is Hamas Stupid or Just Very Clever?

When Israel was in its infancy the Arab nations were stunned when the Israelis actually fought back. For thousands of years the Jews, having no means to fight back, were victims and this situation was taken advantage of by all types of tyrants. However, Jewish resistance grew out of the Holocaust and matured during the Israeli fight for independence. Always willing to learn the hard way, Arabs ignored these signals and when they attacked, first small outposts and then the new country itself, their noses were bloodied and territory was lost.

So, when Hamas decides to not renew the truce (if you can call it that) with Israel and then begins firing Kassam rockets at southern Israel didn't they realize what was going to happen? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps Hamas is so clueless that it just didn't enter into their heads that Israel would hit back, and hard. Or, perhaps Hamas was baiting the Israelis. Hamas's power is derived from its militancy; with no war to fight they have no purpose. In this way they are similar to the Irish Republican Army (and, perhaps its Protestant equivalent) since all the IRA knew was how to fight (until Sinn Fein came to life). Yesterday evening, during an interview on NPR, the spokesman for the leader of Hamas blamed "Israeli collaborators" for launching the rockets under the theory that Israel was just looking for a reason to hammer Gaza and so arranged for a few pro-Israeli Palestinians to take on this task. In a round about way this is a tacit admission that maybe, just maybe, Hamas screwed this up.

As hard as this is to suggest, maybe the Israelis should have just ignored the Kassam rockets and just laughed at the Hamas leadership. Or maybe, they could just throw a bunch of shoes across the border.

As someone once said about the Palestinians, "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Women as Explained by Engineers

Quality (or lack thereof) of U.S. Automobiles

About two weeks ago Bluedog got his 2009 Consumer Reports "Buying Guide" and since the CEO's of the "Big Three" have been in Washington with their hats out to Congress I thought I'd check on the overall reliability of U.S. branded vehicles versus their Japanese competitors. Consumer Reports rates all products as follows: Much Better than Average, Better than Average, Average, Worse than Average, Much Worse than Average. Here's how the brands rated:

U.S. Vehicles (Ford, Cadillac, Chevy, Dodge, Chrysler, GMC, Hummer)

1. Much Better - 0
2. Better - 9 (15%)
3. Average - 26 (43%)
4. Worse - 12 (20%)
5. Much Worse - 9 (15%)

Japanese Vehicles (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru)

1. Much Better - 11 (22%)
2. Better - 22 (43%)
3. Average - 9 (18%)
4. Worse - 2 (4%)
5. Much Worse - 5 (10%)

The best U.S. brand was Ford and the best Japanese brand was Honda (with Subaru close behind). European vehicles, surprisingly, were not as reliable as you'd think. Mercedes had 9 vehicles rated and 6 were Much Worse and 3 were Worse. Volkswagen wasn't much better.

Here's my point; 65% of Japanese brands fell into the Much Better or Better categories while U.S. brands had only 15% in that category. While average reliability was higher for U.S. brands 35% of U.S. brands were in the Worse or Much Worse category. Given these statistics why should tax dollars be invested in U.S. car companies? I think Ford should buy the Volt brand from General Motors and then GM, Dodge, Chrysler and the other should be allowed to die.

Supply Side Economics

Here's how Wikipedia defines supply side (or trickle down) economics:

"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics, now a term given to right-leaning economists' views. The term supply-side economics was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and popularized the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer."

This is what George H. W. Bush called "voodoo economics" when he was running against Ronald Reagan in the Republican primaries leading up to the 1980 presidential election and it explains George W. Bush's tax cuts and John McCain's pledge to make those cuts permanent.

I'm not certain that it has been formalized but the other side of that theory would be demand side economics and this makes a little more sense to me. I just don't buy into the theory that a company, on the strength of a lower tax rate, would hire additional employees and increase production hoping that consumers would, in turn, start purchasing the newly produced items. What I do believe is that putting more cash in the hands of the consumer would, in all liklihood, result in increased demand which would lead to greater levels of production which would lead to increased employment which leads to even more purchasing, etc., etc.

What I don't necessarily agree with is the one-shot stimulus checks that were sent out this past spring and which are, again, being contemplated by congress. No business owner worth his (or her) salt will have any part of hiring more workers and increasing production simply to meet a short-term spike in demand that is created by such a stimulus. However, a stimulus that includes tax cuts for individual tax payers makes a lot of sense to me. If my wife and I had an extra $50 or $100 each month we'd be more likely to go out for lunch or buy more dance stuff for my fourteen-year-old.

Should the same breaks in tax rates be extended to businesses as well? A few weeks ago there was a "point of view" article in the Raleigh News & Observer that put forward the theory that higher tax rates on businesses would compel businesses to add payroll since additional payroll dollars were incrementally cheaper with a higher rate than with a lower rate. This article was resoundingly booed by letter writers and I can see why. It could happen in theory (I made it work messing with examples in Excel but my "company" had to pile on expenses that would not have been necessary) but no in practice. I suppose corporations should be given the same tax breaks but you've got to remember that corporations can take deductions that are not available to individuals and corporations are going to try to maximize sales and profits regardless of the tax rate.

Oil Platforms Off the Coast

Feds Move to Expand Oil Exploration

Saw in this morning's News & Observer that the Federal Government has started the process to begin oil exploration off of the Virginia and North Carolina coasts. The article stated that the Department of the Interior will accept public comment on this but when I went to the DOI's website there was no mention of this. I'll need to stay on top of this but, as I've indicated in other posts, I just don't see the point in spending either private or public dollars to explore and then develop oil reserves. The money spent for this project would be better spent on national infrastructure or on research into alternative fuels. I've added a link to the N&O article below.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1294126.html

Who Obama Should Not Pick

Following is an interesting Slate article with recommendations of whom not to pick for an Obama cabinet. My initial reaction is to disagree with the recommendation to not retain Secretary Gates. Gates appears to be doing a pretty good job and the Army has just changed the CENTCOM commander and the commander of operations in Iraq; I don't think this is a good time to push the SECDEF out the door just because he is a Republican appointee. The argument about his connection to Iran-Contra is weak; if Gates was going to get in trouble over that old problem it would have happened already.

I agree with not appointing Robert Kennedy Attorney General. He's probably a sentimental favorite because his dad had the post but maybe he'd be best as head of EPA.
------------------------
The Uncabinet A guide to key appointments Obama should resist.
By Timothy Noah Posted Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2008, at 6:49 PM ET
With Barack Obama's presidential victory in the bag, speculation has begun about who he'll appoint to his Cabinet. Actually, it began some time ago. Russell Baker of the New York Times many years ago invented a spectral figure called the Great Mentioner to describe how the Washington cognoscenti come to view this or that public figure as a candidate for political advancement. Sometimes the Great Mentioner passes along names under consideration by the deciding person or body. Sometimes the GM passes along names that the cognoscenti merely feel warrant consideration. Because the deliberations are secret, it's hard to know the difference (and also a lot less fun).

It used to be that you needed a lunchtime reservation at Washington's dog wagon of the moment either to learn who's on the list or to add some names yourself. Today the GM's picks, like all other human knowledge, have migrated to the Internet, where they've been democratized to a fare-thee-well. A college kid elevated Sarah Palin to the GOP's potential veep choice merely by creating a Web site. You don't even have to be American! The world is flat, and nous sommes tous Washington insiders. No harm in that. Indeed, this digitization saves Washington journalists like me a lot of time. But like the names I'd likely hear whispered over chardonnay at Acadiana, the Googled mentionees—mostly those very same names—are a hodgepodge of good prospects and bad. Somebody's got to winnow.
Back in October 1987, Paul Glastris published a deeply researched magazine piece in the Washington Monthly under the headline "The Powers That Shouldn't Be." Glastris now regrets what he says was at least one bad call: He wrote that the next Democratic president should not elevate William J. Perry to secretary of defense. Perry subsequently performed that job with admirable skill during the Clinton administration. The impact of Glastris' misjudgment was blunted by the Democrats' failure to recapture the White House in 1988—a luxury I do not enjoy as I compile my own do-not-hire list. Hoping to avoid Glastris' error, I have researched this piece perfunctorily. But caveat emptor: I cannot eliminate entirely the possibility that one or two of the judgments rendered below flunks the test of time.
State Department. Do not appoint Bill Richardson, who by some accounts is the front-runner. Obama may feel he owes Richardson because the New Mexico governor endorsed him after dropping out of the presidential race and ended up being called a "Judas" by James Carville. But Richardson took his sweet time before embracing Obama; he dropped out in mid-January and didn't cough up the endorsement until late March. Richardson's résumé includes Clinton administration stints as energy secretary and as U.N. ambassador. He didn't perform either job particularly well. As energy secretary, Richardson rashly accused Los Alamos official Wen Ho Lee of espionage—a charge later proved false. As U.N. ambassador, Richardson didn't do anything anyone can remember except offer Monica Lewinsky a job three months before the story of her affair with President Clinton hit the Internet. "He has no great beliefs," observed Slate's David Plotz in June 2000, "which may be why he didn't mind flattering despots." Richardson has twice broken the world's record for most handshakes in an eight-hour period. He's very proud of this. Don't you find that alarming?
Also, do not appoint John Kerry. The 2004 election demonstrated that nobody likes him. That isn't disqualifying for a senator, but it is for a diplomat.
Also, do not appoint Anthony Lake. He made himself unconfirmable for Central Intelligence Agency director back in 1996 in part by saying on TV that he wasn't sure Alger Hiss was guilty. Heads up: Alger Hiss was guilty. If you think Hiss wasn't guilty and you want to get confirmed by the Senate, be my guest. But don't shoot your mouth off about it, because if you do, you'll be easy prey for the GOP. Also, I have to say that anyone who performs the mental calisthenics necessary to believe Alger Hiss may have been innocent runs a substantial risk that he won't have enough additional mental energy left to run the State Department.
Supreme Court. Do not appoint Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court needs jurists, not politicians. Plus, Bill would drive the other justices crazy.
Treasury Department. Do not appoint former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. I explained why last week. (See "Robert Rubin's Free Ride.") Rubin has said he doesn't want the job anyway. Lawrence Summers, who succeeded Rubin, is said to be interested, but he's too closely linked to Rubin and to former Fed Chairman (and current Public Enemy No. 1) Alan Greenspan to be a wise choice. Plus, the hash Summers made out of Harvard's presidency suggested that even after holding one of the highest positions in government, Summers still was pretty clueless about getting along with other people—a crucial skill for whoever ends up managing the worst financial panic since the Great Depression.
Energy Department. Do not appoint Arnold Schwarzenegger. The supposed reason would be that Schwarzenegger is the rare Republican governor who's doing something serious about global warming. But if there's a shortage of Republican governors addressing climate change, can we really afford to remove one from state government? There's no shortage of Democrats who are at least as committed as Schwarzenegger to reducing greenhouse gases. Pick one of them.
Environmental Protection Agency or Interior Department. Do not hire Robert Kennedy Jr. He's too partisan and kind of a nut when it comes to policy. Check out this dangerously alarmist 2005 Rolling Stone piece about the purported link between autism and childhood vaccines. (To learn why Kennedy's piece was alarmist, see "Sticking Up for Thimerosal" by Arthur Allen in Slate, August 2005.) Throw in Kennedy's 1983 heroin bust, and you've got yourself an unconfirmable nominee.
Defense Department. Do not reappoint Robert Gates. Joe Klein floated this idea in a June Time magazine column inspired by Doris Goodwin's Team of Rivals, which shows how Abraham Lincoln co-opted his political enemies by appointing them to his Cabinet. The trouble with Klein's thinking is that it's all about politics and only vaguely about Gates himself, who gets good press mainly because he had the fantastic luck to succeed a disastrously bad defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton, and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress, a liberal nonprofit, made a more substantive case last month in the Washington Post, arguing for Gates because he's not an ideologue and because he favors shoring up failing states before they become havens for terrorists. But it still adds up to "he's not as bad as those other blowhard Bushies." I think that's setting the bar way too low. Plus, I was never really satisfied that Gates came clean about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Attorney General. Do not appoint Jamie Gorelick. It pains me to write this partly because I know and like Gorelick and mostly because by all accounts she performed brilliantly as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. But her subsequent hiring as vice chair at Fannie Mae, despite her lack of any background in finance, and most especially the $26.4 million she received in total compensation over a period of six years disqualify her for public office. As Jack Shafer has noted in Slate, Fannie Mae was a bipartisan trough for the politically connected, but the patronage and executive pay were particularly lavish under James Johnson, a Democrat who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign. (See "A Medici With Your Money" by Matthew Cooper, February 1997.) Gorelick needs a few more years of good works (the 9/11 commission was a good start) to rehabilitate herself.
It goes without saying—but I'll say it anyway—that Obama should avoid hiring Johnson for any position. Obama probably learned that lesson during the campaign when he made the mistake of briefly putting Johnson in charge of his vice-presidential search. He should avoid Franklin Raines, Johnson's successor, for the same reason.

Drunken Bear in Colorado

Pretty funny clip from a Colorado newscast.

Alternative Energy for Mass Use

A good friend of mine is part of the in-house counsel staff at the North Carolina Electrical Cooperative Membership, the organization that represents the electrical cooperatives in NC. When Rick was a partner in one of our large Raleigh firms he was a labor law specialist but, to no one's surprise, Rick has become very knowledgeable about matters related to the power industry.

A few weeks ago, while at lunch, I asked Rick for his perspective on the viability of alternative fuel sources for mass use. I was thinking of T. Boone Pickens' plans for wind farms or massive solar farms when I asked this. Fortunately Rick has no engineering background so he did not confuse me with technical explanations. Rick said that power plants have to provide a certain level of power based on maximum anticipated useage. In other words, if, on a typical hot and muggy August day in the North Carolina Piedmont, one million homes in Raleigh normally run their central air conditioning our power plants have to constantly generate enough power to provide the electricity for those one million homes' AC units (even if only 800,000 happen to actually be running their air conditioners). So, if one million homes require a bazillion kilowatts of power then the power company (or companies) have to have that much power constantly available. Rick told me that it's more complex than this but since he's a labor lawyer and I'm an accountant we kept it simple.

According to Rick, the problem with alternative power sources (solar, wind, gulf stream)is that these sources of energy constantly fluctuate. So, if you have a massive solar farm down in the Sand Hills providing power to the City of Fayetteville and a few large clouds happen to pass by then the power provided by the solar farm decreases and thus you have a brown out. Rick's conclusion is that these alternatives are viable only on a smaller scale and are not feasible for providing power to cities or towns.

This makes sense to me but what do I know?

Hi Ho, Hi Ho - It's Off to Work Obama Goes

I was wondering this morning how President Elect Obama will deal with his upcomming transition. Obama will be the first president since Kennedy to be elected from the Senate and it just seems that this will help him (as it could have helped McCain). He has been working with those Senators who were re-elected for four years now and so he should understand their likes, dislikes and how to negotiate with them. My understanding is that Clinton, not having dealt with Washington politics, came in like a bull in a china shop and immediately alienated quite a few folks in Congress (and the Pentagon). Obama is a smart guy and since he understands the Senate I think he'll do a pretty good job transitioning into the presidency.

I'm very anxious to start hearing news of potential cabinet appointments and I would not be too surprised if Obama picks some moderate Republicans. I'd love to see Bill Richardson get a cabinet post. Anyone out there have any suggestions?

It's Done!

I have cast my votes and can now move on to other worries (such as, will Notre Dame be able to beat Boston College this weekend). The North Carolina polls opened at 6:30 this morning and when I left my gym at 6:00 it was raining pretty hard. My plan had been to leave work at around 3:00 this afternoon and vote but something told me that the rain may prompt people to delay voting until later. So, I hurried through breakfast and a shower and left home at 6:45 for the polling place. When I arrived I found a short line and by 7:15 I had done my civic duty and was on my way to work (arriving only about 10 minutes later than normal). When reporting at the poll I was tempted to use my father's name and vote for Obama (he's a die hard Republican who thinks Sarah Palin is a breath of fresh air) but didn't want to end up in jail.

Any way; on to the future.

Iraq War Policies

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have significantly different views on the war in Iraq and I'm not sure I agree with either of them. John McCain pledges to keep a significant troop presence in Iraq until we win (and he's not the only person to have said this). I'd really like to hear Senator McCain define "win" as it pertains to the war in Iraq. In a conventional war (WWI, WWII) terms of surrender are agreed to before one side can declare victory. That's not going to happen in Iraq, ever. The surge (I'll get to that later) has helped stabilize Iraq but the Shia-dominated government cannot get around to sharing power (both political and economic) with the Sunni minority and anyone who understands (at all) the historical problems between the Shia and the Sunni shouldn't be surprised by this. Think about it; Republicans and Democrats can't agree on anything of substance but yet we expect these two radically different Islamic factions to sit down at the same table and be civil to one another. Some form of democracy has been around since the Magna Carta and we still have a hard time making it work. How in the world can we expect societies that have either been subject to tribal law and/or authoritarian regimes to suddenly become functional democracies. I think the best we can hope for in Iraq is what we have today and I am not certain what we'll gain by staying on. Also, the argument that goes, "if we leave before we win, the dead will have died in vain" is a non-starter. Someone needs to explain (in concrete terms) what the incremental gains will be if we stay longer and how many lives are expected to be lost to achieve those gains. To put this in business terms, if a company has invested millions in a new product line and the product line is not profitable, and is not expected to be profitable, the fact that millions have already been invested is not a viable reason for staying the course.

Senator Obama (and others) has said that he will "end the war". That also will not happen. If a President Obama puts into effect his plan to draw down all but a stabilization force within 16 months he will not have ended the war; he will only have ended our involvement in the war. So Senator Obama should be honest and say that this war cannot be won (as described above) and we are simply ending our involvement.

One of John McCain's criticisms of Senator Obama is that Obama will not admit that the troop surge has worked. Senator McCain draws a cause and effect relationship between the surge and a much more stabilized Iraq. I don't believe that the cause and effect are as well-defined as Senator McCain would like to believe. While the surge had to have had positive effects what is frequently left out is that at the same time the surge began Shia Militias, under the control of Muqtada al Sadr, declared a cease fire and the Sunni Awakening Groups were organized. The Sunni groups took on Al Qaeda in Iraq and destabilized that side of the insurgency and the Shia Militia's cease fire ended their deadly attacks on US troops. If the Awakening Groups were to close up shop tomorrow and the Shia Militias were to end their cease fire, we'd be in the situation we were in before the surge.

Interesting Obama Video on YouTube

While I don't agree with everything said on this video (or how it is said) it does raise many points that we Obama supporters wish Obama's campaign ads would address.

Rambling Thoughts for October 29th

While listening to excerpts from John McCain's speech during his rally yesterday in Fayetteville I began to wonder just how relevant his military experience is. It certainly says something about his character but does his time as a fighter-bomber pilot and squadron commander during Viet Nam and the cold war make him that much more qualified for being President? I was on active duty for seven years and spent time in Germany, Panama and the Sinai Peninsula; I was the fire support officer for 1-508th Parachute Infantry and commanded an artillery battery in the 1-319th Airborne Field Artillery, both of the 82d Airborne Division. Would this qualify me for public office? I'm not sure. McCain's military experience certainly gives him some insight into that world but the military is a very different organization today. Even I, who left active duty in 1987, would be like a fish out of water were I to put on my uniform again (by the way, even the uniforms are completely different). McCain's time indicates that he can persevere. But how about Ed Viesturs? Ed is one of the few people in this world who has climbed all 8,000 metre peaks (this list includes Everest and K2) without supplemental oxygen. This guy can persevere; but is he a good candidate for president? Probably not. When we are asked to consider McCain's military experience should we also consider the recklessness he demonstrated (drinking binges, wrecked aircraft)? Who knows.
--------------------------------------

Why is it such a bad thing to advocate for the poor and less fortunate? Barack Obama mentioned "spreading the wealth" while speaking with "Joe the Plumber" (who, in case you didn't know, is neither a Joe nor a plumber) and the McCain campaign has latched onto this statement like a pit bull and this seems to be all you hear from them. Even Sarah Palin has intimated that an Obama presidency would veer toward communism. All because Obama advocates using tax dollars to help the less fortunate. Do I care if the government uses my tax dollars to help the working poor? No, I don't. However, what I don't want to see are my taxes providing handouts to those who refuse to work. If a refundable tax credit helps a poor single mother both work and attend a college or technical school what exactly is wrong with that? The McCain campaign has been advocating buying the mortgages of those homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure and then restructuring those mortages to make them affordable. How is this different from providing refundable tax credits? The government is still using tax dollars and is still helping out those in trouble but I guess there's a big difference in buying a bad mortgage and giving someone a tax credit.

You Gotta Love Photoshop!

A Hint of Things to Come (w/ a Dem in the White House)?

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance. This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed 'Bearack Obama'
-----------------------------

See - this proves that I can find humor in something even though it doesn't fit in my set of beliefs.

Anchorage Daily News Endorses Obama!!

I saw this news scroll across the screen of my personal t.v. while pedaling nowhere this morning at the gym. Liberal media or not, this was pretty significant. If Sarah Palin cannot gain the endorsement of her state's largest newspaper what does that say about her effectiveness? I guess the impact of endorsements can be debated but some contain a hard-to-ignore message about the person not being endorsed (e.g. Gen. Powell's endorsement of Obama).

Funny Bit From "Young Frankenstein"

From the Alaskan Blog - "Mudflats"

Palin’s “Respectable Republican Leather Jacket” Must Go. 22 10 2008
Every once in a while, we need to cleanse our minds from matters of the inner workings of Alaska’s Personnel Board, 263-page reports from the Legislative Council, Workers Compensation claims by Alaska State Troopers, and take a break with something that requires little thought, or research. In this spirit, the big story yesterday was the outlandish $150,000 Palin wardrobe, provided to her by the Republican National Committee. Half of this staggering sum was spent at one store, the Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis. It’s against the rules for a campaign to pick up these costs (remember the John Edwards $400 haircut?), but due to a loophole (a button hole perhaps?), the RNC was allowed to foot the bill.
While I don’t claim to know what is going on in the minds of Republicans these days, I recall my Grandmother, who passed away in 1986. She was what I like to think of as a “good Republican”. She was fiscally conservative, quietly religious, and kind-hearted. She had no patience for scandal or dishonesty from politicians, and when presented with same, would sit herself down at the table in her sunny yellow kitchen and write a letter to the offending party, in small, perfect penmanship, giving them “a piece of her mind.” Sometimes the envelope would be reused, if she had received one in the mail in good condition. Why waste paper? She had raised a family during the Depression, and she understood the value of things. She donated to Republican candidates; not much, but she gave what she could. I never asked her personally how she felt about Richard Nixon. I suspect that Watergate gave her unending heartburn, but I also suspect that Nixon’s comment about how Pat Nixon didn’t have furs, but wore “a respectable Republican cloth coat,” resonated with her. My Grandmother had a respectable Republican cloth coat too.
I shudder to think what this principled woman, with whom I once shared a home, would think about Sarah Palin. What would be going through her mind if she had lovingly and dutifully written her $15 check, in her perfect penmanship, to the RNC, only to find out that it had been used to laminate Sarah Palin with a shiny red leather jacket and new stiletto heels? It would take 10,000 Republican grandmothers like mine to pay for that wardrobe.
It is surprising in some ways, that the “real Republicans” have not mutinied. Some have, but there hasn’t been the mass exodus one would expect. Too many Republicans suffer in silence, hoping that their party will come around; that they will spontaneously stop lying, race-baiting, subverting the constitution, and spending money like drunken sailors who like women in red leather. I think they’re going to have a long wait.
Meanwhile, back at the McCain campaign, we hear today that the six-figure wardrobe will now be donated to a “charitable purpose” after the campaign. So, keep your eyes peeled for a shiny red leather jacket at a Salvation Army store near you, and I’ll let you know if Sarah Palin comes back to Alaska in a respectable Republican cloth coat.

Is This What the Framers Had in Mind for the VP Position?

[Subtitle - Is Sarah Smarter than a Third Grader?]

Sarah - A Closet Democrat?

Or is she just angling for a position in the Obama Administration?

Governor Palin's Clothing Budget

Who knew it would cost so much to keep Governor Palin looking good on the campaign trail? Perhaps the RNC can now pay Joe the Plumber's back taxes and set him up in business. And now that it appears that the VP (according to Governor Palin at least) has extra-Constitutional powers she can force the Congress to add a clothing line to the country's budget in order to keep her in those fancy threads from Saks and Nieman Marcus. I guess the North Face is just a little bit beneath her now.

This from the Web:

Since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Gov. Sarah Palin, her husband, and even her infant son, it was reported on Tuesday evening.
That entertaining scoop -- which came by way of Politico -- sent almost immediate reverberations through the presidential race. A statement from McCain headquarters released hours after the article bemoaned the triviality of the whole affair.
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokesperson Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
But even the most timid of Democrats are unlikely to heed this call for civility. For starters, the story has the potential to dampen enthusiasm among GOP activists and donors at a critical point in the presidential race. It also creates a huge PR headache for the McCain ticket as it seeks to make inroads among voters worried about the current economic crisis.
Mainly, however, Democrats (in this scenario) are not prone to forgiveness. After all, it was during this same campaign cycle that Republicans belittled the $400 haircut that former Sen. John Edwards had paid for with his own campaign money (the funds were later reimbursed). And yet, the comparison to that once-dominant news story is hardly close: if Edwards had gotten one of his legendary haircuts every singe week, it would still take him 7.2 years to spend what Palin has spent. Palin has received the equivalent of $2,500 in clothes per day from places such as Saks Fifth Avenue (where RNC expenditures totaled nearly $50,000) and Neiman Marcus (where the governor had a $75,000 spree).
Beyond the political tit-for-tat, however, the revelation of the clothing expenditures offers what some Democrats see as a chance not just to win several news cycles during the campaign's waning days but to severely damage Palin's image as a small-town, 'Joe Six-Pack' American.
"It shows that Palin ain't like the rest of us," Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist told the Huffington Post, when asked how the party would or could use the issue. "It can help deflate her cultural populism with the Republican base. The plumber's wife doesn't go to Nieman's or Saks."
Indeed, the story could not come at a more inopportune time for the McCain campaign. During a week in which the Republican ticket is trying to highlight its connection to the working class -- and, by extension, promoting its newest campaign tool, Joe the Plumber -- it was revealed that Palin's fashion budget for several weeks was more than four times the median salary of an American plumber ($37,514). To put it another way: Palin received more valuable clothes in one month than the average American household spends on clothes in 80 years. A Democrat put it in even blunter terms: her clothes were the cost of health care for 15 or so people.
There are, in these cases, legal questions surrounding campaign expenditures. Though, on this front, Palin and the RNC seem to be in the clear.
"I don't think it's taxed," said David Donnelly of Campaign Money Watch. "I don't think she can keep it. It's owned by the RNC. They had to use coordinated funds to pay for the clothes."
And certainly the possibility exists that this issue can be effectively swept under the rug. Palin is not known for taking impromptu questions from the press. Moreover, the media, at this juncture, has other major story lines (see: upcoming election) to grapple with, thus denying the piece the relative vacuum that accompanied the Edwards story. Finally, there is little desire among conservative writers or pundits to litigate the matter, even if they were more than happy to jump on board when a Democrat was in the spotlight.
Several hours after Politico posted its findings, the topic remained nearly untouched by the major right-wing outlets. Though as Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic opined:
"Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures. ... The heat for this story will come from Republicans who cannot understand how their party would do something this stupid ... particularly (and, it must be said, viewed retroactively) during the collapse of the financial system and the probable beginning of a recession."

Colin Powell's Endorsement of Obama

General Powell's endorsement of Senator Obama was not only an endorsement of Obama but also a rebuke of McCain and the Bush Administration. General Powell eloquently addressed Senator McCain's helter skelter behavior with respect to the unfolding credit crisis, the failed attempt to link Senator Obama to Williams Ayers, and McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate. All of his arguments have been made before but they were discounted as coming from the liberal media. Now that they're coming from General Powell such arguments have to be taken seriously. Bush's war hawks put Colin Powell out on a limb when they sent him to the UN to make the case for war and this is wonderful payback.

ACORN Voter Fraud?

I'm not the smartest guy on the planet and I certainly wouldn't have the brains to organize and pull off a huge voter fraud scheme but I just don't get how the ACORN voter registration errors equate to voting fraud. Does John McCain actually think that someone will show up at a polling station and try to vote for Senator Obama as "Mickey Mouse"? And, wouldn't it be necessary for ACORN and the Obama campaign to enlist the help of hundreds, if not thousands, of people to go to the polls and actually vote using the phony registered names? I'm guessing it would have to work this way: Bill Smith (ACORN employee) completes 100 phony registration forms using the Raleigh, NC phonebook and mails them in. There are now 100 additional registered voters in Wake County, NC (what would happen if Bill picked my name from the book? I'm already registered). In order for voter fraud to occur someone would have to actually go to the specified polling place for these 100 "voters" and cast a ballot (or maybe an absentee ballot would be requested). Let's assume that Bill is not too smart and just starts at the beginning of the phone book and picks the first 100 names. Since those people are probably scattered all over Wake County, Bill (or a team of ACORN operatives) would have to go to a number of polling stations in order to cast the 100 phony ballots. It seems to me that in order for such a scheme to actually work and have an effect on the outcome of the election the scale of the fraud would have to be huge. The fact that the fraud would have to be large scale seems to make the probability of this happening very remote. Bottom line? There are some rogue ACORN employees who have tried to rip off the organization by generating phony registration forms. The McCain campaign and the RNC (with help, maybe, from the Department of Justice) are using this to their advantage and may be getting ready to perpetrate a fraud of their own.

Lighten Up Francis

God help me; I discovered Monty Python clips on YouTube. Introducing, "Friday Funnies".

"Deflating" Oil Prices

Good cartoon - Wonder if his buddy "Prime Minister" Putin is a little worried about decreasing oil prices and the Russian stock market which, I think, has been closed more than it has been open this past week.

"Maverick"

Just for fun I looked up the definition of maverick on Merriam-Webster Online and here it is:

1. An unbranded range animal; especially a motherless calf;
2. An independent individual who does not go along with a group or party.

So there you have it. By the way, the etymology is: Samuel A. Maverick, an American pioneer who did not brand his calves.

I have to admit that I'm a bit conflicted about John McCain and his maverick label. I even contributed to his campaign during the 2000 Republican primary. Not being a straight-party ticket type voter I naturally gravitate toward someone who doesn't blindly follow a particular dogma and this is what has, in the past, attracted me to Senator McCain. The problem I now see is that the senator's maverick tendancies coupled with his less than methodical decision making style is really not suited for the Oval Office. I mean, do we really want a lone-wolf (and one with an explosive temper) as president? Probably not. The McCain campaign has been hammering away with the question, "Who is Barack Obama?" but someone should also be asking that question about Senator McCain. How will this guy make decisions; how will this guy develop and execute strategies; how will he work with his cabinet and foreign leaders?

As much as I admire Senator McCain for his service and his past refusal to follow the GOP dogma I'm just not comfortable with his style.

Old Age (well, Middle Age) Just Plain Sucks

I just turned 50 a few weeks ago and I can tell you, the last 18 months have not been kind to me. Until July '07 I was pretty smug about my level of fitness and my general lack of aches and pains. Then one day (after having spent a few hours climbing at a gym in Durham) I felt a little twinge in the knuckle of my left index finger. The twinge turned into pain and I went to an orthopaedist specializing in hand problems. The steroid shot I received was particularly painful (the doctor tapped a much too long needle into my joint) and, in the long run did nothing to help. Unwilling to give up the rock gym and my daily trips to my other gym, I soon developed pain in my left wrist. When the orthopaedist suggested another steroid shot I decided to visit another doctor. The replacement is a terrific doc at Duke and he tried like hell to figure out what was wrong (without once mentioning a steroid shot). After several MRI's and Xrays we decided to give it some time and see what happened. About two weeks later my index finger swelled up, hurt worse and wouldn't bend. I went back to the doctor at Duke and three days later I was in the hospital having a "major dissection" of my left hand. Doctor Goldner cleaned things up and I fully expected to be pulling hard in the gym again but that just never happened. What did happen is that I now have a crooked index finger, a rheumatologist who, during my first visit, confirmed that I have arthritis and, in addition, discovered a swollen thyroid gland and so I now also have an endocrinologist.

So, as I pass the half-century mark my smugness is gone and in its place I have three doctors who are trying to keep things from getting worse. Oh, and during my visit to the dentist yesterday I was told that I need two crowns.

The silver lining in this cloud is that for the first time I'll be able to take an unreimbursed medical expense deduction when I do my taxes this year.

How to Support the Troops? (Hint: It's not a car magnet)

An old Army friend who is stationed in Germany after a tour in Afghanistan sent a link to a very good Atlantic Magazine article. The writer follows a number of West Point '02 grads and has written a book about what he has found. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810u/how-to-support-our-troops?ca=XuFBmB0%2BCyrUYeYGDsNS1h6EULhmNSHseMD3Md9XuaI%3D

I have signed up with the USO at the Raleigh Durham International Airport as a volunteer to drive troops home or to one of the many military installations in North Carolina. Unfortunately I tend to do this when it's convenient for me which means that I'm not really sacrificing anything (except my time, but again, when it's convenient). I need to do more.

Drill Baby, Drill?

Yesterday's Raleigh News & Observer carried an interesting editorial (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1254079.html) supporting the idea of oil exploration and drilling along the nation's coastline. The writer's argument is that this will have both short and long-term benefits. Here's a quote:

"Despite claims to the contrary, this increased access promises both long- and short-term benefits. More access to domestic energy resources will ultimately bolster our longstanding energy goals: less imports, more economic activity, and more revenue for state and local governments. And the benefits are immediate.

Even before U.S. energy companies begin to actually produce the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil currently locked away in our outer continental shelf (OCS), investors will act. Expanding domestic access will attract more capital to American oil and gas companies, bolstering their position in the global market. More capital means more jobs. Employment opportunity in the energy industry -- ranging from infrastructure development to technological development -- will boom."

While this may be true I think the writer is missing the point. Fossil fuel (with the possible exception of natural gas) is in the mature stage of its life cycle. Why would an oil company decide to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure to produce a product that many people are hoping will be replaced by hydrogen and batteries? Wouldn't that be a little like the long ago horse-drawn carriage manufacturers investing millions to boost production of carriages just as the concept of the automobile was taking hold? I think the oil companies should, instead, invest just enough in their infrastructure to continue producing enough fuel to satisfy demand but put the real money into infrastructure for the future. If I'm an investor I'd much rather choose the company that is betting on hydrogen fuel cells or long-life batteries for hybrids or plug-ins. I realize that I'm oversimplifying but that's my perogative. I'm just here to ask the question.

Sarah Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party

Is there any significance to Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party or to Governor Palin's video address to the Party as they were meeting for the annual convention? You be the judge. Be aware, though, that the goal of the AIP is the independence of the state from the United States. These folks have no use for our country (except, perhaps, for the pork sent their way by Congress) and leaders of the AIP have referred to US soldiers stationed there as occupying troops. I cannot understand how the mainstream press has not gotten hold of this.

Governor Palin's address to the AIP Convention:



About the founder of the AIP: