just some Joe

Some times it just doesn't work out.

2011-02-04T14:41:00.000-08:00

So often when you hear of the untimely death of a child it involves drugs or gangs. In this case it was just really poor decision making involving girls.

This nephew was one of the sweetest kids you'd meet. A clever, sci-fi loving, shoe gazer who played in the marching band in high school, was super intelligent (made great grades) and had the really funny sense of humor, that is when he decided to speak up. His parents had divorced when he was maybe 6 and that probably had something to do with shy insecurity that left him to loose himself in what ever girl was giving him attention.

He barely left his home town after High School because he had a steady older girl friend. In the end, pressure from his mom to accept a scholarship he had been given, forced him to cut the girlfriend cord. He went a 2 days drive away from home and was studying to be a fire, forensic scientist.
There he met a girl.

The summer after that first year at school, he chose to follow the new girl friend back to her home town and get a summer job.
She then decided not to go back to the University but to enroll in the local community college ... so he did as well.
Then she broke up with him.

So now he was 20 and with out the financial assistance of the previous Universities scholarship he had to take a job to pay for his apartment and schooling. Which meant he wasn't in school full time anymore.

Then he met another girl. Only this one proved to be his final undoing.
He met her with a group of college kids. I never met her but apparently she was quite attractive and all over him. Unfortunately, when your 20 and at a party you don't tend to card anyone who comes up and starts talking to you. Especially when you are a shy, geeky guy with a need to cling and the girl is clearly hot for you. Apparently you should.

I really don't know how long they dated. Maybe 2 or 3 months before her parents found out and confronted him with the news she was 15.
Did he ever really wonder about why she didn't want to him to meet her parents? I don't know. She told him stories about them being abusive though in hind site one has to think there should have been other signs that things weren't quite right.
He was a smart kid but he was also a 20 year old guy with a girl who wanted him.

Pretty clearly, if he did have suspicions he let the wrong head do the thinking.
So when the parents found out they threatened to have him arrested but having had a history of trouble with their daughter, they told him that if he left the county they wouldn't press charges. So he did.

Then a few weeks later she called him up late one stormy night. She was hysterical and said she had had a big fight with her parents and they had thrown her out of the house. She was calling from a pay-phone at a convenience store and had no money and didn't know who else to call. So, being the sweet, stupid kid he was - he drove 1 and a half hours through the rain and picked her up.
It was now the middle of the night so he decided to take her to a local motel room.
(Is anyone else screaming "Noooooooooo" at this point?)

What he didn't know was that the girl HAD in fact run away. She had gone to a local theater early in the evening and when her parents came to pick her up, no one could find her. After my nephew had left town, she had apparently continued to fight with her parents about seeing him ... so the parents naturally assumed that the two had run off together ... and they called the police.

Cut to the next morning. Some how the parents had gotten hold of the phone number for my nephew's dad (whom he was now living with) and explained that they were looking for her and had a warrant out for the son's arrest.

The dad then called my nephew's cell phone and explained the predicament. He suggested that my nephew go by the police station, drop the girl on the steps and get out of town. That wasn't my nephew though. That seemed cruel to him so he took the girl to the police station and walked her inside. Somehow he thought when he explained what had happened it would clear everything up. He was promptly arrested.

When the parents arrived and heard his side of the story, they didn't question it for a moment. They knew their daughter too well. So they dropped all charges.
Unfortunately, my nephew had just turned 21 and the D.A. decided they were going to make an example of him. When he couldn't pressure the parents into pressing charges ... the D.A. went ahead and pressed charges on behalf of the state, charging him with 6 counts of Statutory rape and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Perhaps the first brake he got was that the judge was able to take a rational look at the situation and gave him the very minimum sentence possible, a few months and then probation.

That was a year and a half ago.

Of course, he had his picture posted in the paper next to the headline "MAN charged with statutory rape of local teen". The story itself of course gave no back story to indicate this wasn't some perp hiding in the bushes and assaulting little kids. Not that anyone cares what is said after the headlines. All of the corresponding, self-rightous blog-commentors couldn't wait to jump in with their outrage, not knowing him or ANYTHING about the actual situation, they piled on with posts saying horrible things about this "SEXUAL PREDATOR" and "people like him".
My nephew's younger sister was a freshman in High school at the time and it was no time at all until she found those posts. She was so traumatized at how so many complete strangers could be so vicious towards someone she personally knew to be a good person, she had a break down and had to have counseling.

He also gots to carry the "sexual offender" label with him anywhere he lived and has to list his "criminal offenses" on any application he fills out. It seems no one ever wants to know the details about those sort of things, they just see the label and grab their pitchforks.

His dad got him a manual labor sort of job that allowed him to get an apartment . No longer in school and with a job instead of a career.

At some point along here he was diagnosed with depression and put on medication.

About Christmas time he got very ill. Flu then Strep Throat and bronchitis. For a month he was terribly ill.
So last Monday night he just gave up hope. He took all his anti-depresants and a full bottle of Tylenol. Sometime in the middle of the night he had a change of heart and called his dad for help ... but he didn't tell him what he had done. So when his dad picked him up he just thought he was still sick and took him home. It wasn't till 9am the next morning, when he found my nephew bleeding from the mouth on the bathroom floor that he realized the extent of the problem.

By then his liver was pretty much gone. He however, took another 2 days to fade away.

I just look at this and shake my head. My nephew wasn't a creep, a bully, a predator, or a druggie. He didn't hang with gangs or criminals. He really didn't do anything most of the rest of us didn't do as teens/early twenties. The rest of us though were lucky enough to never have to be accountable for our bad judgement.

He simply wasn't a bad guy.
He was just a stupid, sweet, insecure geek with an over active need to be in a relationship. For him though, life just didn't work out.

Egypt. Déjà vu ?

2011-01-31T06:51:00.000-08:00

For those who may not be old enough to know that ... there was a time when Iran was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist state.

Iran was an Authoritarian Regime in the middle-East whose ruler (The Shaw) was kept in power by the U.S. It was a place of great wealth but that wealth was held in the hands of the very very few. Most of it's people lived in poverty. Though the Shaw ruled with ruthlessness, the U.S. supported him because he was VERY friendly to the west and policy experts saw him as a stabilizing force in the middle east who was actively trying to modernize his country.

In 1976, President Jimmy Carter put Human Rights foremost on the U.S. agenda and began pressuring the Shaw to improve his Human Rights record. Buoyed by this, Iranian students began demonstrating against the Shaw, demanding freedoms and even Democracy. Many of these initial demonstrations were met with violence and the shootings of hundreds if not thousands of protesters. This however, only incited more students to rise up and then be joined by more of the general populace. Eventually there were country wide work stop-ages. Many outsiders cheered the brave Iranians and their fight for freedom and democracy.

In the end the Shaw fled the country.

Happy ending?
No. Not really.

It turns out that radical fundamentalist Islamists were not only waiting in the wings to take control, they had actually infiltrated the students and had been orchestrating many of the marches and protests.

These savvy militants knew that there were not nearly enough of them to overthrow the government AND they would never have the popular support of the people. 10's of thousands of emboldened, passionate students though, represented an army just waiting to be used to achieve their own goals. The protesters became the unwitting pawns doing the work for a greater evil.

The Shaw was thrown out, the fundamentalists moved in. They went from Authoritarian to Totalitarian. 30 years later the people of Iran have far less freedoms then under the Shaw and Iran is now a Destabilizing force for the entire world.

So now we have Egypt.
An Authoritarian Regime in the middle-East whom the U.S. helps to keep in power. It was a place of great wealth but that wealth was held in the hands of the very very few. Most lived in poverty. Though their "president" of 30 years rules with an iron fist, the U.S. supported him because he is VERY friendly to the west and policy experts see him as a stabilizing force in the middle east who was actively trying to suppress the spread of radical Islam. In fact Egypt's president is known to have zero tolerance for Islamists in politics, whether they are militants or moderates.

Protests that started with well intentioned students wanting freedoms and economic opportunity have now spread to the populace. So far, they cry out not for true elections or for another leader to be put in place but simply for the current ruler to be thrown out. A power vacuum.

Whose waiting to rush in and fill that void?
Currently, Egypt's largest opposition movement is the outlawed "Muslim Brotherhood".
Its support base comes in large part from its elaborate network of social, medical and education services. It made a surprisingly strong showing in parliamentary elections in 2005, winning 20 percent of the legislature's seats, but it failed to win a single seat in elections held late last year. Those elections were widely thought to have been rigged in favor of the president's ruling party.

The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has said that freedom from the current President would enable them to push effectively for more proper Islamic education and training, so Egyptians would be able to "stand up to the American-Zionist project."

So be careful Egypt. Work for human rights and democracy ... but before you throw out your government, have a plan.
Look to Iran. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

Obama - Economically? All the right moves.

2011-01-25T15:00:00.000-08:00

As someone who spends way to much time studying the stock market and following the financial world I can say that, Economically speaking - This President has so far made all the right moves.

His first daunting task was to stop the U.S. economic freefall.
We were sliding toward the edge of a bottomless pit and picking up speed. The course of action he chose stopped that fall and now things are improving. If you have any real idea of just how grim things were, stopping the decline and loss of jobs would be enough in itself. What is more amazing though, is that he managed to do this while enduring some of the most contentious political conditions of any President.
President Obama has managed to navigate Washington politics while being one of the most productive Presidents in history, taking care of many of the little, unglamorous, "housekeeping" items that have been ignored by past White Houses and building up for decades on the national "to do" list.

He has gotten laws passed to reform the predatory credit card industry ... laws that congress has been simply passing the buck on for over 25 years!
He is the ONLY President to finally get a Health Care reform law passed. Now it is up to congress to make it the best bill it can possibly be. Will they work for America and make it better? Or will they just play politics and try to repeal millions of Americans' Health Care and cost us ANOTHER 350 billion dollars?
While both sides of the isle were too busy playing politics to effectively govern, this President has made unpopular compromises to keep things moving forward. After years of "out of touch millionaires", playboys, and idiot cowboys ... it's nice to finally have an intelligent adult in the Whitehouse.

Economically speaking though ... try to imagine the horror of where we would be without this President's leadership.
Even with the Republican's publically sworn effort to block EVERY bit of recovery and economic stimulus effort that the President tried to bring to the American people, even with the Republican's vowing to try and "shut down" the government this last year while our economy hung at the very brink ... this President has managed to stabilize the economy (keeping us from sliding into a "double dip recession") and engineered a recovery.

For the last two years though, the Republican machine has tried it's best to make the public believe(with some success) that there is some secret button somewhere that someone could press to put the economy right back where it was before the Great Bush Recession. However, all of the thinking, rational adults in the room(an ever decreasing number) realize that even under the BEST of circumstances (not where we are) undoing an economic crash is a long slow process.
You just don't expect the cancer ridden, crash victim to leap up out of bed and start dancing the highland fling simply because they no longer need life support.

This might also be the time to point out that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and the Nasdaq Composite are all at multi-year highs, lifted by a bullish outlook for financials and the recent Federal Reserve's beige book report showed that the economy was growing at a moderate pace, with some areas such as consumer spending and manufacturing showing actual signs of STRENGTH. That's "growth" that was occurring while the Republicans have been crying that the sky was falling.

As for unemployment, it is a huge entity that behaves not unlike a mile long freight train. It takes it a long long time to get up to speed and once moving it is very difficult to stop. Dubya Bush had been accelerating unemployment for 4 years and with it still accelerating he handed the controls to President Obama. Obama has managed to stop that train in less then two years and has begun to get some movement in the right direction. Who ever our next President will be, they will be reaping the rewards of this Presidents efforts with the economy as all signs indicate it will have steady forward momentum by 2012.

All in all, it really is quite amazing that with the Republican's putting forth their full effort to sabotage the recovery and the Democrats inability to form a cohesive, focused direction on ... well, anything - that this President has STILL managed to steer us out of the rocks and has us headed back to recovery.
Spectacular really.

Good behavior doesn't sell ad space

2010-09-09T09:03:00.000-07:00

My Pastor gave a wonderful sermon last Sunday ... I only wish it was getting as much publicity as the guy who is threatening to burn the Koran.

In reference to the debate on the "controversial" community center in NYC - he said the following (and I am paraphrasing here)-

1) When discussing this topic, as Christians, he would remind us (remember, I'm paraphrasing) DON'T BE A DOUCHE!
He then recited biblical quotes from Jesus, where he directed his followers (Christians) to be humble and polite and respectful and NOT to be prideful, boastful, ARROGANT and basically "Holier-than-thou"! The idea is to make people interested in his teachings and NOT to turn them away by being asshats.

2) DON'T PREJUDGE. If you wanted to see horrific acts carried out by people claiming to be doing them for their religion, Christians have certainly done quite a few of these throughout history. The Pastor went on to say he personally knew many Muslims and they are wonderful human beings just like you or me. They work hard and just want a good life for their families and themselves.
When we are prejudice against people we have NEVER met ... we are following the will of something but it ain't Jesus.

3) Christian's should always be looking for the truth.
We are now surrounded by people whose full time job it is, to deceive us for political and financial gain. The spend all day writing internet posts and news articles with deliberate misinformation and spiteful rhetoric, all designed to make us fear, hate and strike out against people we have never met. THAT, is a good definition of evil.
Christians shouldn't react to stories that make them mad but should instead try to spend some time looking for what the truth behind that story is.
++++++
IMHO, I believe that the above is who Christian really are.
Problem is that "faith" is a personal experience and when it comes to personal feelings and beliefs - "one size does not fit all".

just sayin'

Anatomy of a curfluffle

2010-07-17T09:53:00.000-07:00

I have a friend who had taken an interest in the new iPhone.
She isn't particularly an Apple fan (she uses a PC) or even "into" gadgets really but because her company was changing data plans and she was going to have to turn in her old data phone. One of her choices is the new iPhone4.

Two days after she got this news, the storm about the iPhone's dropped call problem hit the press.

Being an engineer, she researched the issue and a few days later told me that she had never seen so much made over, for what most people, would actually be a non-issue. Apparently, if you are using the iPhone with any kind of protective cover on it the "antenna issue" goes away. As my friend said, "Who in the world has a phone this expensive and doesn't put a protective case on it?"

Now let's be frank, having the caseless phone hang-up because you have held it "wrong", is a flaw. My cell phone is like that. Put a careless finger on the wrong button and it hangs up. My cordless phone at home has a similar flaw. The button to disconnect is located such that if you get lazy and hold it to close to your head ... your jawbone hits it and the call is over (I've had several users besides myself do this with the phone). I've had to train myself not to use these devices in that manor and that "solves" the problem but it still doesn't make it less a flaw.

It's also true, that Apple should have immediately updated their instructions for the phone to say ... don't touch the phone "there" during a call. Also, providing any old, cheep-o case would have also have been a nice touch.

None of this though, would seem to warrant the world wide media attention that this has received. My friend was remarking on this and having given it some thought I was able to explain it to her as follows.

- The people who write the tech and gadget review articles are, of course, "Super Users". If you are going to get a guy to review a computer product, you just naturally hire the most knowledgeable computer geek you can lay your hands on. Usually, these are the people who not only write their own software but can field strip a PC in an airport waiting terminal and rebuild it with mail order parts to make it 17 times faster then it was when it came from the factory!

... and this is exactly why these people have never, ever, EVER "gotten" the Mac.
Macs were designed to give complete tech-tards the ability to use a computer to do their work, communicate over the internet and yes, even create passable music/video/photos.
Apple cleverly realized that there is a huge segment of the consumer public who (like with the automobile) don't want to have to know how it works ... they just want to use it!

So here you have these reviewers who simply can't wrap their giant brains around why there is any demand for the Mac in the first place and when you add in the way Apple has done a phenomenal marketing job of making their products THE THING for pop culture to want to own as a status symbol, it simply enrages the "experts".

They become like sharks, constantly circling, looking for any opportunity to strike. They want desperately to prove to the general public that they are wrong to like the i(whatever) and this dropped call flaw was like blood in the water to them. They rapidly spun out articles and blog posts proclaiming what a complete failure the iPhone and Apple and Steve jobs were and this finally once and for all proved it.

Of course, with that kind of buzz going on it wasn't anytime at all until the "mainstream media" began covering the issue, usually just reprinting or quoting from the articles that had already been posted by "the experts".

From there it is just the snowball effect and THAT is how a fairly unremarkable flaw turns into world wide media frenzy.

For my friend's part, she told me this morning that three of her coworker's have now had their iPhones for the last week. Keeping in mind that these people are not IT or computer geeks, they report that even with AT&T's service issues ... they don't know how they ever did their job before they had their iPhones.

The Bush burns on.

2010-06-28T13:27:00.000-07:00

Oh WHEN will people stop blaming Bush for all of the things he has done to us!

+++++++++++++

CHART OF THE DAY: Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault.

Gregory White and Kamelia Angelova | The Business Insider

President Obama's administration has been blamed for reckless spending that has put America into its debt hole. But in reality, much of that spending emanates from policies of President Bush, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

They argue that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts (along with the economic downturn) are what is driving the U.S. deficit, not stimulus spending.

The chart presents the ugly truth.

The Business Insider covers new media, venture capital, entrepreneurship and the digital landscape. You can find the original version of this story here.

From the Dept. of Things You Might Not Know.

2010-05-06T19:16:00.000-07:00

Did you know that nearly half of the oil produced from the Gulf Coast states ... is shipped over seas? That's right.

In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration databases (you can see more on this report here - http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/gulf_oil_exports.html), between 2003 and 2008 (while we were at war in Iraq to secure their oil for our consumption) U.S. oil exports nearly doubled.

Yep, all of that wailing and gnashing of teeth about the need to "drill baby drill" because we sooooo desperately need that oil here in the U.S. ...
... only apparently we don't need that oil as much as Mexico, Canada, and the Netherlands, or perhaps we're not willing to pay as much.

So "we the people" shoulder all the risk (and now the nightmarish cost) of drilling offshore while other countries get the oil and a handful of corporations pocket the cash.

Ain't it cool ?

... AND SOME MORE ... (added 5/11/10)
Here is a bit more to ponder over.
News stories yesterday touted the fact that BP had spent $350 million so far in it's oil spill damage control efforts.
Before anyone gets all teary-eyed about this though, they should know that last year BP's NET profit (that is how much "mad money" they had left over after they paid all their bills) was 20.09 BILLION dollars. That means that at the end of EVERY day of the year, when they went to empty their pockets, they had another 55 MILLION dollars to throw into their spare change jar.

So, it will only take BP 6 days to make back all the money they just spent on this mess. Of course, that is not taking into account the fact that BP (and every Corporation for that mater) was insured against damaged caused by such accidents.

Somewhere, BP had a group of engineers and accountants do a cost benifit study that showed it was much more profitable to opperate their rigs with the minimal safety standards they could get by with and then pay for clean-up in the statistically low chance they had an catastrophe.

When you look at the numbers it is clear that BP could aford to opperate at the maximum safety level and to maintain a quick response force to prevent what is now happening. They (and ever other oil company) could clearly do this and still make a NET profit. They just wouldn't be making as much of a profit.

THIS is where a corporation's priority is. NOT in the publics best interest or even in the National interest. It is first and foremost in the interest of their stockholders.

This holds true for the Corporations that run the Nuclear Power industry as well. They're only interested in as much safety as they can get by with and their plan for dealing with catastrophic failure is to count on it's statistical likely-hood of not happening.

Ask the business owners along the Gulf Coast what they think about statistically low probabilities.

Bogus e-mail inrages terrorist

2010-03-31T15:25:00.000-07:00

So there you have it.

In my last post I postulated on how the simple act of forwarding bogus e-mails, urban legends and political scree - could further terror.

Well, now we have a real world example.
While clearly, this domestic terrorist was surrounded by an enviroment of hate, distrust and good old fashion "bat shit crazy" ... it is fake e-mails like the one mentioned below that can push that sort of the person over the edge. From simple fear filled, ignorance based, hatered ... to a person who takes up arms and plans to kill other citizens.

Don't tell me that no one is hurt by SPAM.
++++++++++++++++

TPMMuckraker

Hutaree Member Angered By Fake Hamas Resettlement Bill

Justin Elliott | March 31, 2010, 4:04PM

The Detroit Free Press notices that charged Hutaree militia member Tina Stone bemoaned the passage of H.R. 1388 on her Facebook page recently. That bill has been the subject of a false chain email that warns President Obama provided money to settle Hamas members in the United States.

(Stone made the statements on the same page that features the militia wedding photos we told you about yesterday.)

"H.B. 1388 Passed.... It's bad news for us all," she wrote.

She added: "I'm peeved,,, when people in this country is getting kicked out of there homes everyday and our government passes a bill to spend more then 20 billion dollars to bring Hamas here and supplies them with food and homes that just wrong."

It's pretty clear that Stone got these bogus ideas about H.R. 1388 from a chain email that has been thoroughly debunked by factcheck.org.

The email warns: "Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines..."

According to factcheck.org, the bill "actually expands AmeriCorps and other federal public service programs, more than tripling the total number of positions to 250,000."

"Careless Forwards Further Terror!"

2010-01-12T20:19:00.000-08:00

I have a problem with relatives who like to urgently forward Urban Myths to me - usually warning me of some impending doom brought on by the current Presidential Administration, Nancy Pelosi, or Bill Clinton (which I find quite odd as he hasn't been in office for well over a decade!) but sometimes it is due to "The Media"® (which doesn't include Fox News for some reason) or some corporation that didn't donate to the "Tea Baggers" (which IS Fox News ... but I digress).

When ever I get these bits off bad fiction I quickly go to Snopes.com, find the link to the e-mail they have just forwarded to me (and EVERYone on their list) and send them proof of the HOAX they have just particpated in. I then gently (though not as gently now as the years of this drag on) suggest they go to Snopes and check this stuff out before forwarding it.

Of course, they still never bother to check these e-mails out. It's aways, "Grab your torch and pitchfork first - worry about those pesky 'facts' later."

As I was reading through this latest bit of sludge that fictitiously told of some guy who had predicted some attack (on Fox News of course) that later came true ... I started looking at these bits of fiction in a new light. Since I feel certain I am not the only one on the Internet who suffers from these "Spam who cried Wolf" friends ... I thought I would share my response.

Feel free to copy it and send it to your Uncle next time he sends you that bit about the Twin Towers being an inside job done by Bill Clinton.

++++
Good news! Snopes says your latest e-mail is a Hoax so you needn't fret about it.

It has gotten me thinking though.

Since the original creator of this piece of fiction meant to generate an atmosphere fear, distrust and growing terror among U.S. citizens, shouldn't that person be considered a terrorist?
If you and I in turn (even unwittingly), help to spread this sort of fear by passing along a terrorist created e-mail, are we ourselves aiding in an act of terrorism?

The more I think about it, terror e-mails like this could be considered the modern equivalent of the propaganda pamphlets that enemy armies used to drop from aircraft over cities and towns?
With e-mail though, just one initial attack might reach hundreds of thousands of civilians, striking directly into their homes and actually using the unwitting civilians themselves to launch the NEXT wave of terror and misinformation on their own friends and family ... simply by hitting the "Forward" button!

When you think about how little a "hoax" e-mail messages costs the enemy, this then is a very diabolical and cost effective tool in the terrorist's arsenal. We've been hearing for years that wars would someday be fought in "cyber space". Bogus e-mails like the one you were fooled into sending me could very well be the opening shots in that war!

Given all this, I pledge to check and double check any "Warning", "Cautionary tale", or "Anti U.S. Government/Personnel" e-mails that get forwarded to me - before I forward them myself.
I for one, refuse to voluntarily be used by terrorist/anti-American forces to help them spread their messages of fear and hate! I would like to encourage all of my friends and family to join me in this fight against the spread of terror and hope you would encourage your friends to do so as well.

Remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships" ? Well, this is "Careless Forwards Further Terror!"

What a difference a year makes.

2009-11-30T17:38:00.000-08:00

A little over a year ago, a close friend of mine was chosen by her company to attend a GOP fund-raiser. Her company paid a zillion dollars and in exchange, she and a handful of other VIP's from her Defense contractor, engineering firm were going to get to go through a line and shake hands with President Bush, then get to sit and listen to an hour of speeches.

For this to happen, her company had to write the big check and then submit the names of those who were going to attend so they could be vetted (I assume by the Secret Service).
Actually, getting to the event itself was a whole other story.

Although it was being held in a public convention center, the Secret Service had cordoned off a two block area around the facility, to include a public park. NO ONE gets in. In order to attend this event, my friend had to drive to a separate parking lot some miles away where she was to be screened again before being allowed to board a bus. The bus was then to take these vetted and thoroughly screened, paying guests to the event where they would be screened again before entering the venue.

Fast forward to a little over a year later. Now we have a new President at his first State function. An event in the White House itself. A facility where the most state of the art surveillance and screening equipment have been in place for some time now.
Yet, a couple merely playing the part of guests, two people who apparently didn't even have to produce any credentials what so ever, are allowed by the Secret Service to merely walk in the front door and shake hands with the leader of the free world.

This is simply unfathomable to me.

In a time in which public already has very little trust in our governments ability to do it's job, it would seem our secret service couldn't even manage to perform the most very basic function of their job, checking credentials at the door, in order to protect a Democrat President. Our first Black President. A President who had received a record number of death threats before he even swore the oath of office.

I just can't even begin to understand this incident. Because the simplest answers are simply unconscionable.

Unemployment - can you handle the truth ?

2009-11-19T14:00:00.000-08:00

With all this talk about a "jobless recovery" and claims that we can't actually have a recovery unless the job situation gets back to normal, I've begun to question what normal really is (was?).

Looking at an "unemployment rate" graph from google, I see that since 1990 during any given 4 year Presidential term, the most the rate has changed (up or down) is about 3%.

I picked the "4 year term" time period because (right or wrong) "we the people" seem to correlate unemployment directly to actions taken (or not taken) by a Presidential administration. I only went back to 1990 because that was the only graphed data I could find at the moment.

So ... after the cataclysmic economic events in the Fall of 08, in which the unemployment rate spiked nearly 6% to a high of now 10.2% , the most we should seem to rationally expect out of an administration would be to lower that back down to around 7%
To get unemployment back down to the 4 - 5 % range would take the sort of extraordinary economic prowess not shown by either party in nearly 2 decades.

However, even that wouldn't really be "back to normal".

From the beginning of the Bush Presidency until the extraordinary events in the Fall of 2008, the unemployment rate only decreased 0.1%
Yes, they did have about a 3% change between their high and their low but in the end, almost 8 years later, all their efforts just managed to hold unemployment steady.

But the job scene was changing rapidly.
Corporate America was in full scale "right-sizing" mode and was trying to trim as much "fat" as they could get away with. The outsourcing of work to foreign countries and even the relocating of corporate headquarters was in high gear. Jobs were disappearing at a voracious rate.

The main thing that prevented the unemployment rates from drastically climbing during the last administration was long unemployed workers being dropped from the unemployment rolls and a massive amount of Government hiring.
The birth of the Office of Homeland Security was the creation of one of the largest, open-ended Government programs since Social Security! This massive expansion of the Federal Government helped to offset the number of "private" jobs that were being lost.

Where we now stand.

Pun-dents keep talking about the Obama stimulus effort not "creating jobs" yet "normal" would be to just stop the bleeding and hold steady where we are. As for actually lowering the unemployment rate, that may be a dream of decades long gone. With productivity on the rise (doing more with less) and overhead now as lean as it has been in decades, does it really make sense for corporations to return to the "bloated days" and hire all these U.S. workers back?

What about massive government spending to create jobs? The public didn't so much as bat an eyelash at the previous administration for doing this. Now though, with a LOT of cheer-leading from FAUX News and Hate Radio, it seems that the public has no stomach for the current administration's suggestions for doing the same.

So now what?

I really couldn't say but I do know that it is past time to embrace the changing reality of the U.S. employment situation and start making plans based on what we face and NOT on nostalgia for an era gone by.

Good news about the "TARP"

2009-03-12T05:27:00.000-07:00

With everyone taking their shots at the administration's plans to save our necks, I thought I might share this example of where "Troubled Asset Relief Program" IS working.
Seems it can work when you can find bankers who want to make it work.

How the TARP Should Work: A Prime Example

One other note;
The Republicans are on a massive PR tour to try to talk up the amount of "pork" that was in the budget that got passed yesterday. They keep throwing out figures that are specifically tweaked to try and enrage the masses.
What they are NOT telling you is that the amount of earmarked projects that are in this Omnibus budget have been reduced to just 2% of the total. One of the lowest amounts of such spending in a long, long time.

BTW: I saw an interview with one of the chief Republican congressmen who is attacking the amount of earmarks in this budget. When the reporter pointed out the millions that had been put in for earmarked projects in HIS state, he said he would put those items back IN the budget if they were to get removed. Apparently it is only "pork" when the money goes to someone else.
Hypocrite.

Take. A. Deep. Breath.

2009-03-04T07:03:00.000-08:00

If you watch CNBC or pay any attention to the news, you may be ready to throw your hands into the air and yell "We're screwed".

Commentator after commentator gets in front of a camera and talks about what is wrong with the Obama administration's economic plans and why they won't work.
This is where the controlled breathing needs to come into play.

Last Friday, the non-stop cry on CNBC was how terrible it was that The White House was leading us towards the "Nationalization" of our financial institutions. On Monday afternoon of this week though, the CNBC "Fast Money" folks were just tearing into the President because he wasn't going to "Nationalize the banks and get it over with".

Anecdotally speaking, if you had 10 "experts" come on CNBC to talk about what we need to do to fix this problem, the 1st might say that the President's plan was exactly what was needed and the other 9 would say it's the wrong direction.
However, if you took ANY of the other 9 and adopted ONE of their plans you would get the same "wrong direction" reaction from the remaining 9 "experts" !

It is also important to keep in mind that many of these "experts" represent the failed economic policies of the previous administration and they are just as terrified that this administration's plans WILL work as those who are worried that they won't! Also, many more of these "experts" are far more worried about what the stock market will get out of all of this then they are worried about how "mainstreet America" will fare. When a corporation ships it's work overseas, it's profits and stock price go up while life for it's former employees just gets more desperate.

The bottom line? Right now, there is simply NO consensus on how to fix things. We are in un-charted waters here. This global economic disaster is not like anything that has come before it. While there are many "plans" out there, none has any more support among the "experts" than does President Obama's.

This President is a very smart man. We trusted him enough to elect him. Giving up on him before his plans have even had a chance to be implemented just doesn't make sense.

"Confused" Grampa, Thriftfully Drives Car Off Cliff !

2009-02-06T09:03:00.000-08:00

Old Grampa's confused state may make him a cute and cuddly member of the family ... but would you really pick him to lead you and your family out of a burning office building?

The group that is currently getting the most press coverage as they attack President Obama's stimulus efforts, has decided to choose Senator John McCain as their leader.

John McCain, the man who admitted just a few months ago that,

“The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” (Boston Globe,12/18/07),

and then at the GOP debate in Fla clearly demonstrated his economic cluelessness by stating,

“I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong.” (GOP Debate, Myrtle Beach, FNC, 1/10/08)

Yes, this very same man is now saying that he has all the answers and we should scrap the plan of the man we just chose as our President and instead, follow him.
Either he has copious amounts of audacity or he suffers from short term memory loss.Or perhaps, both.

Still, he just might succeed in gathering a mob. Because, while the President is giving us the straight, hard news - Senator McCain is telling everyone what they want to hear.
This man, who told us that he didn't really understand the economy, is now saying that with his plan we can fix the economy at half the cost.
Swell.

Our economy is very very sick and the danger with Senator McCain's fairytale ending is that we will skimp on our unpopular meds, taking less then the prescribed dosage to save money.
The result? Instead of spending $850 billion and being on the road to recovery - we will have spent just $421 billion and be even sicker then we are now.

Specialists, (people who's profession IS understanding the economy) have prescribed some nasty tasting, VERY expensive medicine. No one wants to have to do this thing, Mr. McCain but sometimes you have to make the tough choices and you have to be strong and you have to take your medicine - ALL OF IT.

Thank you Mr. President

2009-02-04T15:13:00.000-08:00

In a press conference today, President Obama finally spoke out against his critics and said what I had been writing here for days.

http://tinyurl.com/bsfxom

Obama said the criticisms he has heard "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems."

"I reject those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," said the president, who was elected with an Electoral College landslide last fall and enjoys high public approval ratings at the outset of his term.

President Obama continues to "reach across the isle" and allow the Republicans to have their say on what spending items stay or go ... but it's time for them to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer steering this ship.

Welfare queen

2009-02-03T06:13:00.000-08:00

Some of you kids out there may not remember this term. It was heavily used during Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he described a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side. In this "made for sound bite" tale, there was a woman receiving government assistance and she had supposedly used the money to buy a Cadillac and was living the "high life" on the Tax payer's money.

Soon, the far right was in full on "foaming at the mouth mode", crying out against an imagine army of "project" dwelling freeloaders.

All of this was far from the truth of course. While you can always find a handful of people to support ANY stereotype (especially when you are talking about the MILLIONS that require government assistance just to survive) this "living the high-life on taxpayer money" just wasn't a reality. Those that were abusing government assistance were a barely visable blip on the budget radar screen. The Reagan mob could have had every one of those who were mis-using their "welfare" checks shipped off to Gitmo and it wouldn't have reduced the money that was needed by even a 10th of a percent.

Still, the OUTRAGE behind this idea - the idea that ANYONE would take Government assistance and selfishly spend it on themselves - was pivotal in swinging voters to Reagan's side.

Fast foreword to NOW.

Through a series of VERY bad financial decisions based on terrible and inept judgment at best and simple greed at worst, Wall Street financial firms have destroyed themselves and much of this nations economy. Wasting no time, they marched into Congress and demanded that the Taxpayers bail them out of this mess or they were going to take everyone down with them.
So congress wrote them some REALLY BIG WELFARE CHECKS with the intention that they use that money to continue making payroll, pay their debts and lend it to Americans in need.

Instead, these modern day Welfare Queens used the money to go shopping for smaller banks, to prop up banks overseas, to share with their stock holders, and to pay themselves multi million dollar bonuses.
They took tax payer assistance money, meant to keep their doors open and paid themselves bonuses for the previous years disastrous efforts. Do you know how many Cadillacs 1 million dollars is?

Why is what they are doing any different then what the Regan administration was vilifying?

Where is the national outrage?

Pot calling kettle, come in kettle ...

2009-02-02T05:54:00.000-08:00

Hang on, the spin is going into top speed.

The Republican's cry "PORK" over and over again but have you heard even one of them give any hard figures about how much of the proposed stimulus package they actually consider "pork"?
No, you haven't.
That's because all their rhetoric is just a smoke screen. If you cut everything out of this package that they don't like ... the price tag STILL doesn't drop below $800 billion!
In fact, since the bill has left the House and the President has continued to press the Republicans for their input ... the price tag has actually gone up! Gone up to the point that the President has had to instruct them to try and keep it under $900 billion.

The Republicans are crying crocodile tears, making a big spectacle over how expensive this is because they know how appalling it is to the tax payers. In reality though, they have no intention of reducing the price tag by ANY appreciable amount.
They just hope that if they protest about it loudly enough, the public will be duped into thinking they had nothing to do with it. They're patting the public on the head with one hand while slapping them in the face with the other.

In this together ... or are we?

2009-01-30T10:50:00.000-08:00

As I watch the disciples of the failed, "trickle down economics" policies going rabid on CNBC ... It is becoming apparent that these people fear President Obama's success FAR much more then they do the consequences of another depression.
IF the President is correct with his economic theories and if he can turn this country around ... it might once and for all show these frauds for what they are - rellics of fanatical false religion.
I honestly believe they would rather see this country fail then to see the President be right.

One should also keep in mind that this sort of failure actually benefits the super rich who have received the special tax cuts for the last 8 years. When the economy turns down like it has and companies get in financial trouble, they don't just disappear. What happens is that their assets are quickly gobbled up by those same sort of individuals and companies who actually profited from the sale of all the "toxic" loans that helped get us here.

PLUS, strong companies who are still profitable - but that have seen their stock prices pulled down by the weight of the market(many by more than half!) suddenly find themselves becoming targets of hostel take overs as the robber barons swoop in to buy them out for pennies on the dollar. The result? In the end the very few will own even more and have even more power.

No, not everyone wants This President to rescue our economy and some are working very hard to keep him from doing so.

Bipartisanship does not equal capitulation

2009-01-29T05:07:00.000-08:00

Some how, the Republicans have got it in their head that "Bipartisanship" means the Democrats should roll over on their backs and do what ever the Republicans want. Worse still, they are pounding away at the nations news outlets, pathetically bleating to anyone with a microphone about how horrible they are being treated. They are doing a hard sell to the American people who tend to believe who ever gets the last word in.

Let's make this clear. The country picked Obama to be their President because they WANT to go in the direction he has put forward. "Bipartisanship" DOES NOT MEAN that he should abandon his plan in order to follow the Republican's in the direction THEY wanted to go in.

What "Bipartisanship" does mean, is that the Republicas have a say in how we proceed in the direction that the President has chosen. It's a pretty clear distinction.

What is really going on here, is that the Republicans want to spend just as much money as the Democrats do ... the Republicans just don't like who the money is going to. President Obama has decided that we need to spend 1/3 the money on Tax cuts for small businesses and the lower/middle income tax payers. This isn't a "rebate". It is actually an emediate reduction in the amount that the Government takes out of your paycheck. The other 2/3rds he wants to spend on infrastructure projects (creates jobs, helps make the country safer, helps us face our energy needs) and for things like helping working Americans keep their homes. This is intended to insure our country continues to not only recover but get financially stronger and quite frankly, safer from foreign interests.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are insisting that ALL the money go for tax cuts for industries, major corporations and the top 2% income earners in America. Does that sound familure ? It is the same course they had us on for the last 10 years. The course that ran us right into an economic iceburg. A course they promised to continue if we voted for their candidate for president.
We didn't.

Let's make this perfectly clear to these people. WE VOTED YOUR IDEA DOWN SO QUIT TRYING TO SHOVE IT DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!!

President Obama is following the course that "we the people have voted on" so it's time to quit pouting and acting hurt because he won't follow your plan and start acting like the adults this country needs right now.
This 1/3 - 2/3 split in spending is the plan - so how about putting on your "big boy pants" and serving this country by helping to insure the infrastructure projects and the homeowner assistance projects and such, are the ones that are going to give us the best bang for the money spent.

The election is over. We have chosen someone ELSE to lead us. Your job now is to help make the President's plan the best it can be ... not to decide which plan we follow.

... by their own sword.

2009-01-21T06:24:00.000-08:00

As I watch Republicans on CNBC this morning, swooning all over themselves about cooperation and "bi-partisanship" - I am thinking how lucky they are that Hilary Clinton isn't their new President.

When you think about the unprecedented powers that the Bush administration gave itself and how Dick Cheney declared that the Office of Vice President was not part of Congress and wasn't part of the Executive branch and therefor was answerable to NO ONE ... the Republicans should be giving joyous thanks that the new administration is headed by a man who seems to embrace civility and inclusiveness.

Somehow, I don't believe Senator Clinton would be NEARLY so gracious towards the party that, for the 6 years they controlled both Congress and the White House, made it abundantly clear that the democrats should just shut up and go away. Anyone who even questioned the ruling party was branded as anti-American and even traitorous. When the Democrats, who were excluded from Republican run hearings and meetings, tried to hold their own meetings - the Republicans had the sound systems shut down and the room lights turned off.

Do you remember how former President Bush had the U.S. Attorney General draft a memo stating that "During a time of War (even one declared solely by the President) - ANY action that the President took in Defense of the Country (with "defense of the country" being defined by the President himself) was fully lawful?

Now, imagine THAT power being handed to Senator Clinton. One of the very Senators the Republicans disenfranchised and a human being whom the Republican party has personally attacked and vilified.

Yeah, a part of me really wishes we could see that happen. There is nothing quite as satisfying as seeing a bully get the living crap kicked out of him. NOT stooping to those sort of base desires and bullying tactics, may perhaps be the biggest obstacle preventing the Democratic party from making this world a better place. It is also what separates the good guys from the bad guys.

So in the end, we have a President who already appears to be trying to build a representative government that INCLUDES people from a vast variety of views and opinions.
... and at least at this point, the Republicans should be counting their blessings because President Obama does NOT seem interested in retribution and comeuppance.

No mater how "Just" that might be, it's not in the best interest of this country's future.

Inauguration Day - Whew!

2009-01-20T13:49:00.000-08:00

So, following the words he spoke at his inauguration "choose hope over fear"- he got out and walked (twice) ... and nothing bad happened.
Very relieved. :)

So I guess it's time to get on with the business of righting this ship of state.

One other note - I hear pundits throwing out that President Obama's (oooo, that's the first time I've gotten to type that!) campaign raised more money then any in history and also that this is the most expensive inauguration in history.

To those folks I would say, "What is your point?"
Look at the last inauguration ... most expensive in history, so were the 4 before that. Same with the last winning campaigns. Is that a good thing? I don't think so.
However, anyone who is trying to imply that this President has somehow done something unusual in this department ... is simply trying to manufacture a story.

Find me a winning campaign or inauguration that is cheaper then the one before it and THAT will be a story!

Inaguration Day - so far ... so good

2009-01-20T10:14:00.000-08:00

Tentative sigh of relief as the swearing in went without incident.

Now for the parade. They are saying more then 1.2 million were on the mall to watch the Oath of Office. Now many of them are trying to get to the parade route ... that was already filled with people who camped out there. Now hearing that it is officially maxed out at 300,000 people and they are still coming.

It's a large crowd.
Hopefully they will remember the spirit of the occasion.

Inaguration Day - a NEW day

2009-01-20T07:31:00.000-08:00

Overwhelmed.

Inaguration Day - security

2009-01-20T07:15:00.000-08:00

Security.
Security.Security.Security.

I believe that this day is what is known as "testing their metal". I pray they are up to the task.

Things we don't like to think about -
Nearly our entire Government is in one target zone. Supreme Court Justices, legislators and Executive branch.
With one successful attack our system of government would suddenly change ... at least temporarily.

Apparently, Senator Obama's choice for Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, will be sitting out the event at an "undisclosed military base outside the target zone".
http://tinyurl.com/95d2bg
Being sixth in the presidential line of succession, he was selected as "designated successor" during Obama's inauguration should we suffer a worst case scenario.

Robert Gates was also W. Bush's Defense Secretary and was director of the CIA under Bush Sr.

Inaguration Day

2009-01-20T06:12:00.000-08:00

Like everyone else in the world (it seems) I have a lot of thoughts about this day.

So as the day goes on I may try to post those ideas here, probably in a rambling and disjointed fashion. Not sure why but for this morning it feels like the thing to do.

First off - Not to be a downer ... but I am a little afraid of a "joy" hangover. Obama may be the smartest man we have had as a President in a long time but our countries current problems are serious and complicated and there is no quick solution.
Here is something I shared earlier on "The Deadpan" forum.

Obama is being handed the keys to a ship that has struck an iceburg and is half under water … oh and on their way into their own private lifeboat, the previous crew plundered all the cash and then set the place on fire. They lost the authority to decide which direction the ship is headed … so they have badly crippled it to make sure it won’t be going anywhere for the next 4 to 5 years. Very shrewd.

Let’s hope America TRULY grasps the reality of how badly the previous management has trashed the place … and will have the patients for how long it will take to clean up this historic mess!
Otherwise it’s going to be one heck of a hangover TOMORROW morning when America wakes up and realize that the ship is STILL on fire and STILL sinking.

8:46am (We'll see if I keep adding to this or make new posts for each entry)
I know that some of my gay friends are dissapointed with Obama's choice of Evangilist Christain, Rick Warren to give his invocation today. As it turns out, there are other groups feeling slighted too -
http://tinyurl.com/aykkcp
Missing from the Inaugural Dais: Rabbis and Priests

Yep, Catholics and Jews want to voice their desent. I'm guessing they can get in line with the Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu and Baha'i clergy that also won't be at the podium.
But you know who I think will be the MOST annoyed at Obama's decision to go with an all "Evangelical Protestant Ceremony"? It will be the "hate radio" folks and their sheep listeners (like a 70 year old relative of mine) who STILL insist that Obama is Musluem.

Oh, they will continue to believe he is Musluem but it will make them have to work that much harder to maintain their delusion.
Sen. Obama is a smart man and I see this as another "well thought out" move to prove his critics wrong.

A modest proposal.

2008-11-12T14:09:00.000-08:00

As you probably know, this last election carried several proposals involving gay marriage.
Like anything involved with any marriage the issue is emotionally charged.

After listening to and reading quite a bit of commentary on the issue, I have noticed several topics that are frequently brought up in this debate that REALLY need to be corrected.

First - we should make absolutely clear that being homosexual means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. It does NOT mean you are attracted to children. That is a pedophile and is a completely seperate thing. Reported cases of rape, incest and abuse are far more likely to come from those who identify themselves as heterosexual (simply due to the percentages involved) ... and not infrequently, married heterosexuals.
Bringing up things like incest, abuse and pedophileia in this discussion is a "bait and switch tactic" and frankly could be a charge leveled by the gay community as a strike against the "straight" community.

Secondly - the idea that "We the People" must marry for the sake of breeding or we will die out, is ludicras. This scenario went extinct well over a century ago (in the US) and yet somehow people still want to desperately cling to it.

Homosexuals didn't just show up on some space ship. They have been around since man has been around and they have been in our population, mostly in hiding, since the first sailors set foot here.
Yet, the US population has grown steadily and at an ever increasing pace since the turn of the century. Acknowledging the presence of what has been here all along is NOT going to suddenly stop population growth. It's time for people to stop letting themselves be frightened by this fairy tale.

Finally - marriage under assualt? Hardly.
The census numbers show that marriage has been in steady increase since the 60's. A search of both the census bureau web site and the CDC didn't show the data listed by percentages but the numbers themselves have increased steadily.
Also, data prior to 1950 is actually hard to quantify due to the way it was collected. No one went door to door back then asking if you were a single parent and if you were married or divorced like they did AFTER 1950. They just counted the number of divorce papers that had been granted and were still on file.

Lower divorce rates pre 1950 simply DO NOT equate to more successful marriages.
The fact that people weren't tracked with social security numbers like they are now, meant that men didn't have to spend the time, expense or embarrassment of going through a divorce. They could just LEAVE their families and start over somewhere else with absolutely no record being left behind. Further, men were considered legal head of the household so even if a woman was allowed to file for a divorce, it was unlike it would be granted until the judge had heard from the husband.
On top of that, having the money to file for a divorce simply wasn't an option available to many women then.

This cake is a lie people.
Marriages failed in the past just as often as they do now ... back in "the good old days" there was just less "official" divorce and more people living in their own personal hell with no hope of escape.

Final thought (for now)
Here is the most important point I would make.

Homosexuality is not some fad. Just because you deny them the right to have their unions recognized as a "legal" marriage, does not mean that they will just give-up and go away.

I don't know how many people we are talking about here but it is has proven to be a rather substantial economic and voting block. These are your neighbors, doctors, lawyers, teachers, public officials and even clergy and like it or not, society has already begun changing to fit them in. Yet, how all of this "fitting in" turns out is still very much up in the air.

If those representing "gay marriage opposition" want to have any say in how this "fitting in" will occur it is time for them to stop pretending that this will all just blow over.

"Society" is not something carved in stone. It is liquid. Sometimes a raging river, sometimes a peaceful spring but always moving. Things are going to change. They always have and they always will. Those that oppose gay rights and gay marriage would be doing themselves and the whole of society a great service if they would uncover their eyes and ears and step up to help find some middle-ground.

It is time to start behaving like responsible adults and start working together to ease society through this change rather then acting like frighten children, being dragged kicking and screaming into an inevitable future.

I don't know what the solution to this conflict is but I do know that if you don't join in to help shape the solution you shouldn't expect the outcome to be anything you like.

My message to Republicans

2008-11-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

Like everyone else in this country (and apparently the world) I'll have a lot to say about this election but I wanted to start with this.

As an Obama supporter (I am not a Democrat) I have heard a lot of spin doctors tell you Republican's what I want to do to you. Well, hopefully the noise has died down enough now that you might be able to hear ME tell you what I hope your future holds.

I wish for you, increased economic prosperity and a renewed and strengthened national security.
I hope to see our government reinstate freedoms you had 8 years ago and to see them leave you alone to worship, love and marry as you see fit.

That's it. No malice. No vengeance.

So, you may still think that President Elect Obama's ideas will not achieve these goals but you shouldn't feel any persecution. I simply want better times for every American and I'd hope you would now be pulling for the same outcome.

Modern Day Gangsters

2008-10-17T05:32:00.000-07:00

Hedge Funds - these are companies that take their investors money and use it to "sell short". That is, to place bets that a companies stock price will go down.

However, they are not required to say which companies they have shorted. The result is that they can massively short a company and regular investors won't know that this is what is happening. All they will know is that suddenly there is a LOT of negative sentiment about that company ... this causes THEM to sell (or buy shorts of there own) and further drives the price down.
... but wait, it get's better!
These hedge funds were allowed to short a company like Lehman Brothers (now out of business) and then buy insurance on them - betting that the company wouldn't be able to meet it's financial obligations.

The Securities and Exchange commission allowed these hedge funds to buy over 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance on the 100 Billion in debt that Lehman brothers had.

So here is the summary.
The Hedge funds made big bets that Lehman Brother's price would go down.
Then these funds were allowed to buy insurance (more then 3 times what they were worth) that paid them if Lehman Brothers got in financial trouble. Then the funds actively started rumors that Lehman was in trouble because the were so heavily shorted. This caused the companies to be downgraded by financial analysts. Which increased the stocks downward spiral and resulted in a capital problem at Lehman that kept them from meeting there debt and ran them out of business.

You get to pick up the tab.
So it seems that a major percentage of these more then 300 Billion in insurance policies that hedge funds were allowed (by the government) to take out against Lehman Bros. ... were written by AIG.
Since then the Government (our tax dollars) has stepped in and bailed out AIG, becoming part owners of that company.

So on Oct. 21st, you and I will have to pay these hedge funds the 300 Billion dollars worth of insurance policies they placed on 100 Billion in assets that they themselves then destroyed when they made a killing on there "short sells" of the company.

All of this was legal and had the blessing of lawmakers who are STILL screaming that "DEregulation" of the financial industry is the key to success.

Theirs perhaps ... but certainly NOT this country's.

Scare Tactics - does this seem familure?

2008-10-15T07:28:00.000-07:00

Once again, reasonable America (the "middle" majority), is left wondering why the two candidates can't simply run on their ideas. Why can't they just present their plans and let us pick the one we like?

If you believe the economy is best served by giving tax breaks to Corporations with the idea that they might in turn share some of that with the bulk of the public ... then say so and be proud of your stance.
If you believe the economy is best served by giving the tax cuts directly to the bulk of the public so that they have the money to go and BUY those corporation's products ... then make THAT point and let the public decided which plan they like the best.

What McCain is doing instead, is attempting to resuscitate the threadbare narrative which holds that Obama, by merit of color and heritage, is something foreign, something scary, something not of us.

While speakers at McCain rallies have taken once again to chanting Obama's middle name -- Hussein, Gov. Sarah Palin has been, accusing Obama of ''palling around'' with terrorists. The senator maliciously told an audience that Obama doesn't like the troops and doesn't see America ''the way you and I see America.'' McCain himself has been muttering ''Who is the real Barack Obama?'

That many McCain supporters embrace such words (and deeds?) is plain from the racial invective, death threats and visceral anger of his recent rallies. Enough that the senator was required -- to a chorus of boos -- to ask them to dial it down.

It's an offensive argument, yes. But in a nation such as ours that has been subjected to 8 years of planned divisiveness and incessant fear mongering from it's ruling party, it is also a dangerous one.

Nice work, Dubya.

2008-10-02T16:48:00.000-07:00

Trashing the U.S. economy so that immigrants won't want to come here seems counter productive. Then again, "Counter Productive" is the Bush Administrations Legacy.

Read more here -
Illegal immigration declines as U.S. economy falters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/ap_on_re_us/illegal_immigration

Duck and cover - Palin Speaks

2008-10-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

When ask by a voter on Monday what SHE would do about Pakistan, Sarah Palin gave an answer similar to Barack Obama. Problem is John McCain chided Obama during Friday's presidential debate for taking that stance.

Once again, she has blamed her misstatement on being ask a question she hadn't been given an answer to and on the media for telling everyone about it.

As she wants to be on standby for the office of the President, you have to ask "What part of "strong leadership" is any of that?"

You can read the article here -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pakistan;_ylt=AhYonm6uz6flazEQo9zgCJTCw5R4

Taxing my patients.

2008-09-29T07:27:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing that the RNC is REALLY good at, it's repeating , misinformation until the average Joe thinks it's the true.

I still have people (whom I consider intellegent and aware) telling me, "But I hear from non-"Faux News" sources that Obama is going to raise our taxes and put the country in debt from his proposals.
As for the taxes, this is just plain WRONG (unless you make more then $200,000 and even then it would only be a 1% increase). As for increasing the debt, the Republicans have done this for 8 years and McCain's plan will continue to do this.

So, according to the Tax Policy Center, both candidates will increase the debt.
McCain does so while offering a larger tax cut then Obama but McCain would give the bulk of those cuts to about 5% of the tax payers (the highest income brackets).
McCain would essentially be continuing the "tax cuts" that the Bush Administration ram-rodded through a Republican controlled congress.

Obama on the other hand, would maintain the "Bush Tax Cut" but turn it upside down, giving the tax cuts to the lower and middle classes while covering some of these cost by increasing taxes on those highest income 5%.

Here is some info -
++++++++++++++
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750

This short paper summarizes the Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Revised September 15, 2008
Abstract

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.
Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion.

Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

Obama sees gains

2008-09-29T06:35:00.000-07:00

Obama inches ahead in tight race

Entire article at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080929/ts_csm/akickoff;_ylt=AiD2R27Rary1wmZ_xxSIPLus0NUE

Pundits point to a variety of reasons for the shift in the dynamics of the presidential race. First is the steady stream of bad economic news. Polls consistently show that voters think Democrats are better at handling the economy.

Then there's the way Senator McCain reacted to the crisis. Initially calling the fundamentals of the economy strong, he then decided the crisis was so bad he needed to suspend his campaign, even calling for a postponement of the first presidential debate on Friday.

His campaign had hoped that would reinforce his stance as a leader that put the country first. But to many people it instead reinforced the notion that McCain could be impulsive and erratic.

(Encouraging ... and yet, not far enough ahead to overcome the "Diebold Factor")

Get a Job!!!!

2008-09-25T07:08:00.000-07:00

"WASHINGTON - New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to their highest level in seven years"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/jobless_claims;_ylt=Aqlw4pq7hsaR9prvCXLZL92s0NUE

WASHINGTON - New home sales tumbled in August to the slowest pace in 17 years, while the average sales price fell by the largest amount on record, demonstrating the depth of the problem

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy;_ylt=Ah9a4.i10EQF36M.9bBpMd.s0NUE

A flailing economy - Just another facet of the Bush Legacy.

One would hope that the lesson learned from this last 8 years is that the Republican ideals of "Give tax breaks to the top 5% and they will re-distribute it to the rest of the tax payers" and "If you want the economy to flourish, leave corporations and financial firms to regulate themselves" are complete fantasy.

These ideals have proven themselves time and again to be failed policies. I can only hope that this time around the country will have learn from this lesson because it has been a VERY expensive one.

... pssst! Hey taxpayers, want to buy a bridge?

2008-09-24T12:07:00.000-07:00

Watching the testimony and questions from Congress on this Trillion dollar bank bailout.

The CNBC talking heads keep pitching the bailout as an idea that should make the taxpayers money.

Should? SHOULD!!!!!

Time for a reality check here people. We are in this very mess because some "really smart" CEO's from the BIGGEST financial institutions in this country agreed to deals that they were convinced "SHOULD" make them money.
THEY DIDN'T !!! In fact several of those companies have ceased to exist!
The Government (taxpayers) making money should have nothing to do with this decision. As these very companies have proven, we stand just as much chance of LOOSING money on this deal as making it.

These companies are now holding a gun to "the head" of our economy and we find ourselves forced to bail them out. Again (see S&L Crises of the 80's). The only way we should fork over this nearly TRILLION dollars to cover their bad investments is if some of those involved are sacrificed. Jailed. Shot. Something.
We need there to be REAL, negative consequences for willingly putting the country in such dire straights. This is the only way we can avoid having this happen again.

BTW ... if one were to accept the idea that the U.S. Government should loan money we don't have based on possible profits to the taxpayers ... there are probably much more profitable and much less troubled industries for "the Taxpayers" to get into. Like the oil industry for example.

Look, ... but don't ask any questions!

2008-09-23T15:12:00.000-07:00

So, what do you do if your candidate can't answer even the most basic of questions related to the office they have been nominated for? You hide them away.

Palin has given only two "one on one" interviews since becoming the Republican choice for V.P.
One in which she was shown to have only vague notions about the job and one (with Faux News) which featured such hard hitting questions as "So do you think the rich AND the middle class would be better off if they didn't have to pay taxes?"
Oh, please. Why not just ask her if people feel better when you don't hit them in the head with a hammer.

So now the Republican campaign has lined up a series of "visits" with foreign dignitaries hoping that Palin, getting her picture taken ONCE with these folks, will suddenly qualify in the voter's minds as having "Foreign Affairs Experience". Never mind the fact that the first time in her life she even traveled outside the U.S. was just last year.

Just one hitch, her handlers are forbidding any reporters (only photographers) to be present when this takes place. Having those who could tell us about these photo ops would apparently run the risk of proving just how "out of her element" she will be.

Simply incredible.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Palin bans reporters from meetings with leaders

NEW YORK - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday banned reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew.

The meetings scheduled for Wednesday are part of the Republican campaign's effort to give Palin the apperance of experience in foreign affairs. She has never met a foreign head of state and first traveled outside North America just last year.

The full article is found HERE -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders;_ylt=AnPbBNDUL_3MnrWuDq_xZTes0NUE

The Circular Talk Express

2008-09-23T11:28:00.000-07:00

This is from Sunday's news. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080921/ap_on_el_pr/financial_meltdown_candidates_1)
The audacious double-talk and flip flopping simply HAD to be called out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has long supported fewer regulations for businesses. But as the financial crisis on Wall Street worsens, McCain is calling for more government.

McCain was asked if he regretted supporting a 1999 law that removed barriers between investment banks and commercial banks that were erected in 1933, in response to the 1929 stock market crash.

(so he is all for deregulation until it has sent the country into economic crises ... THEN he wants to try and regulate it. Swell.)

"No," McCain said. "I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."

(if by "growth" he means "destruction" then he is spot on)

In the same interview, McCain defended the Bush administration's proposed bailout of financial firms as necessary, though he acknowledged it could get expensive.

(deregulate to make the CEO's rich ... then have the government bail their companies out at taxpayer expense. THAT is a TAX INCREASE.)

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, one of McCain's economic advisers, was a chief sponsor of the 1999 bill that removed restrictions on investment and commercial banks.

(Why would we want to continue to let the people who have run our economy into the rocks ... steer the ship of state?
Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is one definition of insanity.)