Office Time

Read more...

Why blog?

A friend of the blog, Zar, passed this along (I think he was trying to tell us something) a few days ago and I've been thinking about it.

Just take a minute and digest the message.

It got me thinking about what the ratio might be of bloggers to blog readers. My guess would be that there are more bloggers than blog readers out there.

So I really started thinking about the value (or lack thereof) that I add to readers of my posts. Here is what I have come up with:

This is largely a selfish pursuit. When I blog I am thinking less about what you as the reader gets out of it and more about what I am hoping to get. There, I said it. What I mean is that when I am thinking about posting on an issue it is usually because I have an unsettling question about an issue or because something just isn't passing the smell test. I am eager to project my opinions onto the world wide web in hopes that someone out there will have a refreshing perspective that will shed light on the topic.

I also like to hear myself type. When I post my paradigms it helps to flesh out my real feelings on an issue. So if nothing else, I can articulate to myself how I think about the world. I think that is a worthwhile exercise.

Hmmm.... still having trouble with the whole value proposition of my blogging... I guess at the end of the day I don't deny that I fall into the sorry category of bloggers explained in the caption above. What I will deny is that blogging isn't helping me to be a more active and enlightened world citizen. Blog on!

Read more...

Defection

Not that the defection is very newsworthy, but I thought the reasoning was sound (of course I do, I agree with it...) But anyway, here is the story that isn't getting reported. Obama speech-writer ditching the campaign on the eve of Obama's coronation.

When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.

...The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

...Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?

...Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

...I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Read more...

Thoughts on Parenthood

I’d like to take a break from politics and economics for a moment and share something a bit more personal. We’ve had some great dialogue on the blog, and in particular, the political discussions have become quite pithy. For good reason, subjects like politics, become very personal to us. Politics become extremely personal when we see decisions made by the government directly affect us and/or our families. Philosophically, our country is at a critical juncture and much is on the line and in the hands of our leaders.

However, we mustn’t forget the opportunity we each have of being leaders within our own families and teaching our children the values we hold dear. In my opinion, as time marches on, it will only become more and more critical that we take a personal and proactive approach to teaching and educating our children.

The last 3 weeks have really caused me to contemplate what it means to be a parent. I became a dad on October 7th and my life is forever changed. I’m not speaking of sleepless nights and diaper duty. I’m talking about priorities and paradigms. It’s amazing what the burden of providing can do to a man.

More impressive to me, though, is motherhood. My mother means the world to me, but the critical role of motherhood was never impressed upon me so deeply until I witnessed my wife care so tenderly for our son. I can’t put into words the deep respect and admiration I have for my wife, for not only enduring 9 months of pregnancy, but for the love she gives to our son everyday.

I apologize for being so personal, but this is all that has been on my mind for the past few weeks. I’ve always been the guy who is never content with life as it is. I’m always scheming, planning, and dreaming. But now, there is no place I’d rather be than in a rocker-glider staring at my son’s sleeping face at 2:30 in the morning. Life is good.

I’ll close with this from George Bernard Shaw:

“Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to this country and to mankind is to bring up a family.”

Read more...

Lightening the mood

Jamie suggested I lighten the mood a little. So here goes.

Read more...

What's happened to good officiating?

Sports fans will always complain about officiating. It's part of who we are. But over the last few years, doesn't it seem like the officiating/umpiring has just crumbled into complete debacle? Especially in the biggest of sporting events it has been terrible, even inexplicable at times.

The most recent example of it is the current (rain-suspended) World Series. We have had officiating gaffes in each game so far this series! The strikeout call changed to a walk. The safe call at first that should have been called out. The Jimmy Rollins "tagged in the butt/out by 3 feet/called safe at 3rd" play. These are easy calls, folks.

But this World Series is not an anomaly.

In 2006 we started off the year with a bang with the most poorly officiated Super Bowl of all time, the Seahawks-Steelers game. Just absolutely depressing for Seattle, and in retrospect it was the moment that sent Seattle sports into a tailspin. Had we won that game, it would have made the Sonics' departure slightly less painful...slightly.

Six months later we were treated to the NBA Finals where the officials pretty much decided they wanted Dwyane Wade to have a ring. Don't get me wrong, I love me some D-Wade, but even I admit that he had the refs in his back pocket in order to bring the heat back to win that series.

Earlier this season in the NFL we enjoyed the Chargers-Broncos game where Ed Hochuli blew the fumble call (calling it an incomplete pass instead), which pretty much handed the game to Denver.

Oh, and this one a few weeks ago in the LSU-South Carolina football game:


Not sure if that's part of a ref's M.O.

Nevertheless, I actually maintain that 99.99% of the time the players and coaches decide the game and although the refs/umpires can significantly impact the game, they RARELY decide it. But, in these circumstances (and I invite you to offer other examples of the last couple years) this level of ineptitude is just inexcusable from professional referees/umpires.

You would think that the officials might be betting on the games or something because it seems so blatant...but that would never happen.

Read more...

Article Watch

Some interesting articles came out that I want to call out for some good reading. The first is here
I'd like to comment more about the need for leadership, especially in these times. Until then though, this article does a good job pointing out the lack of such leadership from a certain lock-to-win-the-presidency-candidate.

Mr. Obama's March 2007 letter included a stirring call to "assess options" and boldly suggested that the two men "facilitate a serious conversation" about housing. He was even brave enough to suggest that "the relevant private sector entities and regulators" might be able to provide "targeted responses." Then in paragraph four, the Harvard-trained lawyer dropped his bombshell: a suggestion that various interest groups get together to "consider" best practices in mortgage lending.

Some may find it hard to believe that Mr. Obama had nothing to show for this herculean effort to shake up Washington. They may be shocked as well that such passionate language didn't move the Fed and Treasury to action. For our part, we note that nowhere in his letter did Mr. Obama suggest that the government should stop subsidizing loans to people who can't repay them.

If Barack Obama wants to write any more letters, he should urge his colleagues in Washington to focus on the causes of this crisis, not the effects. Unlike Senators, Presidents are expected to solve problems, not merely write about them.

This second article is also worth a read. When people ask me why I'm so passionate against Obama and why I'm not instead passionate "for" McCain, I now want to point them to this article. Neither are great choices, though McCain is the lesser of the evils. Some highlights from the article:

- Have you thought of what a gradual doubling (and indexation) of the minimum wage, sailing through a veto-proof and filibuster-proof Congress, would do to inflation, unemployment and corporate profits? The market now has.

- Have you thought of how easily a Labor Department headed by a militant union boss would push through a "Transparency in Labor Relations" law that does away with secret ballots in strike votes, and what this would do to industrial peace? The market now has.

- Have you thought of how a Treasury Secretary George Soros would engineer the double taxation of the multinationals' world-wide profits, and what this would mean for investors (to say nothing of full-scale industrial flight from the U.S.)? The market now has.

- Have you thought of how an Attorney General Charles J. Ogletree would champion a trillion-dollar reparations-for-slavery project (whittled down, to be fair, to a mere $800-billion, over-10-years compromise), and what this would do to the economy? The market now has.

- Have you thought of what the virtual outlawing of arbitration -- exposing all industries to the fate of asbestos producers -- would do to corporate liability and legal bills? The market now has.

- Have you thought of how a Health and Human Services Secretary Hillary Clinton would fix drug prices (generously allowing 10% over the cost of raw materials), and what this would do to the financial health of the pharmaceutical industry (not to mention the nondiscovery of lifesaving drugs)? The market now has.

- Have you thought of a Secretary of the newly established Department of Equal Opportunity for Women mandating "comparable worth" pay practices for every company doing any business with government at any level -- where any residual gap between the average pay of men and women is an eo ipso violation? Have you thought about what this would do to administrative and legal costs, hiring practices, productivity and wage bills? The market now has.

- Have you thought of what confiscatory "windfall profits" taxes on oil companies would do to exploration, supply and prices? The market now has.

- Have you thought of how the nationalization of health insurance, the mandated coverage of ever more -- and more exotic -- risks, the forced reimbursement for excluded events, and the diminished freedom to match premium to risk would affect the insurance industry? The market now has.

- Have you thought of Energy Czar Al Gore's five million new green jobs -- high-paying, unionized and subsidized -- to replace, at five times the cost, what we are now producing without those five million workers, and what this will do to our productivity, deficit and competitiveness? The market now has.

Are all those things assured to happen? Absolutely not, but they aren't out of the realm of possibility and while the names might be different the points of view and political positions will be the same.

Read more...

Saying good-bye to leverage...

My parents' generation preaches a personal finance methodology of no debt (or at least minimal debt). Conventional wisdom is that consumer debt of any kind is unwise and that debt for a modest home or for education or a family vehicle is acceptable. But debt is often the lever to greater wealth, which makes it interesting that in some circles debt is looked at as absolutely necessary for growth and prosperity, while in others it's the black sheep and should be avoided under almost any circumstance. Do our parents just not get it or have they been right all along?

Well, much of our economic problems right now are directly tied to debt. Blame the consumer who greedily signed the interest only mortgage for the house they really shouldn't have bought. Blame the banks and businesses across America who, like the home-buyer, over-leveraged themselves well beyond rational levels of debt. But rather than just throw blame around, I wanted to talk about the consequences of the debt fallout.

Much has been said about the credit crisis -- or the lack of available funds for home buyers and businesses. Our leveraged economy has slowed (er, tanked) in large part to the freeze in funds. There doesn't appear to be a clear solution of how to unfreeze the credit so one of the consequences, as I see it, is that our economy is going to adapt to a low-debt model. Consumers and businesses alike are going to operate under a debt minimization concept in which cash is king (it should always be king, but it hasn't been for quite awhile). In other words, we'll be spending more in line with what we can truly afford without taking on debt.

Could it be that we are saying good-bye to all the "toys" that many people go in debt for (the sports car, the set of snowmobiles or four wheelers, the fancy schmancy triathlon bike)? Seems to me stores will be less willing to make these loans...banks will be less willing as well...and so it's either credit card financing or straight cash, baby.

Same goes for businesses. The money just isn't there for debt financing as it has been. So, if you're a business owner needing to improve/increase office or warehouse space, you'll probably have to come up with very economical ways to renovate or refurbish rather than simply construct from the ground up. You'll want to find the most economical materials and methods to get the best bang for your buck. Or if you are manufacturer you'll probably be forced to come up with ways to re-use designs and tools instead of "all-new" or complete design overhaul.

The economy just seems to have gotten really fat and out of shape from all the leveraging and it's time to get in the gym, trim up and make do or do without. Sounds like an old Great Depression saying to me. Welcome to the low-debt economy.

By the way, if consumers and businesses are smart enough to figure out that we have become way over leveraged, is it too much to assume that our elected officials can figure out that we can no longer just talk about balancing the budget, but actually begin to underspend?

Read more...

Who Should Lead?

I got this in my inbox today and thought I'd pass it along. I have a lot of respect for the author of it as he is one of the leading thinkers in organizational behavior.
Enjoy.

Not Everyone Should Lead

I always find it interesting—or maybe troubling—when people encourage everyone to go out and vote on election day. Don’t get me wrong; I’m an ardent fan of democracy. I just don’t think it’s a good idea for people to vote unless they’ve taken the time to understand the issues and make informed decisions. It would be far better, in my opinion, if those who are too busy or disinterested to stay abreast of the issues exercised restraint on election day. I think that makes perfect sense, and yet is often viewed as politically or socially incorrect.

Well, I have a similar attitude about leadership. Whenever I hear someone encourage all young people to become leaders, or better yet, when I hear a young person say glibly that he or she wants to be a leader someday, I feel compelled to ask the question “why?”

If the answer is “because I want to make a difference” or “I want to change the world,” I get a little skeptical and have to ask a follow-up question: “Why and in what way do you want to change the world?” If they struggle to answer that question, I discourage them from becoming a leader.

Why? Because a leader who doesn’t know why he or she wants to lead is almost always motivated by self-interest. Whether that manifests itself in terms of fame or money or power, it is a very dangerous thing.

True leadership, the kind that results in the greater good, requires a level of selflessness and vision that most people simply don’t have. We forget the loneliness and sacrifice and great personal risk that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln endured during their times, and that the personal benefits they received for their sacrifices were minimal, if not non-existent. But that is what was—and is—required of any truly great leader, which explains why leadership is a rare trait in society, and always has been.

When people without selflessness become leaders, they often end up exploiting people and leaving them worse off. As long as they escape relatively unscathed, they feel that they have succeeded. And this is not limited to CEOs of big companies or members of Congress, though those cases are both more public and potentially harmful. It applies to small business owners, little league coaches, school principals, and mid-level managers as well.

Perhaps that’s why society has become so cynical about leaders, especially in the world of politics and, more recently, big business. People have come to expect—even accept—that their leaders are motivated by fame and fortune more than real service. Which is a shame because we are starting to get cynical as a society. As a result, the wrong people are being drawn into positions of leadership for all the wrong reasons.

So what is the solution? Like so many other aspects of life, it is both simple and difficult. First, we have to stop hiring, appointing and electing people who are ego-driven. That requires a level of discretion and vigilance on the part of CEOs, hiring managers, boards of directors, and yes, even voters. Of course, that means we also have to work hard to discern why a person is truly motivated to seek a position of leadership, and be wary of anyone who lacks humility, maturity and selflessness.

When it comes to elected office, this will require voters to pay close attention to the candidates who plea for their support. And if voters can’t find the time and energy to do that, then the wisest decision they could make would be to exercise restraint and stay home on election day.

Yours,

Pat Lencioni

Read more...

Let's have some fun

Well I'm back, so I thought I'd have some fun with this.

Here goes.

It isn't just that after graduating at the top of his Harvard Law class that he went to serve a community instead of taking a six-figure corporate gig.
Ok he did do that, but what did he do in that job? Due to his lack of accomplishments he basically took up a position that someone that could have actually done something as a community organizer could have done. Why community organize if you aren't particularly good at it?

It isn't just his quiet example of family values by the way he lives his life and treats his family instead of yelling that everyone should do the same.
How about when he takes his family quietly to a church for 20 years that yells for God to 'Damn' America.

It isn't just that having an African-American in the highest office in the land would be a major stride for a nation scarred by racism and inequalities.

Ahh I love voting and promoting based solely on race. That is a great reason, or even a reason period. Race relations are moving forward!

It isn't just that he will sit down with leaders of nations without insisting that they do exactly what we say beforehand.
Raising the stature of dangerous dictators is always a recipe for success. Surely there are historical examples of that being successful. Wait, it hasn't ever worked before? Well we can hope it will work this time.

It isn't just that he was right about Iraq.
It is easy to take a stand when you have absolutely no accountability for that stand. PS he was wrong about the surge.

It isn't just that his plans for withdrawal from Iraq are similar to the hopes of the Iraq's prime minister.
The Iraqi Prime Minister has his own political reasons for wanting to have the Americans exit, he wants to get re-elected. Talking about the strength of your own country and the independence of the country as a whole is a great way to get people to rally around your vision. I prefer to observe his actions rather than his words in an election campaign.

It isn't just that he opposes killing people because they were convicted beyond a mere 'reasonable doubt' by a jury of their peers.
He is however in favor of killing babies as they are being born. (See partial birth abortions for more details) At least he isn't at all consistent on the use of the death penalty.

It isn't just that he believes that what happens in a woman's uterus is none of the government's business.
I agree, but why use my tax dollars that I worked hard for to pay for some woman's uteral problems?

It isn't just the way he is able to articulate his views.
Smooth talking politicians are highly correlated with effective leadership and agents of change. Let's judge our leaders on how they speak, rather than what they actually do (voting present doesn't count as doing something).

It isn't just his captivating eloquence from the pulpit.
See above.

It isn't just the hope that he has given to a new generation that America is better than what they have witnessed in the last eight years.
Hope is fleeting when there is no substance to back it up. Think of the disillusionment when he realizes how hard it is to actually govern. He's never had to do that before. I'm not comfortable with the idea that he knows how to translate his ideas into actions. Actually that does make me feel comfortable as I don't particularly like his ideas.

It isn't just that voter registration has never been so high among young adults and the impoverished.
By expanding the definition of the impoverished to 95% of the population, then yeah I guess he is making huge strides. Of course Mickey Mouse, the Dallas Cowboys in Nevada, and many underage and dead people deserve to have their voices heard!

It isn't just his belief that 47 million uninsured Americans is a moral issue.
Where do we draw the line on what people are morally entitled to? I disagree with where he has drawn that line because it sounds to me like pandering. What type of health care do they deserve? Do they deserve poor health care, moderately good health care, good health care or great health care? Do they deserve expensive surgeries to remove cancer that may prolong life for 5 months? Do they deserve costly medications to enhance the comfort during hospice care? This is a difficult question to answer, and I don't think it has been fairly addressed. Countries with universal health care lag far behind the US in cancer and end of life treatment. Is one way better than the other? Maybe, but it isn't really a moral question and framing it as such is a rhetorical trick to try to make the other side's argument illegitimate instead of engaging in a useful discussion.

It isn't just that he is the candidate most distinct and different from George W. Bush.
I didn't realize that he was running against GWB, nor did I think he had comparable achievements. The lack of achievements isn't a useful comparator to someone that has actually done something.


It isn't just his awareness that the rising tide didn't and isn't and won't lift all boats.
The ever rising GDP of the United States tends to disagree with him. The poor in the US today look very different than the poor from the 70s. It appears that the rising tide of the past 30 years has lifted their boat, though maybe not as fast as you would like.

It isn't just his determination to address the needs of societies' poorest citizens.
How has he addressed their needs? I'm not sure he understands their needs as he didn't a very poor job addressing them as a community organizer and state senator. He did not leave Chicago better than he found it, had he done so he might have some credibility. Speaking to their needs is different than actually doing something about their needs.

It isn't just his 2004 Demoractic Convention speech which was the most inspiring political speech I have heard in my lifetime (indeed, there are many more from the annals of history).
Mr. Gorbachev Tear down this Wall. That phrase trumps his speech 10 times over. Again though, Reagan's words were backed up by actions. Obama promised a lot of bipartisanship in that speech, he followed it up with exactly zero actions.

It isn't just that he won't continue to utter Orwellian terms such as "war on terror" and "victory in Iraq."
Men and women dying in the disagreement with differently minded religionists might resent such a decision. I didn't realize 'victory in Iraq' was a bad thing though. I'll have to stop my yearly celebration of VE Day and VJ Day because of their Orwellian connotations. Also I'll have to stop celebrating the victory over the British every year, such propaganda is beneath an enlightened intellectual such as myself.

It isn't just his familiarity with Muslim thought, culture and friends which I believe is an important and rare quality in a world leader of the 21st century.
Yes, if we only understood them better they would stop trying to attack us. Oh or we can declare war on those radicals that want to attack us, pin them in their homelands and go 7 years and counting without a counter-attack on our home soil. Chalk one up for our side.

It isn't just that he was on welfare growing up and knows how it feels to have to accept other's hard earned money to eat.
Alright, but it can also be argued that that upbringing also led him to turn to people that hated our country such as Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, et al. They understand his pain and spoke to it.

It isn't just his calm and collected demeanor under attacks from his opponents.
You would be calm too if you knew that the media all wanted you to win and would twist anything negative said about you into something positive and vice versa with your opponent. It is nice when the referees are on your side and want you to win.

It isn't just his work on ethics reform in the Senate.
Demonstrated by his leadership in passing numerous bills and sticking to the campaign finance reform bill that he originally supported when it was in his interest to. Then throwing that out when it benefited him in an ethical coup.

It isn't just his refusal to privatize Social Security (ask yourself where those private investments would be right now had Bush had his way).
Those investments would be where most of the countries 401(k)s are. Welcome to the volatility of the stock market. Right now all those putting money in the stock market will be set for retirement when it bounces back, and it will. Those putting money in the SS will soon find that the government doesn't have their money as they have spent it on alternative energy subsidies for corn ethanol, bike trails, and highways named after living senators.

It isn't just his push for alternative fuels.
The number of alternative energy breakthroughs backed by Obama has been staggering. The government has been very effective at selecting the next technology to solve our energy issues. Oh wait the free market is as oil prices have been plunging due to reduced demand. All those alternative fuel companies being supported by tax dollars are now even less efficient. Welcome to Amtrack-land.

It isn't just his insistance that Wall Street be held just as accountable as Main Street (those terms bother me but its the most succinct way to say it, so sorry).
Yes watching their retirement accounts go from full to empty in the period of weeks isn't enough accountability. Getting fired and blamed for everything including the missteps and corruption of the government is also a good way to stick it to them. His insistence has led to exactly 0 bills as a senator forcing that accountability.

It isn't just his work to help veterans after they have sacrificed their emotional and physical well-being for our great country.
And using that as a nice political prop on stage to talk about unnamed soldiers he is representing. Caring for veterans is not unique. To call it out as something special would indicate more about the party he is leading then the actual act.

It isn't just that Barack Obama represents our only real chance at fundamental change.
Change for changes' sake is not necessarily a good thing. If we are changing to something better then that is good. I for one am proud of where my country has been, where we are, and where we can potentially be. We have done a lot of good in this world, and the sum of the good outweighs the sum of the evils. No other country on earth can stand on the platform we have built through military, economic, and cultural victories. Why fundamentally change a good thing? I'd rather tweak it.

Read more...

It isn't just... part II

I support Barack Obama. Instead of spouting disparaging half truths about the presidential candidate that I do not feel inclined to vote for I will list a few of the reasons why I have decided to vote for him. This won't be eloquent and I haven't researched a single point for this post. Just why I will be voting for Obama on November 4th and why I think you should too.

But it isn't just any one thing.

It isn't just that after graduating at the top of his Harvard Law class that he went to serve a community instead of taking a six-figure corporate gig.

It isn't just his quiet example of family values by the way he lives his life and treats his family instead of yelling that everyone should do the same.

It isn't just that having an African-American in the highest office in the land would be a major stride for a nation scarred by racism and inequalities.

It isn't just that he will sit down with leaders of nations without insisting that they do exactly what we say beforehand.

It isn't just that he was right about Iraq.

It isn't just that his plans for withdrawal from Iraq are similar to the hopes of the Iraq's prime minister.

It isn't just that he opposes killing people because they were convicted beyond a mere 'reasonable doubt' by a jury of their peers.

It isn't just that he believes that what happens in a woman's uterus is none of the government's business.

It isn't just the way he is able to articulate his views.

It isn't just his captivating eloquence from the pulpit.

It isn't just the hope that he has given to a new generation that America is better than what they have witnessed in the last eight years.

It isn't just that voter registration has never been so high among young adults and the impoverished.

It isn't just his belief that 47 million uninsured Americans is a moral issue.

It isn't just that he is the candidate most distinct and different from George W. Bush.

It isn't just his awareness that the rising tide didn't and isn't and won't lift all boats.

It isn't just his determination to address the needs of societies' poorest citizens.

It isn't just his 2004 Demoractic Convention speech which was the most inspiring political speech I have heard in my lifetime (indeed, there are many more from the annals of history).

It isn't just that he won't continue to utter Orwellian terms such as "war on terror" and "victory in Iraq."

It isn't just his familiarity with Muslim thought, culture and friends which I believe is an important and rare quality in a world leader of the 21st century.

It isn't just that he was on welfare growing up and knows how it feels to have to accept other's hard earned money to eat.

It isn't just his calm and collected demeanor under attacks from his opponents.

It isn't just his work on ethics reform in the Senate.

It isn't just his refusal to privatize Social Security (ask yourself where those private investments would be right now had Bush had his way).

It isn't just his push for alternative fuels.

It isn't just his insistance that Wall Street be held just as accountable as Main Street (those terms bother me but its the most succinct way to say it, so sorry).

It isn't just his work to help veterans after they have sacrificed their emotional and physical well-being for our great country.

It isn't just that Barack Obama represents our only real chance at fundamental change.


I could go on and on and on. And on. And then on some more. These are a few reasons I have supported Barack Obama and will continue to do so. Regardless of how you vote, get out to the polls on November 4th and let Washington know that we won't sit idly by to watch another disaster like we've seen in the last eight years.

Special thanks to Ryan Giles and his buddy Grizzly Adams for this great idea

Read more...

Pressure mounts...

At the gym this morning the locker room TVs were showing a morning talk show on ESPN on one TV and news on the other. Last year, I would have tuned out the news without even flinching because a) I was so obsessed with sports that I cared about little else and b) there was very little I considered newsworthy. This year has been different. Election. Economy. Pretty obvious why that might pique one's interest. However this morning, I heard Tiger Woods' voice on the TV across the room and I was immediately drawn. Although he comes off as incredibly boring sometimes, Tiger is absolutely brilliant and fascinating. About half-way through the interview the host asked Tiger about what goes through his mind during a pressure putt. Specifically the anchor said, "When you were standing over that 4-foot putt on Sunday at the US Open, did you ever let the thought go through your mind that if you miss this putt, that you lose the US Open?"

"No," Tiger said flatly. "Absolutely not."

I was shocked. You could tell the interviewer was taken aback, too.

C'mon, not even a flash of consideration to the possibility of losing? Really?

Tiger followed his answer up by explaining that all he thinks about is that putt. Period. He has practiced it so much that all he thinks about is making this putt. Success is the only thing on his mind.

Amazing stuff when you really think about it. That is why I love sports so much. The pressure moments often define the athlete. And the separation between a Tiger Woods or a Michael Jordan and nearly everyone else in their respective sports is mental toughness and control of thought.

I find motivation in this story particularly because of the situation I am in at work these days. Our company is going through some "strategic re-sizing" and it is absolutely imperative that those who remain are performing at the highest level or when conditions worsen, the weak will have made themselves expendable. It has certainly brought the economic worry right into my own home based on my situation. Pressure is mounting. It is palpable around the office and the only thought I want to consider is owning my projects and delivering when it counts. It won't do me any good to worry about failure or being laid off at this point. My thoughts are best spent envisioning success and making strategic steps towards that goal, just like Tiger over the putt.

By the time we are through with this economic downturn, I am convinced that everyone will have been affected in some way. Those who can respond to the challenge of performing under pressure will come away the strongest when we return to a good economic climate. Especially for those who are laid off, this is an opportunity to step up and respond rather than shrink away in sorrow or frustration. We don't need to encourage another generation of people who want handouts when times are tough. Now is the time for confident leaders and workers to bring out their creativity and ingenuity and pave the way back to expansion. There is no better time than now for strategic action. We have the opportunity to determine our own actions/responses based on the economic conditions around us. Tiger has the luxury of practicing nearly every possible shot, but he still has to execute under immense pressure. We may not have had a practice session for what we are facing, but we have the same opportunity to execute.

It's game time.

Read more...

It isn't just...

I'm off on another road trip to do some recruiting out at my old school. While I'm gone though, I thought I'd post something my friend wrote. He is obviously an ardent anti-Obama person, but his compilation of the issues are put together in one place in a way I haven't seen before. When someone on the left wants to understand why people could possibly doubt Obama, this is a nice list to point to.

But it isn’t just any one thing.

It isn’t just Jeremiah Wright screaming G-D AmeriKKKa.

It isn’t just Bill Ayers and his bombs and radical ideas.

It isn’t just the funding of, training of, and support of ACORN and its massive voter fraud.

It isn’t just Tony Rezko, the Syrian criminal slum lord.

It isn’t just Frank Marshal Davis, the proud communist.

It isn’t just his cousin Raila Odinga, the Kenyan socialist who incited riots that killed 600 people after he lost an election. An election Obama helped him campaign for, using taxpayer funds, as a United States Senator.

It isn’t just his friendship with Edward Said, anti-Israeli professor and activist.

It isn’t just his relationship with Rashid Khalidi, former PLO operative.

It isn’t just his admiration of Sual Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals.

It isn’t just his friend Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, the black nationalist who pulled strings to admit Obama into Harvard Law.

It isn’t just Carl Davidson, the Marxist activist that helped Obama in his Senate campaign.

It isn’t just John L. McKnight, the radical ACLU director that taught Obama how to be a “community organizer”.

It isn’t just that Obama sent more than $600,000 (through the Woods Fund) to another organization founded by Ayers and ran by Mike Klonsky, a hard core Marxist.

It isn’t just that Louis Farrakan publicly called him The Messiah. Not ‘a’ messiah, but The Messiah.

It isn’t just Obama’s long time friendship with Father Michael Pfleger, a man who claims the United States is infested with “classism and racism” and who called Rev. Wright a “hero”.

It isn’t just his affiliation and support of Code Pink, the leaders of which stormed the stage during Sarah Palin’s RNC speech.

It isn’t just his attempt to destroy the reputation, career, and character of an ordinary citizen who dared ask Obama a simple question. (We are with you, Joe W.!)

It isn’t just that he wants to “spread the wealth”.

It isn’t just his intent to cut funding for every major system of defense in the United States, including every branch of the military.

It isn’t just his multiple votes to let abortion survivors die in a trash can.

It isn’t just his intent to mandate abortion, and use taxpayer funds to do so.

It isn’t just his tax and spend Marxism.

It isn’t just his vote to cut funding for the military during a war.

It isn’t just his intent to pull troops out of Iraq long before they are ready to be removed.

It isn’t just his statement that our troops are “air-raiding villages and killing civilians”.

It isn’t just the ease in which he lies on television and to the public.

It isn’t just his willingness to throw anyone, including family members, under the bus, if it garners him more votes.

It isn’t just his ludicrous economic policies.

It isn’t just the way he dismisses people of faith.

It isn’t just his intent to destroy the First Amendment.

It isn’t just the way he intends to destroy the Second Amendment.

It isn’t just his desire to make taxpayers pay for universal health care.

It isn’t just his desire to unravel capitalism.

It isn’t just his dream of a Marxist United States.

It isn’t just his elitism.

It isn’t just his inexperience.

It isn’t just the fact that he has never been in charge of anything significant.

It isn’t just that the board he sat on with Ayers funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN.

It isn’t just that those boards were meant to improve and reform local schools, schools which today are worse off than ever.

It isn’t just that for years his office was at the same address as Ayers’ and Klonsky’s office.

It isn’t just that he has repeatedly blamed race for his political struggles and defeats.

It isn’t just that he is a product of the Chicago political machine.

It isn’t just that he has sealed every transcript, paper, thesis, and letter of recommendation from his college days.

It isn’t just that the only things he has ever written are two memoirs, and that the first of the two was probably either written by, or heavily edited by Bill Ayers.

It isn’t just that his wife has never been proud of America, until Barack was nominated.

It isn’t just that his wife thinks the United States is “downright mean” and run by greedy white people.

It isn’t just that his wife refuses to let anyone read her senior thesis.

It isn’t just that Obama has spent more time in the Senate running a campaign, than actually being a Senator.

It isn’t just the fact that he voted ‘present’ over 100 times while an IL Senator.

It isn’t just that he is the most liberal of all US Senators.

It isn’t just that he chose the third most liberal Senator as his running mate.

It isn’t just that he wants to sit with the world’s dictators with no preconditions.

It isn’t just his involvement with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

It isn’t just that his top financial advisers were Fannie and Freddie executives.

It isn’t just that he accepted more money from Fannie and Freddie than all but one Senator (Chris Dodd).

It isn’t just the fact that he has tried to shut down radio stations and newspapers who write or say unfavorable things about him.

It isn’t just that he wants to expand the authority of the government into every aspect of our lives.

It isn’t just that he belittles and insults those who are not part of the cultural elite.

It isn’t just that he called Sarah Palin a pig.

It isn’t just that many of his supporters are crude, rude, and disgusting.

I could go on and on and on. And on. And then on some more. And these are only the things we actually know about Senator Obama. What other revelations might he have to distance himself from during four years as President? What other radical friendships, mentors, affiliations, and alliances will be made public? How many of these radical friends of his will influence his decisions as the President of the United States?

Read more...

Stimulitis

If you have ever taken an economics course you have undoubtedly had a text book written by Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. I know the guy is revered as the Chuck Norris of economic theory so I was befuddled yesterday when I caught wind that he was giving Congress the green light for another stimulus package. I have tried in vain to find a shred of data indicating that the $170 billion the government gave us a few months back helped bolster the economy.

Don't get me wrong. From a selfish perspective it was great and I did just what W told me to do. I spent it. The money was a substantial part of the down payment of our pre-owned mini-van. We even splurged and got the model with a built in dvd entertainment system... oh, but wait; the van was made in Japan so I guess I didn't help much after all.

This time they want $300 billion and Bernanke says it “seems appropriate!” What is that really going to do? We just gave $700 billion to the top of the economic food chain but the toxic debt keeps piling up because we continue to ignore the increasing foreclosures.

So this is our latest brilliant idea? To give folks another $300, $600, or $1200 in hopes that they all spend it on American-made products in the next few months? I know Wal-Mart is doing the Macarena right now. This just seems like another misguided attempt to jumpstart the economy. Throw all those fancy economic formulas and graphs in the trash. It is obvious that no one has a clue what to do right now.

Read more...

Cheering for the white guy

Interesting article at the Freakonomics blog on race.

What’s interesting to me, and often goes unspoken, is that the “group of voters who will not vote for people who are opposite their race” may better describe black voters than white voters.

Read more...

The Pathe...er...'Prophetic' Joe Biden

Joe Biden went on the record again on Sunday in Seattle with some remarks I’d like to discuss.

“Mark my words,” he starts as he sets the stage for his forthcoming prophecy.

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."

Careful, Joe, careful.

"The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Yeah Joe, we’ve been saying this for 20 months, thanks for validating. And let me guess, you’ve got a few “new and enlightening” ideas of where this threat might come from?

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate and he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - (Well, I certainly hope not Joe, with all that cash from undisclosed sources that has gushed into the Obama-Biden camp.) we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

Four or five scenarios, Joe? You’re such a seer. Let's see: Russia, Iran, Venezuela, N. Korea, and/or Afghanistan? Good thing we’ve got the messiah around to sit down and have a come to Jesus meeting with all of them. Oh, wait, what’s that Joe? Obama might not be so popular when he blunders crisis after global crisis? Wait, Joe, I thought he was the Great Unifier, the anointed one to bring to pass global one-ness?

“Gird your loins. We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

Oh, I’ve thought about it and you’re right Joe, you’re absolutely right this is a hell of a lot more than just markets. Great analogy by the way—the Augean stables—that’s the story of the fifth labour of Heracles who was challenged to clean the stables of the King Augeas in one day, which was a seeming impossible task given the large amount of livestock and the dirt and filth present in the stables. Perfect analogy. And this country, I assume, is the stable full of filthy livestock? Are we to assume that you mean to wash us of all of the supposed “ills” of this, the greatest nation on earth, namely free markets, capitalism, strong national security, and that nasty word greed?

"I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it.”

We know, Joe, we know. Hillary Clinton was more qualified than you and in your own words, was probably the “better pick”. But you were the guy Barack chose to take in the slack on his foreign policy experience, I don’t get it. You THINK you can add value? All of your great humility aside Joe, I’ve been keeping score and I’ve yet to get the sense you even want to be on this ticket. Maybe you’re on to something here. Are you saying that Barack Obama is about to take the helm and steer our ship, the United States of America, into uncharted waters and possibly be swallowed up in the depths of global turmoil?

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'. Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

Joe, I’ve been going “Whoa, wait a minute” for 20 months now. And I love…Joe, I LOVE your logical argument…if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound. Barack Obama is quite popular indeed.

.

Read more...

Middle Class Healthcare

Sundays are usually pretty chill for our family -- attend our church meetings in the morning and then we've got the afternoon to hang out with family, have dinner, etc. Today started out very much that way.

Then in the middle of Sunday school my wife gets a tap on the shoulder from the nursery leader where we leave our toddler so we can kind of pay attention to the Sunday school lesson (the teacher is great, it's just hard to focus with a chubby 9-month old squirming, but anyway). My initial thought was "whoops, Jordan pooped her pants." Minutes later I get a tap on my shoulder and the man says, "you better pack your things, you're making a trip to the hospital." Sweet.

Turns out Jordan had been fighting over a toy and the other kid won the tug-of-war and solidified the victory by whacking Jordan on the head, resulting in a little gash on the forehead. Scary, but really not that serious when you remove yourself from the situation. Anyway, we took her to the urgent care clinic and got her stitched up and she's is doing just fine. She was a champ to take the stitches without a fuss.

But the real point of my post is to brainstorm a bit about healthcare. We walked into the clinic and the front desk person was very friendly and asked us for our insurance info. This was my first time taking my child to the doctor since we switched insurance to a Health Savings Account (HSA) so I was bit flustered...I hadn't really thought about how this whole aspect of going to the doctor or hospital would be different. Traditionally, I just go in, give them the card, pay the co-pay and let the chips fall where they may. So, I told the guy that we have an HSA and that we'll be paying out of pocket and he just says, "Ok so what we'll do is charge you half of what we do for insured patients, which by the looks of whatchya got right there is gonna be about $150."

Ok, not bad. About an hour later, Jordan's good to go, the bill is $138, we swipe the HSA debit card and we're on our way.

And then I got thinking about the implications here. Half off. Our current insurance-based system is so inefficient and costly that doctors need to charge double in order to make what they would if we just paid out of pocket. In fact, it's probably refreshing for the clinic to have a patient pay upfront because it saves them all of the hassle and they have instant cash.

Another great thing about this situation is the lesson in basic economics -- the study of choice. We knew we had to get medical help in this case. For colds and coughs, it's not always necessary, but this was obviously urgent. But we still had a choice: do we go to urgent care or do we go to Primary Children's Hospital and have a plastic surgeon patch this cut to perfection? I'll be honest, if I were still on normal insurance, I would consider the latter option simply because I'm not paying the full price for the work. Just 20% or so. But with the HSA, and with money coming straight out of our own pocket...we were forced to look at the situation more objectively. How bad would the scar be if we just did stitches? Would the marginal benefit of plastic surgery justify the incredible marginal cost of paying for it? We were convinced that the scar would be visible for a few years and fade significantly over time, plus we figured a cut this small would take a day of waiting at the hospital to get attention...so we stayed with stitches.

This is the type of decision process that SHOULD be a part of our healthcare system. We would be so much better off if the majority of the country (the middle and upper class) made decisions on healthcare based more on economics and the needs of their family than on the abusive public good mentality of the current insurance system.

So I haven't thought enough about how this could all translate to the entire country, but it seems to me that if the majority of the country were on some form of a high-deductible HSA plan, which forces most of your annual healthcare costs to come out of pocket, then we could recognize system-wide savings of billions and billions of dollars, which could be applied to some form of lower-class healthcare, subsidizing those with severe conditions, medical research, building clinics, etc. The savings comes from the lower prices at the clinic or the hospital (because there is no immediate hassle of dealing with the insurance company) and the ripple effects that has on the rest of the industry. Lower prices force competitive behavior, they force innovation and efficiency and cut out wasteful and costly steps.

There is a solution here, I know it. We need to start offering employers incentive to sign their employees up to HSA accounts and we will see drastic improvements in our healthcare system.

No, this doesn't directly address the 47 million without insurance, but this has to be a major priority if we are ever going to address the 47 million without 'mortgaging our children's future' as our politicians love to say. So I say we encourage all who can afford it (which truly should be any middle class person with average health) to start paying via HSA. If the incentives are right, it will happen. No force or coercion or government mandate need apply here.

I'm kind of all over the place in this post, but hopefully the message is coherent. By allowing choices and financial consequences to be a part of the healthcare process, we allow each person to decide when something is necessary, when it is appropriate and when it is excessive.

Read more...

The Diversification Myth

The stock market was wild this past week, as I'm sure many of you felt. It is surreal to be working in downtown NYC while all this is going on. It really is in everyone's talk and thoughts.

Ok so now on to diversification. For those of you that diversified your holdings as has long been preached by financial advisors, how is that holding up for you? Your foreign stocks are going up right? Oh, then surely your foreign bond holdings are doing well? What about your real estate? Commodities? Dang, so it seems like when things go in the tank, it has a tendency to all fall down together. This is where I've had a problem with the diversification strategy pushed on us by financial advisors so they can sound smart and earn fees.

The only way to diversify in my opinion is to invest in core US companies, like an S&P index fund or Dow Jones index fund. Capture shares of the strongest US and global companies so when they do well you do well. To balance that risk though you have to invest in something that does well when they do poorly, like right now. What that also means is that you won't do so well when they are doing well, but shaving off a little return so you can sleep a little better during the next meltdown maybe a trade off worth taking to you.

So to keep it simple. For someone like me, 30 years old with plenty of time until retirement this is how I'd structure my portfolio. 50% in the US stock market, spread it around large and small caps if you want to get crazy with it. Put 15% in a foreign fund that tracks large companies outside the US. Then put 15% in a bond fund. So now you're setup with 80% of your assets in companies that do well in good times. Save that last 20% for a fund that does well when times are bad. The inverse ETFs are a great tool for this. They do the inverse of the return on the stock market. This will cancel out some gains, but it sure helps when things go bad. I have been able to sell my inverse positions to raise cash to buy into the market right now. I feel warm and fuzzy to know that Warren Buffet is doing a similar thing.

Anyway those are my thoughts on diversification and how best to setup your portfolio.

For those interested in the symbols of the ETFs I talked about here they are:
SPY or VTI track the US stock market
VEU for the total world excluding the US
LQD, HYG, or TIP for bond
DOG and SH short the Dow Jones and S&P

Read more...

Oh those pesky Red Sox

I had a half-written post about how disappointing the playoffs have been given that the Sox were down 7-0 and it was looking like Rays-Phillies for the World Series. I told my buddy C-Gord last night that I had a hunch these Sox were gonna come back. I was looking like a fool tonight.

But down 7-0 ain't nothing on these Red Sox. Eight unanswered runs later and two clutch hits from J.D. Drew....ball game.

We have another Red Sox comeback to watch this weekend, folks. Get your lives in order so you can tune in to Games 6 and 7 in St. Petersburg, Florida. Don't worry about the voter fraud or Joe Plumber, take a break from your economic woes and enjoy some baseball.

Yes We Can!

Read more...

O'Reilly V. Frank

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Read more...

The last debate:

Debate:

1.	a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

2.	a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3.	deliberation; consideration.

4.	Archaic. strife; contention.

–verb (used without object)

5.	to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly

Yeah, I'm pretty sure #4 describes best what we saw last night.

After hearing the debate did anyone reading this blog actually change who they will vote for?

After hearing the debate did anyone go to bed feeling more comfortable about where one of the candidates stands on a specific issue?

After hearing the debate did anyone feel smarter?

After hearing the debate did anyone feel more patriotic?

(picture provided by huffingtonpost.com)

Read more...

Divided or United?

WARNING: This is a bit random...

I was joking the other day with one of my colleagues about a possible solution to the divide in America right now. I suggested, "let's just split the country in half. We'll put the liberals/progressives on one side and stick the conservatives on the other side." We had a couple good laughs and went about our business.

I tuned into Glenn Beck later that day and a caller suggested the same thing. He and Glenn held an exchange for a few minutes and basically concluded that conservatives would take the middle of the country and the liberals/progressives can take the coasts. The justification is obvious (see: election map).

Joking aside now, is there some nugget of reality in this? Are we becoming so polarized in this country that this thought has crossed the minds of countless Americans? Do we feel like we've lost influence on the direction of our country? No matter which side of the aisle you agree with, or whose talking points you take sides with, do you feel that this is still "one nation" under God? Will this divisiveness continue? Will this country be a run by a government of, by, and for the people? Has it ever?

In his address at the Republican Convention in 1858 during his run for the Senate, Abraham Lincoln warned "A house divided against itself cannot stand." He was referring to a country divided by the issue of slavery. He argued that the country would stand divided only for a time. He did not believe that the Union would dissolve, but that it would either go one way or the other. From his address to the Republican Convention:

"Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South. "

Are we becoming this polarized again as a nation? I believe he's absolutely right that a nation divided is unstable and at some point the balance tips and the country has to change. Are we reaching a tipping point? I don't have the answer.

I'll close with this from President Lincoln at the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetery:

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I hope he's right.
.

Read more...

Security's price tag

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

We don't flinch when we see nursing mothers and business men alike, standing spread eagle, stripped of their footwear and personal affects in the airport. Being scanned and touched by government employees in uniform is now a part of daily life. We give up, with little more than a bit of grumbling, our fingernail clippers, hair gel, toothpaste to board a plane; and who can blame us? We all know that the intent is to keep us safe so we endure.

We have chosen to give up some rights to privacy and freedom for securities' sake. Freedom and security have an interesting relationship. It seems that when we get a little of latter, we give up a little of the former and vice versa.

Consider the landmark Supreme Court decision of Boumediene v Bush that occured this summer. In a controversial 5-4 vote, the High Court ruled that those held at Guantanamo Bay had the right to pursue habeus corpus. The dissenters, led by Chief Justice Roberts cited for the dissent, the safety and security of US citizens. Can anyone doubt that not being able to hold suspected terrorists indefinately is a national security concern?

For the sake of argument, let's say that we could actually ensure perfect national security. What freedoms would we be willing to give up? Our free speech, our guns, untapped phone lines? As a society, we must decide what liberties we are willing to part with to feel safe. So what do you think? Have we found the right balance of security and liberty in a post 9/11 America?

Read more...

Cracking the ACORN

Last week there was quite a hubub (at least among McCain supporters) about ACORN. I remember hearing something about ACORN four years ago invloving election fraud or something but it all came flooding back last week. ACORN is an association of community organizers that Obama was once associated with (it's not clear how strong the ties are now) and one of their primary goals is to register as many voters as possible. In fact, they offer pay per registered voter that their supporters sign up. In several states these supporters are so motivated by the payout that they are fraudulently signing up voters. (Or are they motivated by the result they want in the election? Not sure.) In Nevada, for example, it was discovered that somehow several members of the Dallas Cowboys were among the newly registered voters...but other than their name, no personal information matched.

Note to anyone trying to run away with the election: Don't duplicate famous people when you are faking voters. Tony Romo and T.O fit into this category.

But, is any of this going to matter come election day? Will these fake voters show up at the polls? Time will tell, but if I'm a McCain strategist I am going to exploit this and try and call attention to it as much as I can. Let's be honest, even though ACORN isn't "officially" associated with either party, they most certainly do support Obama and not McCain. This isn't to say that McCain or the GOP is above shady behavior, but there is nothing right now to prove that such an effort exists except to benefit the Dems and particularly Obama.

I think this is going to be even more of a debacle than 2000 or 2004. How much ACORN fits into this will certainly be interesting to watch.

Read more...

Fix It

Read more...

Thank you, Magic

A couple talk radio guys in Minnesota got carried away a few days ago while discussing HIV/AIDS and Magic Johnson. They went on to terribly joke that Magic was faking HIV because he is not really showing any signs of battling it and here he is some decade and a half later and he's not only alive, but well.

Enter: Reverend Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

After days of uproar from the Reverends, the two guys get canned.

Well, at least that's the predictable string of events.

Thanks to Magic, however, that doesn't appear to be likely. Instead, Magic spoke out against the remarks, acknowledging that they were 'so stupid' but saying these guys should keep their jobs. He doesn't want them fired. Thank you, Magic! That's how it should be done.

People get carried away and say stupid things. The best way for them to handle it is to have them own up to it and face the consequences. Firing them actually gets them off the hook; it lets them run away and hide for a few weeks/months and find a new gig somewhere else.

Magic has is flaws, but he rose to the occasion here. A person with significant influence chose the right way to handle a public relations snafu.

The Reverends Jesse and Al should take note. We all should.

Read more...

When Regulation Fails

Back in 2002 Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX). The act came in the wake of a slew of corporate scandals involving Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and others. The primary goals of the act were to restore confidence in the United States’ capital markets and put a thumb down on white collar crime. The means by which was to place management at the forefront of a company’s responsibility for accurate financial statements and sound internal controls. It also sought to strike down upon symbiotic relationships between corporations and their auditors.

Here we are 6 years after the passing of this act and are in the midst of the worst financial meltdown in history. The procudures required under Sarbanes Oxley utterly failed to call out the ticking time bombs snuggled in the books of the many failing companies in our economy. We’ve seen several banks fail in the last few weeks and are seeing some of our largest corporations teetering in the balance. Auditors and management of these companies had to have seen this mess coming and failed to clean it up or make the public aware before it came to a head.

This is a prime example of regulation failing in the most miserable way. Public companies in the U.S. pay an estimated 4% of their bottom line in compliance costs due to the hefty requirement of Sarbanes Oxley, making our companies less competitive globally, and less inclined to register in our markets to avoid falling under the SOX umbrella. Along with the increased regulation on companies, several government agencies were set up to monitor these new regulations. Tax dollars down the drain.

What is it going to take now to restore confidence in the capital markets of the United States? More regulation? Several headlines appearing in the news over the passed few weeks are hinting at the end of the age of capitalism. We have presidential candidates from both parties out beating the podium for more oversight, more accountability, and more regulation. Regulation will never “fix” the issues in a free market. Consider this excerpt I found in a management report from Oaktree Capital Management put out earlier this year:

“It is a simple fact that the regulated are more financially motivated to act than the regulators are to respond. It’s not without effect that investment bankers work two or three times as many hours per week as the people who’re counted on to police them.”

I couldn’t put it any better.

Read more...

What to do?

Rather than sit and say, "Something should be done," without offering any suggestions, I'd like to offer up what I think has to be done to get us out of this morass.

Cut taxes. That's right, cut taxes across the board. Right now most people still have jobs and incomes. Businesses are still doing business as well. Giving them checks will not change their behaviors, we have to change long term incentives. Businesses have to get more money to invest in capital, employees, etc. People need more money to spend. It needs to be something that people can count on though in the future if you want to impact business spending. It can't be a one time thing. If all businesses had their taxes cut from 39% down to 30% they would have a huge increase in their income that they could put to work. Average Americans would have more money to spend in their pockets as well if their taxes are cut. They could walk into WalMart and buy something other than food, medicine, and blankets. (Oh wait this isn't Oregon Trail)

Yeah Yeah, I know the predictable refrain about cutting taxes will only benefit the rich. The fact is if the rich fall, our economy is in big trouble. We need the jobs they provide.

Cut taxes while we still have people employed. It won't matter in a year when unemployment is soaring because our legislature can't legislate.

Read more...

I got your back, AIG!

No doubt you've heard the tremendous outcry from the liberal media bias over the resort and spa trip that AIG treated some of it's top employees to a few days ago. Sure, it wasn't great timing given the fact that Uncle Sam just threw them a bone of $85 million from the bailout legislation, but come on! Do you have any idea what these guys have been through in the past few weeks? Poor fellas probably hadn't wiped the avocado off their faces before those windbag politicians from the House Committee started busting their balls.

Settle down, people! AIG spent a mere $440,000 on the resort & spa trip. That is roughly the equivalent of what America spends for 45 minutes in Iraq! Let's get things into perspective.

I've also heard the middle-class whiners cry about the $47 million severance package of AIG's former CEO, Martin Sullivan. Apparently they have a problem with the fact that AIG wrote down $20 billion in losses, prompting Sullivan's resignation. None of us have any idea how tough it is to be a CEO. Can you even imagine the stress of driving a multi-billion dollar company into the ground? The man deserves every cent!

So next time you are down on 'main street' and overhear Joe six-pack complaining about AIG's day at the spa and golden parachutes, just ask him where he got that sub-prime loan for his double-wide. Sucker! So here's to the financial industries' elite- let the haters hate. Let the Barbara Ehrenreichs of the world get their panties in a knot over your paychecks. They'll never know the pressures of tanking the largest economy in the world.

Read more...

All In

While the stock market crumbles around us, I have been asking myself what I can possibly do. My IRA has shrunk, my 401(k) is off to a rocky start in my new company, and my taxable account as well is giving me plenty of heartache. It is hard to say, but now is the time to push all in. Recognizing that in times past the real money in the stock market is made coming off the lows. The most successful investors are able to buy stuff up while everyone is heading for the exits. Warren Buffet has time and again jumped in during panics to scoop up assets on the cheap.

Look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The last time it was at this level was after 9/11 hit us, Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and the dot com crash. A tidal wave of bad news and events had devastated the economy. It was 2002-2003, six years ago. Since that time our GDP has grown to be almost 25% larger, meaning companies are selling more products, producing more, more efficient, etc. Are things as dire as they were in 2002-2003?

At this point I'm not comfortable saying they aren't as dire, because things can certainly get worse from this point. Scandals can erupt, bad government policy can be passed, companies can cheat to make numbers, etc. I'm hopeful though that because the problem is financial rather than systemic at this point, we will be able to navigate through this.

So here goes with the "all in". I sold my short positions in my IRA (SDS and SKK, they do double the inverse of the S&P 500 and Russell 2000) and I've begun purchasing SS0 (double the returns of the S&P 500) and JNK (junk bonds that currently yield 12%+). Times are ugly now, but when they turn they will turn fast and most people will be left on the sidelines and miss out on the big moves up.

I also want to open up a double short position on Europe (UXPIX) as they are in for a ton of hurt. Their recovery will be much worse as the smart money will head for the US in times of turmoil (like right now, check out how eager the world is to buy up our TBills, the yield is almost at 0)

Just my thoughts on the current economic turmoil.

Read more...

the impact of a leader

Leadership is an interesting thing. In so many ways, leadership is absolutely critical to the success of an organization. If you have a leader who is unfit for the job, then undoubtedly the organization will fail to reach its goals. Conversely, a well-prepared leader with a strategic mindset can facilitate tremendous growth and success. We see it all the time in sports. A coach or manager proves unequipped to make the proper decisions in time management or play calling or motivation of the players and the result is a lackluster or failing performance. Or, a coach or manager proves brilliant through gameplanning and preparation that leads to execution on the field.

But sometimes the leader is unduly blamed for organizational failure and unfairly credited for its successes. It's this imperfect science of really defining the impact of a leader. Frankly, I think it's totally dependent on the organization.

It's so easy nowadays to simply pile on President Bush for our current economic and energy crises. So easy! He's the leader. Things are bad. Blame him. Well, let's stop and think for a minute. Is it really his fault? There is so much carryover between administrations that it's almost impossible to define causal relationships to anything in our economy. Furthermore, we specifically have all these checks and balances in place so that our President is not a dictator. He is not in total control. So when things are going swimmingly, we can't just praise the President for a job well done anymore than we can attribute all blame on him when things go awry. I think that that office in particular is one where it's extremely difficult to come to a final verdict. We've seen it time and again that the final verdict is really not final at all. The verdict changes over time as we are more removed from the administration considered. Obama said tonight that this current economic crisis is the final verdict on failed economic policy of the last 8 years. I'm not buying it. Bush is by NO means impeccable. No leader -- no human -- ever is. But to say that he is to blame for this situation is actually quite arrogant. It implies that he alone could have prevented it. Or that Obama alone could fix it.

This is an economic cycle. We've been through tens of them before and we'll have them again. This one has some new wrinkles in it that are caused by myriad factors, of which Bush is one, and it's exacerbated by the fact that this an election year, making its easy and popular to pile on the incumbent. This particular economic crises will require creativity and confidence to solve it just like prior downturns have required creativity and confidence.

Leaders are important. In some cases they matter more than others. I'm just not certain that the President can be aptly blamed or credited for macro- or microeconomic failure or success.

Read more...

Energy crisis: hot or hoax?

My cousin Ben and I recently attended a lecture by Thomas Friedman, famous columnist and author of several best-selling books. He came to speak about his new book, Hot, Flat and Crowded, and about the impending energy crisis that the world is facing. Friedman is calling for America to step up to the challenge and spark the ET (energy technology) revolution, much as America did for the IT (information technology) revolution in the 1990s.

He states, "We need 100,000 people experimenting in 100,000 garages coming up with ideas, 100 might be promising and 2 might be the next Google."

Some chant, "drill baby drill," and are writing Friedman off as an alarmist in the tradition of Al Gore, calling global warming and the energy crisis the biggest hoax of all time. Still, others are heeding the call to become more environmentally friendly and sustainable. There seems to be mountains of scientific data to support your view, whatever it is.

So who is right? Is the revolution of alternative energy the issue that will bolster our economy, create millions of jobs and give America back its mojo?

Read more...

Greed, Self-Interest, & Personal Finance

During the VP Debate the other night, I found myself nodding in agreement when Governor Palin made the point about consumers living well beyond their means. But she didn't stop there. She called out the Federal Gov't as well for living well beyond its means. In essence the argument centers on greed and self-interest -- that consumers, politicians, bankers and others spent, borrowed, or leveraged well beyond their means.

Ryan and Sam have made some good comments about greed, and I have been chewing on those in connection with Palin's comments trying to understand this more thoroughly.

This famous Adam Smith quote came to mind:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their own self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."

Clearly, self-interest is vital, even central, to a successful economy. So it seems quite illogical to blame greed and self-interest for this mess, no?

But what I guess I am realizing is that the greedy home buyer lost sight of his/her true self-interest. They were thinking maximum home size without regard to their monthly income. No matter what the mortgage companies were trying to push down consumers' throats, no matter how banks decided to allocate their debt loads, these consumers lost sight of their own good. Their greed went unbridled and the only two ways I can think of to control it is first, banks shouldn't be so frivilous in how and to whom they loan (i.e. it's in their own self-interest to not overextend its lending arm and risk failing to meet cash demands), and second, in general we all just need to do better at living within our means. If consumers had made the truly self-interested choice, they wouldn't have bought too much house.

Well, because we cosnumers didn't choose to live within our means in the first place, the economic conditions are pretty much forcing us to do so now.

Read more...

Caring for the Poor and Needy

There should be no debate about the importance of caring for the poor and needy in our, or any, society. Whether those needs are in our own neighborhood or on the other side of the world, they can be addressed effectively and properly. What I have been considering lately is why there is so much disagreement on how this challenge is best approached. The genesis of this train of thought is the fact that the election season highlights the fact that Democrats and Republicans stereotypically handle the caring of the poor and needy in vastly different ways. In fact, it seems like Republicans get a bad rep for ignoring the poor while the Democrats get a bad rep for doing so much for the poor that it becomes a free lunch. The truth is actually somewhere in the middle, in my opinion. Certainly there are generous Republicans AND 'teach-them-how-to-fish' Democrats. We just don't hear about either of them. From the angry left we are bombarded with claims that the right doesn't care about the poor and needy and from the angry right we are pelted with statements that make the left's effort to help the poor sound like socialism.

Well, isn't the issue of caring for the poor pretty simple? How can we be in disagreement about this? It is such an important problem to address and yet we are either spinning our wheels or moving backward in our attempt to effectively help the needy.

In any successfull welfare system, there must be clearly featured elements of volunteerism, hard work, generosity, self-esteem building, compassion, needs assessment ,and self-reliance. I don't really see those elements in our federal welfare program because we have built-in loopholes for people to abuse the system. One major loophole is how we define "poor" in the census. By our current standard of "poor", the average "poor" person/household has every standard household appliance, does not experience shortage of food or cash for essential needs, and their home is in good repair. We have a problem if that describes the average poor person. Redefining "poor" so that we are targeting those without food and cash sufficient for essential needs, will eliminate much of the current handouts.

And for those who fall into the true "poor " category...


What if the President of the United States required every governor to give a quarterly report on status of the poor and the needy in her state? What if the governor of every state required the mayors and/or other local/county authorities to give a quarterly account of the poor and needy in their jurisdiction? And if the premise of the program centered on those elements I listed above, would we not see an improvement in the caring of the poor and needy?

I am so bothered by the abuse of our current system, but I am equally bothered by the lack of focus on coming up with a viable system that allows people to get back on their feet and relying on their own hard work.

Much of the kind acts of service to lift up the poor go unnoticed. Be it in the form of private and frequent donations or quiet volunteer service, or both. Such acts should be considered patriotic and becoming of a US citizen, but they can only be fully utilized if the system facilitates the self-improvement of the poor so that over time we minimize the number of those needing assistance.

Read more...