Bluedog

The GOP Con Game

2010-10-14T13:32:00.007-04:00

Right now the Dow Industrial Average sits at 11,096; the day President Obama was elected the Dow closed at 7,552. According to the New York Times, corporate profits (I assume these are for public companies) have returned to pre-recession levels. And, U.S. corporations are sitting on about $3 trillion in cash. The new GOP buzzword to explain this anomaly is, "uncertainty". I received my MBA way back in 1989 but I'm pretty sure I was taught that running a business is risky (things are uncertain).

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but I'm imagining John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, the right wing talking heads and the Executive Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce walking around brushing the sides of their noses with an index finger (remember the movie, "The Sting"?) and winking. The plan is to hold the economy captive by keeping all that cash idle. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (and conservative columnists like the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer - is he a token conservative?) wails that no one knows how the following will affect corporate profits (i.e. "uncertainty") : (a) the health care bill; (b) finance reform; (c) income tax rates for 2011. If it weren't for the uncertainty about these three things cash would be flowing, people would have jobs and we'd all be buying Hummers and 6,000 square foot homes with interest only mortgages again.

So here's how the con will end up. The minute that the GOP takes control of Congress all "uncertainty" will disappear (because the GOP has been bought and paid for), cash will flow, people will be hired, etc., etc.. The GOP will proclaim that their policies brought about this new era of good fortune thereby guaranteeing Obama will be a one-term president. And all this before they have a chance to not fund the provisions of the health care bill and to gut financial reform.

How's that for crazy? We'll discuss this again come spring.

The New Conservative Put Down

2009-07-17T09:23:00.003-04:00

Apparently accusing someone of being a socialist doesn't carry the same gravity as it once did. While watching videos of Bill O'Reilly's periodic lectures I noticed that he loves to describe President Obama as being secular. I suppose this is intended to scare his viewers (who may not even understand the term) by raising the spectre of a president who doesn't go to church every Sunday and doesn't recite his nightly prayers.

Frankly, this doesn't scare me much. After all, when was the last time an atheist or agnostic flew a plane into a building, decapitated someone, blew up a hotel or murdered a doctor to proclaim their beliefs (or lack thereof)? I'm much more concerned about politicians like Sarah Palin who believe that we're in Iraq on a mission from God and others who think that religious beliefs mitigate their violence.

The President & The Pope

2009-07-06T16:02:00.003-04:00

I've got to wonder what the Catholic Community thinks about President Obama's upcoming visit with the Pope. Will those Catholics who were apoplectic over the President's commencement speech at Notre Dame (thinking that the invitation was a tacit approval by the University of Obama's stance on abortion) have the same reaction to his visit to the Vatican? Will the protestors pack up and head to Italy? Does this mean that the Pope is reconsidering the Church's opinion on this issue or is it simply a meeting between two world leaders?

I wonder if I should pick a fight with my mother-in-law who hasn't spoken to me since I told her that I supported Obama's visit to Notre Dame and to stop sending me inflammatory e-mails on the subject. Probably not but I'm really tempted.

Sarah Palin

2009-07-06T10:07:00.002-04:00

My wife and I have agreed that if Sarah Palin ever ends up in the White House we'll leave the country and move to my family's ancestral home in Ireland. Scratching out a living in Ballymagibbon (County Mayo) is preferable to being governed by Sarah "Wingnut" Palin.

However, after discussing Sarah's resignation with my wife I've come to the conclusion that if Sarah does make a run for the White House in 2012 the Republican primaries will do her in. You've got to think that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and whoever else will go for the GOP nomination will take care of the Sarah problem once and for all. As the VP candidate she was somewhat insulated from the tough questions (with the exception of her disastrous TV interviews) but there's no way she'll be able to dodge them during a primary. Americans are too smart to elect an idiot like Palin but then I thought the same thing before Bush won a second term.

I'd love to pose the following question to Sarah, "So, if you were to get elected as president and half way through your first term you were to decide that you wouldn't run for re-election, would you resign so you wouldn't be a lame duck?"

The United States has Attention Deficit Disorder

2009-06-26T13:59:00.003-04:00

I'm pretty certain that activists are still protesting (and dying) in the streets of Iran, North Korea is still planning to launch missiles toward Hawaii in less than one week, soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress is still arguing about health care reform, etc. but for some reason all of this is ignored because Michael Jackson died. So what? Aside from his success with the Jackson 5 (whose songs I remember listening to on my transistor radio while delivering the Washington Post) and his famously successful "Thriller" (from the early 80's) what did Michael Jackson ever do for the world? Nothing. I cannot believe that our media falling over themselves to give us minute-by-minute coverage of this story. Let's get back to what really impacts our lives.

New Republican Party Motto . . .

2009-06-25T09:45:00.001-04:00

"Do as I say, not as I do." (courtesy of Governor Sanford and Senator Ensign [among others]).

New Litmus Test for "Too Big to Fail"

2009-06-09T12:29:00.005-04:00

In continuing to question the government's involvement in the General Motors bankruptcy, George Will and others are now using market capitalization in their arguments. In a recent column Will recently asked whether Harley Davidson is now too big to fail given the fact that its market capitalization is higher than that of General Motors. Will is being disingenuous. All you have to do is look at the first quarter Forms 10-Q filed by GM and Harley to see the impact GM has on this (and the world's) economy. Harley employs roughly 9,300 people while GM has about 54,000 employees. Neither employment number includes dealerships but since GM dealerships significantly outnumber Harley's the margin gets much larger if you consider them. GM also disclosed in its 10Q that it makes annual purchases from Delphi (which GM spun off in the late 90's) in the range of $6.5 to $10.2 billion. So, you have to wonder about the impact of GM being liquidated on an already weak Delphi.

Anyone who is not George Will can see that GM has a huge impact on the economy and much more than market cap needs to be considered when deciding whether it is worth saving. That said, I'm not arguing for or against the government's bailout (and now ownership); I'm just saying that the decision should not be oversimplified in order to make a point.

Speaking of Racism . . .

2009-05-29T08:22:00.003-04:00

couldn't you consider Rush's statement that Colin Powell only endorsed Obama because he's black a racist statement? Funny how Rush's negative statements are cloaked in patriotism but when Sonia Sotomayor makes reference to her background or that Latina women have a better perspective on certain topics than white males she's considered a racist or a biggot.

Yesterday on NPR an interviewer asked John Conyers about statements made by Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings regarding his Italian heritage that were similar to those made by Sotomayor. Conyers said that he had forgotten that Alito had said those things; how convenient. Also convenient is how no one is mentioning statements made by Antonin Scalia about how courts set policy.

With each passing day the GOP is further marginalizing itself.

Where's the Correlation?

2009-05-22T07:43:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, while bashing the President's speech on national security Mitch McConnell said that Mr. Obama never once commented on the fact that since September 11, 2001 there have been no further attacks on this country (meaning, of course, that enhanced interrogation techniques have, by themselves, prevented such attacks). Mitch, buddy, where's the correlation? I haven't smoked any cigarettes since 9/11; maybe that has prevented another terrorist attack. Also, the earth hasn't been hit by any killer asteroids since 9/11; maybe torture has prevented asteroids from killing us all. Also, how can Mitch reconcile his argument with the fact that were weren't attacked before 9/11?

I'm going to digress here. bin Laden has been pissed at United States since we set foot in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and then encouraged Sudan to throw him out of that country. Not being satisfied with simply blowing something up in this country Osama waited until Bush was in office and then attacked NYC knowing that Bush could not resist going after Iraq and settling old scores. Osama knew that we would divert attention from Afghanistan and that Iraq would become what it is today, a quagmire that has served to recruit more fighters for his cause.

Back on topic; what about the boobs in NYC who were planning on blowing up Synagogues and shooting down military aircraft using Stinger missiles? Was that plot interrupted by the use of enhanced interrogation methods? NO! It was good old fashioned police work.

Continuing the tradition of the Bush administration, Cheney and the rest of the GOP leadership ignore evidence that contradicts their arguments and plow on as though they're infallible.

The Case for Torture

2009-05-21T12:55:00.003-04:00

The use of torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" has dominated the news lately with Dick Cheney vigorously supporting such techniques (is anyone surprised by this?) claiming that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives were saved with information obtained by waterboarding, walling and other harsh techniques (ok, let's just say torture). Cheney can make this claim because no one can refute it and any information that supports it is probably classified. However, an FBI interrogator who was involved with the questioning of Abu Zubaida has stated that Zubaida was providing valuable information through the use of traditional interrogation methods and, in fact, shut down once the torture started. So, who do you believe? I'll cast my lot with the guys who were there since Cheney is just covering his ass.

This past Sunday a Washington Post columnist who supports the use of waterboarding used an Israeli example how just how useful it can be. Several years ago an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and Mossad got their hands on the driver of the car that was used in the kidnapping. Using harsh techniques the Israelis were able to discover where the soldier was being held and mounted a rescue operation that was unsuccessful as the soldier died during the operation. This argument seemed counter intuitive to me; the ultimate goals of the torture was to determine the location of the soldier and to rescue him. The mission failed. The real question is whether the soldier's location could have been determined through traditional interrogation methods and whether the location would have been learned quickly enough to effect a rescue. Guess we'll never know. Also, although I tend to support Israel you have to remember that this is the country that destroyed Beruit and much of southern Lebanon after Hezbollah kidnapped/captured three Israeli soldiers. So, no one should attempt to explain this country's use of torture by using Israel as an example.

Recently Jesse Ventura (can't believe I'm using this guy to support my argument) was on Fox & Friends and pretty much emasculated one of the hosts during a debate about the use of torture. Ventura, a former Navy SEAL, stated that during SEER (Survival Escape Evasion & Resistance) training that he had been waterboarded and he believes it's torture. The now-gelded host asked if Ventura is OK now, implying that as long as there is no lasting evidence of the technique it can't be considered torture. So, I suppose that means beatings with rubber hoses (that leave no marks) can now be added to the list of approved interrogation techniques. The best point made by Ventura, however, was when he asked why police departments don't use waterboarding or walling on suspected gang members in order to obtain information on gang activity. Here in Raleigh and Durham we have escalating gang problems that have resulted in increased robberies, murders and drug activity (i.e. a threat to the good citizens of our cities). Ventura answered his own question when he said such techniques are illegal and any information obtained while using them would be inadmissable in court.

Lastly, what does the need for harsh interrogation techniques tell us? The same thing; that for the last 16 years this country has not spent the time and money necessary to develop human intelligence assets (HUMINT) in the Middle East. The bottom line is that if the Clinton and Bush administrations had placed the proper emphasis on Middle East HUMINT September 11, 2001 would have been just another day and we wouldn't be fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Bill Clinton was spending his time responding to impeachment procedings or Ken Starr's fruitless investigations into Whitewater and Travelgate Osam bin Laden and his network were getting stronger.

Torture is not just wrong, it's illegal and it's a harsh reminder of this country's screw ups.

So much for not having any "gonads"

2009-04-13T09:05:00.002-04:00

Last week Rush Limbaugh concluded that the Maersk Alabama was attacked by Somali pirates because it's well known that since January 20, 2009 the United States has misplaced its gonads. Well, it appears that the US Navy SEALS have proven that the United States does, in fact, have a pair. Which begs the question, "Does Rush have a pair?"

Seriously, this guy is one of a long line of GOP Chicken Hawks who has never worn the uniform but has no qualms about putting our servicemembers in harm's way just to prove a point. Rush sits in his sound-proofed studio all day ranting and raving and claiming to be a patriot but has he ever risked his neck for this country? NO.

And for the pirates who now vow revenge - what were you guys thinking? If you want to put on the eye patch and raise the jolly roger that's great but there should be some risk. Apparently that risk now includes a sniper's bullet.

Lead, Follow or Get the Hell out of the Way

2009-03-20T15:17:00.002-04:00

This saying is well known and I heard it frequently while in the Army. Simply put, if your purpose is to sow discontent, cast aspersions or just complain then move aside. Like most Americans I'm really pissed about the AIG bonuses; but I'm not really mad about Timothy Geithner's or the President's role in bonus mess. The GOP, however, has seized upon this issue and their leaders (Boehner, McConnell, Kyl, etc.) now want probes into what was known about the bonuses and when it was known. Is this really getting us anywhere? I'm not a lawyer but if AIG entered into contracts that required the payment of retention bonuses then those bonuses have to be paid. Now I suppose Congress could have been clear that bailout funds could not be used to make those payments and if Mr. Geithner knew about the bonuses before hand and didn't make Congress aware then that was a mistake.

My bottom line is that this has become a distraction and so much of one that the Dow is not happy and retreated yesterday and is down by 86 points at the time I'm writing this. Last week and early this week it finally appeared that the market was gaining traction and now this.

So, if all the GOP is willing to do is point fingers and call for probes then my suggestion is that they get the hell out of the way.

Republican Revisionist History

2009-02-25T07:37:00.002-05:00

Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama's speech, while predictable, was interesting in that Governor Jindal said that Republicans "had gone along with earmarks and increased government spending" and, as a consequence, had lost the trust of the American people. It was the "gone along with" portion of his comment that struck me as odd. I interpret this to mean that the current mess is all the fault of Democrats in Congress who, apparently, forced their Republican colleagues to spend irresponsibly. Given that Republicans had the White House for the last eight years and controlled Congress (and committee leadership seats) for six of the last eight years I'm not certain how Democratic members of Congress managed to pull that off.

I'm also interested in why the GOP chose Jindal to deliver the response. I suppose he and other Republicans view these opportunities as auditions for the 2012 elections. Also, given the President's popularity and after the stimulus dogfight, I doubt that either John Boehner or Mitch McConnell wanted to be the fly in the ointment last night.

Nancy Pelosi Has No Common Sense

2009-02-20T14:43:00.003-05:00

The fact that Nancy Pelosi would take a fun trip to Italy, along with her straphangers, at taxpayer expense while the economy is imploding shows just how little sense she has for the world around her. This is the leader of the House of Representatives and the person who is supposed to take the new President's agenda, transform it into legislation and see that legislation through to law. As with any leader, her actions become the actions of all the persons she leads. If I was a House Democrat I'd be distancing myself from Pelosi poste haste. Pelosi has, since President Obama was sworn in, shown incredibly poor judgement (remember, the Stimulus legislation that was drafted under her leadership failed to get one GOP vote) and she needs to be replaced.

Phil Gramm Was Partly Correct

2009-02-19T12:44:00.002-05:00

Instead of saying that we are a nation of whiners Gramm should have pointed out that the GOP is the party of whiners. Just saw on CNN that the GOP is not happy with the President's mortgage/foreclosure/home package. Well that is just shocking. I'm particulary surprised because the GOP has done so much since the start of the housing/mortgage tailspin . . . wait a minute. Actually the GOP has done absolutely nothing; and now they're complaining about Obama's plan. I heard on NPR this morning that John McCain doesn't like the plan because it rewards people and companies that made bad decisions. Well sure, a lot of folks made bad decisions but does that mean some drastic steps shouldn't be taken in order to prevent a complete collapse of the housing market? If my neighbors made bad mortgage decisions and were facing foreclosure I sure as hell would want them to get help so they could stay in their homes; who wants to be surrounded by empty, bank-owned homes with overgrown lawns?

The bottom line here is that the GOP is still smarting over their losses in '06 and the November elections. The last time this happened a GOP-controlled Congress spent millions so Ken Starr could investigate the Clintons for years on end only to find, NOTHING. The GOP is on delicate ground here. Their fear is that any indication that they are cooperating with the Obama administration could send the wrong message and alienate their base. What they don't see is that if this trend continues their action (or inaction) will expose them as being interested only in politics. Rabid political actions are not much different from the actions of rabid/radical religious who are so focused on their narrow points of view that they're willing to destroy a nation simply to have their way.

Where's the Pork?

2009-02-18T09:55:00.003-05:00

STIMULUS OVERVIEW FROM APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:

Would someone kindly point out all the "pork" and wasteful spending in this?
-----------

Thursday, February 12, 2009
CONTACT:
Rob Blumenthal/John Bray, Inouye (202) 224‐7363
Kirstin Brost, Obey (202) 225‐2771
United States Congress
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Creating Jobs, Supporting the States and Investing in Our Country’s Future
The United States is facing its deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, one that calls for swift, bold action. The goals of this legislation are the same as they have been from day one: to strengthen the economy now and invest in our country’s future.

This legislation will create and save jobs; help state and local governments with their budget shortfalls to prevent deep cuts in basic services such as health, education, and law enforcement; cut taxes for working families and invest in the long-term health of our economy. We do all of this with unprecedented accountability, oversight and transparency so the American people know their money is being invested responsibly.

To accomplish these goals, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $311 billion in appropriations, including the following critical investments:
 Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $120 billion
 Investments in Health - $14.2 billion
 Investments in Education and Training - $105.9 billion
 Investments in Energy, including over $30 billion in infrastructure - $37.5 billion
 Helping Americans Hit Hardest by the Economic Crisis - $24.3 billion
 Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $7.8 billion

Investments in Infrastructure and Science include:
Infrastructure Improvements
‐ $7.2 billion for Broadband to increase broadband access and usage in unserved and underserved
areas of the Nation, which will better position the U.S. for economic growth, innovation, and job
creation.
‐ $2.75 billion for the Department of Homeland Security to secure the homeland and promote
economic activity, including $1 billion for airport baggage and checkpoint security, $430 million for construction of border points of entry, $210 million for construction of fire stations, $300 million for port, transit, and rail security, $280 million for border security technology and communication, and $240 million for the Coast Guard.
‐ $4.6 billion in funding for the Corps of Engineers.
‐ $1.2 billion for VA hospital and medical facility construction and improvements, long-term care
facilities for veterans, and improvements at VA national cemeteries

‐ $3.1 billion for repair, restoration and improvement of public facilities at on public and tribal
lands.
‐ $4.2 billion for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization to be used to invest in
energy efficiency projects and to improve the repair and modernization of Department of Defense
facilities to include Defense Health facilities.
‐ $2.33 billion for Department of Defense Facilities including quality of life and family-friendly
military improvement projects such as family housing, hospitals, and child care centers.
‐ $2.25 billion through HOME and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program to fill
financing gaps caused by the credit freeze and get stalled housing development projects
moving.
‐ $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program for community and economic
development projects including housing and services for those hit hard by tough economic times.
‐ $1 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation to provide clean, reliable drinking water to rural areas
and to ensure adequate water supply to western localities impacted by drought.

Transportation
‐ $27.5 billion is included for highway investments
‐ $8.4 billion for investments in public transportation.
‐ $1.5 billion for competitive grants to state and local governments for transportation
investments.
‐ $1.3 billion for investments in our air transportation system.
‐ $9.3 billion for investments in rail transportation, including Amtrak, High Speed and Intercity
Rail.

Public Housing
‐ $4 billion to the public housing capital fund to enable local public housing agencies to address a
$32 billion backlog in capital needs -- especially those improving energy efficiency in aging
buildings.
‐ $2 billion for full-year payments to owners receiving Section 8 project-based rental assistance.
‐ $2 billion for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes.
‐ $1.5 billion for homeless prevention activities, which will be sent out to states, cities and local
governments through the emergency shelter grant formula.
‐ $250 million is included for energy retrofitting and green investments in HUD-assisted housing
projects.

Environmental Clean-Up/Clean Water
‐ $6 billion is directed towards environmental cleanup of former weapon production and energy
research sites.
‐ $6 billion for local clean and drinking water infrastructure improvements.
‐ $1.2 billion for EPA’s nationwide environmental cleanup programs, including Superfund.
‐ $1.38 billion to support $3.8 billion in loans and grants for needed water and waste disposal
facilities in rural areas.

Science
‐ $1 billion total for NASA.
‐ $3 billion total for National Science Foundation (NSF).

‐ $2 billion total for Science at the Department of Energy including $400 million for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E).
‐ $830 million total for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).

Investments in Health include:
‐ $19 billion, including $2 billion in discretionary funds and $17 billion for investments and
incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure widespread adoption and use of
interoperable health information technology (IT). This provision will grow jobs in the
information technology sector, and will jumpstart efforts to increase the use of health IT in doctors’ offices, hospitals and other medical facilities. This will reduce health care costs and improve the quality of health care for all Americans.
‐ $1 billion for prevention and wellness programs to fight preventable diseases and conditions with evidence-based strategies.
‐ $10 billion to conduct biomedical research in areas such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and stem cells, and to improve NIH facilities.
‐ $1.1 billion to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH and the HHS Office of
the Secretary to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.

Investments in Education and Training include:
‐ $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including $39.5 billion to local school
districts using existing funding formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing
layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and $8.8 billion to states for high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education and for modernization, renovation and repairs of public school facilities and institutions of higher education facilities.
‐ $13 billion for Title 1 to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential.
‐ $12.2 billion for Special Education/IDEA to improve educational outcomes for disabled children.
This level of funding will increase the Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.
‐ $15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500. This aid will help 7 million students
pursue postsecondary education.
‐ $3.95 billion for job training including State formula grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth).

Investments in Energy include:
‐ $4.5 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology.
‐ $3.4 billion for Fossil Energy research and development.
‐ $11 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid.
‐ $6.3 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants.
‐ $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
‐ $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.

‐ $2 billion in grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and
components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States.
‐ $6 billion for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar
projects and for electricity transmission projects.
‐ $1 billion for other energy efficiency programs including alternative fuel trucks and buses,
transportation charging infrastructure, and smart and energy efficient appliances.
Help for Workers and Families Hardest Hit by the Economic Crisis includes:
‐ $19.9 billion for additional Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly Food
Stamps, to increase the benefit by 13.6 percent.
‐ Child Care Development Block Grant: $2 billion to provide quality child care services for an
additional 300,000 children in low-income families who increasingly are unable to afford the high
cost of day care.
‐ Head Start & Early Head Start: $2.1 billion to allow an additional 124,000 children to participate in this program, which provides development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities that prepare children to succeed in school.
‐ State and Local Law Enforcement: $4 billion total to support law enforcement efforts.
‐ $555 million to expand the Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP)
during the national mortgage crisis.

Unprecedented Oversight, Accountability and Transparency
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan provides unprecedented oversight, accountability, and transparency to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested effectively, efficiently, and as quickly as possible.
‐ Funds are distributed whenever possible through existing formulas and programs that have proven track records and accountability measures already in place.
‐ Numerous provisions in the bill provide for expedited but effective obligation of funds so that
dollars are invested in the economy as quickly as possible.
‐ The Government Accountability Office and the Inspectors General are provided additional funding for auditing and investigating recovery spending.
‐ A new Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board will coordinate and conduct oversight of recovery spending and provide early warning of problems.
‐ A special website will provide transparency by posting information about recovery spending,
including grants, contracts, and all oversight activities.
‐ State and local whistleblowers who report fraud and abuse are protected.
‐ There are no earmarks in this bill.

Am I a Liberal . . . .

2009-02-10T13:43:00.004-05:00

and, if so, how exactly did that happen? I just finished having lunch with three cousins and my uncle and it turned into an Obama/Stimulus bashing session (I said nothing to (1) bash either Obama or the stimulus or (2) give away my politics). Both my parents are Republicans (my mother more than my father) and just about everyone else in my family are as well. Even my in-laws are Republicans.

So, how did I end up this way? The answer may lie in my tendancy to rebel, in an oblique way, against authority and stand up for the underdog. I detest arrogance and love to see the pompous put in their places. Even as an Army officer I wanted to do what I believed to be right versus follow the rules; I viewed my soldiers as underdogs and went to bat for them when I thought the system wasn't treating them fairly. If asked to put a face on the Republican party I'd default to Dick Cheney whom I think is an arrogant, sneering, sour-faced, secretive jerk. I feel the same way about Donald Rumsfeld, by the way. Don't get me wrong, there are arrogant, pompous jerks (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) in the Democratic party and I'm not happy with them but I believe they are the exception.

The bottom line is that I believe the Democratic party ultimately wants what is best for the little guy while the GOP, while claiming folks like Joe the Plumber, is all about doing what's best for big business and ignoring the impact on the average citizen. It also grates when the GOP holds themselves out as examples of what a God-fearing patriot should look like; I, instead, see them as the T.V. evangelist whose public face is one thing but is privately something entirely different.

The King Has No Clothes?

2009-02-10T09:22:00.004-05:00

A Republican Senator made a statement about the stimulus plan yesterday saying that "the king has no clothes" meaning that someone has to have the guts to point out that the plan is bogus. I've been trying to think of my own analogy. It seems to me that the GOP commitment to their economic ideology in the face of this economic crisis is similar to armies that cannot adapt to changing situations (both strategic and tactical). Some famous WWII general once said that you get 5% credit for the plan and 95% credit for the execution of the plan. As a young army officer I admit that I was never that great at planning. However, I was very good at adapting to changing tactical situations and that helped me tremendously. At a strategic level, the US Army has had a very difficult time adapting to fighting an insurgency as opposed to a conventional war. David Petraeus, an innovator and heavy thinker, has pretty much fixed that problem though. Early in the 20th Century armies had a very tough time adapting to the introduction of machine guns and armor and full frontal assaults against automatic weapons were the norm in WWI. Eventually tactics and strategies were adapted.

I would like to see someone in the GOP make the "no clothes" observation about their own economic ideology and admit that maybe it's time to adapt and agree that the government can and should play a role in managing the economy. Of course that role should wax and wane with the situation. The GOP is stuck in their belief that the New Deal really did nothing to help the economy out of the Depression when it's quite possible that, without actually reversing the Depression, the New Deal may have helped slow it down. The other thing that Republicans can't quite grasp is that consumers and the market place have changed dramatically since the Depression. Consumers have access to goods and services that our forebears could never have dreamed of and consumers also have access to credit which was unheard of early in the 20th Century. Credit cards weren't even introduced until the 1960's (I think).

Both sides of the isle may need to adapt and give up some of their cherished beliefs in order to save this country from further anguish.

November's Vote Affirmed

2009-02-06T10:29:00.002-05:00

At some point during the "debate" on the stimulus package John McCain came up with his own idea. His proposal was half the size of the package currently being discussed and consisted of a one year payroll tax holiday. This proposal should cause us all to breathe a huge sigh of relief because if that's the best idea Mr. "The Fundamentals of Our Economoy Are Sound" can come up with then we're damn lucky we're in the middle of the current debate mess. In other words, it could be a whole lot worse.

Tax Problems

2009-02-05T08:36:00.002-05:00

First, let me admit that I really haven't read a whole lot about the tax problems of Mr. Geithner, Mr. Daschle and Ms. Killefer. With that said I have to wonder just how important these tax problems are and I also wonder whether we should expect nominees to be tax experts. This past weekend I completed (and passed, thank God) the IRS basic tax test that must be taken in order to work as a volunteer tax preparer. This test covered pretty easy stuff as most of the folks I help are poor and/or hispanic and their tax issues aren't complex but I still missed three questions out of 30. Did I mention that I'm a CPA (although not a tax accountant) and I have an MBA from a reputable university? Certain members of congress stated that as the "chief tax collector" for the Treasury, Mr. Geithner should have known that he didn't prepare his taxes correctly. That statement, in my opinion, is just BS. Geithner's a finance whiz, not a tax whiz; the two don't go hand-in-hand.

From what I've heard Mr. Daschle's error was in not reporting free car services as income. Since the IRS isn't prosecuting him I guess this wasn't intentional. Yesterday on NPR someone characterized Mr. Daschle as being one of the most informed people in the country with respect to health care issues and now, because he screwed up his taxes, we won't have him in the cabinet.

Perhaps every Senator who sits in judgment of cabinet nominees should have to pass some sort of tax test. Then, and only then, would they be ready to cast the first stone.

February 3rd Ramblings

2009-02-04T07:41:00.005-05:00

So, I'm driving my usual 65 during this morning's commute when a yellow-plated state-owned car zips past doing at least 75. The interesting part is that the car was sporting a bumper sticker that said "Drive Smart. Save Fuel." This is worth a letter to the News & Observer.
On the topic of wasteful spending habits: much has been said about wasteful portions of the economic stimulus package. While I agree that, in appearance, $250mm to Hollywood is wasteful I'd like to see the details before making my decision. Was the film to be purchased from California film makers? If so, doesn't that stimulate the California economy? What about the expenditures on hybrid automobiles for government agencies? Is that wasteful? If the government buys Ford Escape Hybrids or GM Hybrids won't that benefit the U.S. auto industry? And why exactly is fixing up the NIH headquarters wasteful? Is the headquarters in need of repair? If so why not do it? Won't such work benefit contractors (such as Joe the Plumber) and suppliers? I guess my point is that is appears that folks are more worried about form over substance. Sure, it looks bad to be giving $250mm to Hollywood but is it bad in substance? Of course the Dems get low marks for not realizing that some of these "projects" were just begging for GOP criticism.

"BGREENR"

2009-02-02T13:31:00.002-05:00

As usual, I was hanging out in the right lane (going 65) during this morning's commute and a small car sporting a vanity plate passed at, maybe, 70 or 75 mph. I enjoy trying to figure out the sometimes cryptic messages on vanity plates and it didn't take long to figure this one out. The driver apparently wants everyone (but him or herself) to BE GREENER. Well this is great but wouldn't this person have been greener if he/she had been driving the speed limit?

Granted, the car was small and was probably getting pretty decent mileage but that's not the point. Another lesson people apparently aren't getting is that even though oil and gas prices have dropped significantly and it costs less to drive than it did this summer and fall is that IF YOU DRIVE SLOWER YOU'LL SAVE EVEN MORE MONEY.

Are we as a country doomed to have to learn and relearn the same lesson over and over again?

McCain is Against the Stimulus

2009-02-02T13:21:00.002-05:00

Isn't he the guy who, in October (or maybe September) proclaimed that the fundamentals of our economy were strong? Not exactly the guy the GOP should want as a spokesperson for their party's response to the draft legislation.

The new RNC leader (director) has said that bipartisanship is overrated. Huh? I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Not One Republican Vote in Favor of the Stimulus?

2009-01-29T08:33:00.003-05:00

As I said yesterday, I'm not pleased with how the House Democratic leadership handled this legislation. That said, I did hear yesterday on NPR that Repulicans were not shut out of the drafting process. Rather, they decided to shut themselves out. Not sure if that's true but if it is then shame on them.

Given the size of this package does it really matter whether the split is 30% tax relief and 70% government spending or 40% tax relief and 60% government spending? I mean, 30% of $800 billion is a load of cash. John Boehner's comments about repairs of the Mall (part of that 70%) don't make sense to me. First, if the Mall needs sprucing up let's do it. If we spend several million on sod some American sod company (like Southern Turf) will get this contract and hire lots of guys to grow, transport and lay the sod. The same holds true for bridges, roads and other infrastructure. If public works projects, like bridge repair, are needed (just ask the folks who live in Minneapolis) then why shouldn't money be spent on them. I mean, we're not planning to build bridges to no where, are we?

Also, if the stimulus package includes upgrades for our power grid and paves the way for delivering alternative energy why shouldn't we do this? The economy needs the shove and the projects appear to be good, in the long-run for the country.

The GOP (and the Democratic leadership) need to stop acting like petulant children and get on with the business of governing.

DOES CONGRESS JUST NOT GET IT?

2009-01-28T12:53:00.003-05:00

Just because I voted (mostly) for Democrats this past election doesn't mean that I reserve my anger for members of the GOP. These days the President appears to be somewhat like a kindergarten teacher; Speaker Pelosi, relishing Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches of government, has decided to not involve GOP members of the House in drafting the House version of the stimulus plan. John Boehner, upset at this, told House Republicans that they are not to vote for the stimulus plan and said this even before the President made his way to Capital Hill yesterday. Mitch McConnell (who barely won reelection) seems a little less indignant but . . . .

Of course I remember when the roles were reversed and Republican Senators (and Mr. Bush) smugly demanded an "up or down" vote on judicial nominees and I'm sure Democratic members of both the House and the Senate remember those days as well. So, I'll bet that we're seeing a little pay back here. Now, while the GOP should take their medicine the damn Democrats need to understand that in November Americans voted for change. We seem to be getting this from the President but we also need it from members of Congress. There is simply too much at stake for these turf battles to continue.

Is Hamas Stupid or Just Very Clever?

2008-12-30T10:54:00.006-05:00

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

2008-12-02T13:35:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-27T09:43:00.004-05:00

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)

Much Better - 0
Better - 9 (15%)
Average - 26 (43%)
Worse - 12 (20%)
Much Worse - 9 (15%)

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

Much Better - 11 (22%)
Better - 22 (43%)
Average - 9 (18%)
Worse - 2 (4%)
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

2008-11-14T13:33:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-14T13:26:00.001-05:00

Feds Move to Expand Oil Exploration

2008-11-14T08:08:00.005-05:00

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

2008-11-07T13:44:00.003-05:00

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

2008-11-06T14:22:00.000-05:00

Pretty funny clip from a Colorado newscast.

Alternative Energy for Mass Use

2008-11-05T11:57:00.003-05:00

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

2008-11-05T10:25:00.002-05:00

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!

2008-11-04T08:04:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-03T13:47:00.005-05:00

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

2008-10-29T16:28:00.001-04:00

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

2008-10-29T09:55:00.002-04:00

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!

2008-10-28T16:27:00.001-04:00

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

2008-10-27T12:48:00.002-04:00

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!!

2008-10-27T08:29:00.002-04:00

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"

2008-10-24T15:56:00.002-04:00

From the Alaskan Blog - "Mudflats"

2008-10-22T15:00:00.001-04:00

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?

2008-10-22T14:56:00.001-04:00

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

Sarah - A Closet Democrat?

2008-10-22T11:39:00.002-04:00

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

Governor Palin's Clothing Budget

2008-10-22T10:48:00.002-04:00

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

2008-10-20T10:36:00.004-04:00

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?

2008-10-20T08:12:00.003-04:00

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

2008-10-17T14:13:00.001-04:00

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

"Deflating" Oil Prices

2008-10-17T10:37:00.003-04:00

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"

2008-10-17T08:38:00.002-04:00

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

An unbranded range animal; especially a motherless calf;
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

2008-10-16T14:05:00.003-04:00

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)

2008-10-15T15:22:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-10-15T14:37:00.002-04:00

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

2008-10-09T08:24:00.000-04:00

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: