Showing newest 38 of 51 posts from November 2008. Show older posts
Showing newest 38 of 51 posts from November 2008. Show older posts

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Cinematic Power

Last week fellow author Sam posted a fun editorial piece on the cartoon movie Wall-E. Many movies these days have a purpose beyond entertainment value. Movies can be very powerful in molding our opinions, beliefs, and sometimes our actions.

My wife and I watched Saving Private Ryan on Thursday night. She had never seen the entire film and it had been several years since the last time I watched it.


What a movie. I certainly felt a surge of gratitude for the thousands of soldiers and their families who 'laid so costly a price on the altar of freedom.' I felt disgust for the tendency of man to create war. I felt heartache for the mothers who throughout the ages have seen sons go off to war never knowing if they would see those sons again. I felt courage to accomplish great things because of the freedoms I now possess via a price not paid by me.

Indeed that film strains and tests a number of emotions.

I don't always agree with the agendas -- both overt and covert -- of movies, but we are fortunate to have the right to create and benefit from such films. This is one of my all-time favorite films in part because I so appreciate the feelings it evokes.

One of my favorite parts is the reading of President Lincoln's letter to Mrs. Bixby, a mother who had lost several sons in the Civil War:

Executive Mansion,Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,--

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln

You can read about his letter in various history books and the like, but when this message is put in a film, especially a film of this ilk, I just don't know if it could be more powerfully presented.

That's using the power of cinema for good.

Read more...

What are CDOs?

For anyone and everyone. We talk about them all the time these days, but what are they? Here is a very well done short clip explaining what they are and why we're in trouble. I highly recommend watching it.

Read more...

Friday, November 28, 2008

Great News


This warms the heart. When I saw the previews for this I said to Jamie, too soon. It turns out, I was right.

A mere 5 million viewers tuned in for the 8 p.m. premiere of "Rosie Live," with the program earning a 1.2 preliminary adults 18-49 rating. The telecast matched ABC's recently canceled "Pushing Daisies" as the night's lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network. [...]

Critics were not kind. The NY Times described it as "hokey comedy with an enemies list." TV Guide called it a "ghastly ego trip." And the LA Times asked, "Rosie, what on earth were you thinking?"


So to quote a famous creepy rich guy. You're fired.

Read more...

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

What I'm Thankful For


These guys

Here is also a warming Thanksgiving tale of an enemy ambush thwarted.

During the battle, the designated marksman single handedly thwarted a company-sized enemy RPG and machinegun ambush by reportedly killing 20 enemy fighters with his devastatingly accurate precision fire. He selflessly exposed himself time and again to intense enemy fire during a critical point in the eight-hour battle for Shewan in order to kill any enemy combatants who attempted to engage or maneuver on the Marines in the kill zone. What made his actions even more impressive was the fact that he didn’t miss any shots, despite the enemies’ rounds impacting within a foot of his fighting position.

Read more...

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

I just got F-ed!!!


You heard me. Its my own fault. I have no one to blame but myself. I just got F-ed, as in, Ford's ticker symbol (F). I went against every reputable stock analyst out there and bought one of the crappiest stocks on the market. I snatched it up at a whopping $1.66.

So call me crazy but here is my rationale.

1) Its cheap and I don't have a lot to spend.

2) Everyone is hating on Detroit. The media is referring to these three companies as one large slovenly conglomerate. But that isn't how it is. These companies are fierce competitors. Their every move is in anticipation or retaliation to one of the others. I believe Ford to be the best positioned of the three.

3) If you back me up into a corner I'll tell you that I'm going with my gut on this one... some how.... some way... I just don't see this company going under anytime soon.

4) Maybe my most compelling argument: is the fact that Ford lost $2.7 billion last year. That sounds bad until you consider they lost $12.6 billion the year before. So why weren't they panhandling for money from the government back in January of '07?

My only explanation for that is that there is a reason you see more pigeons in Times Square when the bird-food lady is out.

Read more...

The Perfect Storm for More Government

This is a bit choppy, so I apologize in advance. Trying to work and write a post is a bit of a challenge. I'm a bit short on time at the moment, but I had to get my thoughts out.

This is the year of the bailout. This week the Fed authorized $300 Billion to back Citi. Add another bank to the list. What I’ve been asking myself is how in the world is this happening under a Republican administration? We all know that George Bush isn’t exactly a conservative, but for heaven’s sake we’re unapologetically teeing the socialist programs up for the Obama/Pelosi/Reid team.

What has me scratching my head most is why Henry Paulson has a free reign to our tax dollars. Here is a guy who is an appointed official who has been handed unbridled authority to do whatever he pleases with our tax money to the tune of trillions of dollars. Congressman Scott Garrett said it well: “Whether it’s lending or spending, its tax dollars that are going out the window and we end up holding collateral we don’t know anything about. The time has come that we consider what sort of limitations we should be placing on the Fed so that authority returns to elected officials as opposed to appointed ones.” I keep asking myself if Paulson is a republican and a capitalist, how does he justify doing what he’s doing? Well, he tends to put up a lot of money for liberal organizations and tends to have quite a few liberal friends. But I won’t try the guilt by association argument. We all know how well that argument works. However, these articles are a must read on Paulson: here and here. I'd post the text, but I got in trouble for doing that last week. Just kidding, Sam.

So while Paulson is running up an unprecedented tab, we have others in Washington who’d like to get their hands on American businesses. Its no secret that certain politicians would like to exert a little more control on certain businesses and/or take a larger cut of some of the profits. So the thought of the U.S. Government buying up stakes in companies frightens me a bit, but it is absolutely on the minds of many in Washington.

I read an excellent article yesterday by Thomas Sowell. Read for yourself here. Sowell, a critic of media bias, explains in the article that a lot of the hype about the economy is driven by the media in attempt to make us feel that these programs (i.e. bailouts, stimulus packages, buying stakes in U.S. companies) are necessary, but in reality all the media is doing is helping out the politicians in Washington amass a pile of money to run more programs.

Essentially, what I see here is a perfect storm for those who advocate more government:

  • Piles of collateral with upside potential from the bailouts to fill a large basket of cash for programs like Universal Healthcare and Global Warming initiatives;
  • Unbridled authority for the Fed to continue doing what they’re doing;
  • A democrat controlled congress headed by Pelosi and Reid, and now a liberal President Obama;
  • A fearful republic that is being led to believe that all of this intervention is absolutely necessary.

Read more...

Monday, November 24, 2008

Article Watch

Interesting article on the Prop 8 stuff going on.
Here
Highlights:

The outbreak of attacks on the Mormon church since the passage of Proposition 8 has been chilling: envelopes full of suspicious white powder were sent to church headquarters in Salt Lake City; protesters showed up en masse to intimidate Mormon small-business owners who supported the measure; a website was created to identify and shame members of the church who backed it; activists are targeting the relatives of prominent Mormons who gave money to pass it, as well as other Mormons who are only tangentially associated with the cause; some have even called for a boycott of the entire state of Utah.


and
Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact.


Here is an article that you won't see everyday. A critic of Bush actually giving him credit for something.

Human Rights Watch rarely lauds the Bush administration. But when it comes to supporting international efforts to prosecute Sudanese leaders for their slaughter in Darfur, the administration so far has it right.


Of course it is nice to have France to compare oneself to.
Yet today, Washington's desire to hold Mr. Bashir to account has made even a strong ICC backer like France seem weak by comparison. French President Nicolas Sarkozy says that, to suspend prosecution, Mr. Bashir must "totally change his policy." But when he refused to surrender two other suspects to the ICC, Mr. Sarkozy obligingly suggested that it would suffice for one merely to resign his ministerial post.

Read more...

Getting out of my comfort zone...

Going into the weekend I had mixed emotions. There was plenty of excitement for the rivalry weekend in college football, we had a couple parties to attend, and lots going on. But, several months ago I bought two tickets for Lindsey and I to go to the Coldplay concert and there were a few critical concerns there:


1) they were pricey tickets -- even though the money was long gone and it wasn't affecting our current budget, I wondered if we should sell them and make a nice profit and have some extra holiday cash.


2) the concert overlapped with the big football game in town, BYU vs Utah (to which we also had tickets that we had to turn down because of the concert) and we would also miss the big Texas Tech vs. Oklahoma game, which would certainly be a classic.


3) it was our first concert. Ever. Seriously. So we didn't really know what to expect and we had no way of knowing if we had made the right call. (Yes, I grew up in Seattle in the '90s and never attended a single concert. Call me lame or call me a sports nut, or call me both. I don't care.)


Well, you gotta love a little risk-taking and you most certainly have to appreciate hindsight.


We kept the concert tix and made the leap. The BYU game stunk and so did the Texas Tech game.


The concert? Oh it was simply one of the most amazing events I have ever attended in my life. My sisters -- all concert goers -- didn't attend, but they now tell me my idea of a concert is all screwed up because I've seen Coldplay. Probably true. This concert isn't going to make me a concert addict by any means, but we will certainly be judicious about who we go see after Saturday night's performance.


Getting out of the comfort zone of sports felt pretty sweet. I witnessed a lot of parallels in the excitement of live music and live sports, but with a band like Coldplay you know you're not going to leave disappointed, which you can't guarantee by attending a rivalry game.


Viva la vida!

Read more...

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Church of Environmentalism Playing at a Theater Near You


Last night started out as many Friday nights do at our house; a trip to Walgreens with my four year-old to grab some Twizzlers and a movie from redbox. My daughter was excited about the recent redbox release, Wall-E.

We weren't 10 minutes into the movie before I started noticing some very environmentally friendly messages being delivered, sometimes very subtly. The outlandish plot of an uninhabitable planet and a robot romance was just about as much as I could handle.

What disturbs me most is that children don't understand how damaging 'being green' really is. It will be years before my daughter can fully grasp the detrimental effects on the economy that being environmentally responsible brings.

As my daughter surveyed the toxic heaps of garbage illustrated in the movie she asked, "Daddy, is it like that because everybody littered?"

My blood curdled. I didn't know how to tell her that without those toxic heaps of garbage many people wouldn't have houses! or buildings! or nice big cars like ours! How could I impress upon her little mind the universal truth that the resources of this earth are no more than a means to an end. The ultimate end. Profit. People talk about sustainability but if the free market 100 years from now can't figure out how to extract and harness the resources that we haven't managed to burned through, that is their problem. I'm sure it will be because government has stepped in and screwed up the incentives to do so.

So word to the wise: Don't see Wall-E. Don't participate in the 1000's of corporate initiatives right now to ride your bike, car pool or recycle. And pay no attention to newly appointed Chief Environmental Officers or the 'sustainability 360' projects. It's a fad. It will fade. Sooner or later corporate America, and yes, even Hollywood will come to their senses and we'll be left with what matters most: maximum production, maximum profits.

Read more...

Christmas Shopping

I hate it. It takes so much time, and I never know what to get. Each year I make the goal to do all my shopping online. Yesterday I got the kick in the pants to do it by receiving a check from ebates in the mail. For those of you that haven't heard of it, you go through their site to do your online shopping. You have access to almost every online store, but you get a discount in the form of cash back. Companies that participate use the rebate as a way to advertise.

Anyway if you're interested you can join and get $10 free. An example, you can get 8% back from Borders, 6% from Nordstrom, 4$ from Dell, 8% from Macys. They just send you a check every month or so with your accumulated money from shopping. Click here to sign up.

By way of disclosure, I will get a referral bonus if you sign up, along with you getting a bonus. Try it out, I've found it very useful.

Read more...

Friday, November 21, 2008

Privacy No More

Diving into the private lives of public individuals (athletes, actors, politcians, etc) is nothing new or surprising. Americans are typically interested in the personal lives of those whose faces and voices we welcome into our living room on a daily basis.

It is a difficult balance to strike because I have seen first-hand how annoying it is for a well-known athlete to not be able to be out in public without being bombarded by strangers.

But that's not the half of it.

What about personal conversations, text messages, instant messages, etc? Those elements of privacy are quickly evaporating for all of us, but particularly for those in the public eye. Is it fair? I don't know. Part of me actually thinks that it's absolutely fair for someone like the President of the United States because he (or she) is no longer his, but his country's. But doesn't that seem excessive?

Think about President-elect Obama's situation: here he is on the verge of taking over the White House and he will have to hand in his personal Blackberry. And he probably won't get to use it until he's out of office. Why? Because anything he says at any time or at any place can be held against him. I'm not pitying the man. He certainly wanted this position bad enough to make this kind of sacrifice. But I think it's really interesting to consider this issue on a few levels.

First of all, I would not like to give my Blackberry up. I love it. But seriously, it would be terrible to not be able to have a private text conversation with my wife or my friend or anyone else. Sure I can have my arranged phone calls and chats that are cleared by security, but giving up that freedom to be able to vent to someone without worrying about any fallout or consequences...that's tough.

More deeply, however, is this idea of integrity and accountability. I think of my actions and conversations of the past and those I will yet have and I wonder how they could be used against me. That's not a fun situation. Certainly, I am much more concerned about how my thoughts, words, and deeds measure up to the judgments of God than I am about those of the media or the general public, but their opinions or their digging into my personal life could affect my ability to accomplish what I want to do in life.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't have anything to hide. :) I'm just thinking out loud here about the consequences Obama and others face as they step into public light, but more specifically about how important it is to be true and honest at all times because of the fact that all of this information (IM, SMS, emails, facebook, myspace, twitter, phone calls, personal conversations, etc) is stuff that has a way of trailing us.

Read more...

Guest Post

We have a guest post today from Adam. It is a little different from what we normally run, as it is meant more for entertainment. Before we get into it though, might I just say, that if the stock market is a reflection of future expectations, the Obama presidency doesn't bode well for business. Now onto the fun.

Barack Obama has been elected president. Across the world the masses of peasants and nobleman alike are cheering. America is once again acceptable and beloved! In the wake of the euphoria and enthusiasm, and in the spirit of sacrifice that The One has declared we must adapt, I have decided to do something especially altruistic; Apply for a government job in the Age of Obama.

Talk about audacity!

I spent weeks getting my resume and references in order. I polished up on my tele-prompter reading skills, bowled a few frames, so as to not be overly embarrassed at any “company parties”, and even learned to speak a few phrases in French, German, Italian, Russian and Arabic. “No merci, beaucoup!”

I read through the archives of the DailyKos, learning by heart the Lefty talking points. They became my mission and my mantra. My knee-jerk response mechanism is nearly completely programmed to blurt out “It was the failed policies of the Bush years that caused that societal ill!”.

I felt prepared, even ordained, to spend the next 8 years (re-election is already a forgone conclusion) crusading for fundamental change. America is not what it once was, nor is it what it could be!

And so with the anticipation of a child about to receive free day care, I filled out the 7 page, 63 question Obama/Biden job application. I thought I’d share some of the questions, along with my answers to them while I wait eagerly to hear from the Obama team. With any luck, Barack Obama himself will send me a text message alerting me to my new status as “Assistant to the Assistant to the Director of Affairs of Homeland Hope and Change and Office of the Public Hope and Reeducation”.

The next 8 years are going to be so awesome!

On to a few of the questions:


(10) Please list all aliases or “handles” you have used to communicate on the Internet.

In the virtual realm of “World of Warcraft” I am known simply as “Sylvio”, the Blood Elf Death Knight. I have, as Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight, committed untold atrocities, including but not limited to: razing several farms, homes and churches, and killing the innocent inhabitants of those places. My anger toward the farming community was fueled by the rising cost of food, and that damn George W. Bush and his failed policies of the last 8 years. I guess you could say that the farmers chickens are coming home to roost!

I have also, as Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight, agreed to perform several murders, and robberies, as well as the cross border delivery of contra-banned goods for criminally suspect characters, including but not limited to a secret society known only as the “Cenarion Circle”.

However, these abhorrent activities have been carried out in the righteous war against industrialization and technology. In their employ, and yes they pay handsomely in both money and weaponry, I have, as Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight murdered factory workers, vandalized factory equipment, and performed covert espionage that enabled other agents of change to do likewise. The fight against Global Warming knows no boundaries – virtual or otherwise.


(13) If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.

See above.

(49) Please list any malpractice claim made against you, formally or informally, and describe the resolution of the matter.

There have been several claims made by my wife of severe malpractice as a husband and father because of my malicious, but righteous virtual war as Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight. She has claimed that my online war on terror, or war of terror, has limited my ability to function in the realm of non-pixilated reality. I resolved this matter by casting a mind soothe charm on my wife, which reduced the amount of hate generated by my computer playing activities.

58) Please provide the URL adress of any website that features you in either a personal or professional capacity (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, etc.)

Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight’s online profile can be found here:

(59) Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?

No. But Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight has a big-ass sword.

Those were a just a few of my answers to the questionnaire. I also had to elaborate on any diary entries, girlfriends, and potentially embarrassing personal or corporate associations I have had in the last 10 years. Mercifully, my friends over the last 10 years have all been mainstream, outstanding citizens. People like Jerkstore the undead Mage and Bhozo the Troll Warrior. People who understand that the good fight needs fighting in all sectors and in all realms, regardless of whether or not they are “real”.

And so, I wait patiently now to get that call, to hear that phone ring or my email notification beep and bring me the news I am so anxiously awaiting, that news that I have indeed been hired as an agent of change in the New America, the Age of Obama.

And in the meantime, Sylvio the Blood Elf Death Knight has people to kill.

Read more...

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Response to Sam

Since most people don't read comments, and this proved popular last time. Here is my response to Sam.

On the surface there doesn't seem to be much that these two cities share.
Other than the fact that they are both “cities” with structures and roads, I’m not sure there is much by way of similarities.

But the current state of affairs in these two cities 6000 miles apart have a lot to tell us about ourselves as Americans and what we cherish most.
Detroit has seen millions flee their state as the tax structure has strangled business growth. Unions have corrupted the few business that have stayed. Politicians have lied, cheated, and stolen to remain in power.

So how does that match up with Baghdad do you say? Oh we spent a trillion dollars to stop a murderous dictator who had possessed and used WMD in the past and we suspected he was starting up production again. Millions are now free to vote, oil is now used to benefit the people of Iraq instead of enrich the dictator and his cronies, and women now have freedoms that are rare in the Middle East.
I'm not really seeing the similarities yet.



Regardless of political party, race, color or creed our government has shown an unwavering eagerness to waste any resource, sacrifice any principle and spend any amount of money to appease its constituencies. But what our leaders seek to give us is not theirs to give.
I absolutely agree with this statement. I'm glad you support lower taxes, reduced government interference in business, and the government getting out of retirement and medical care.

SECURITY

The one job, if I had to choose, that the government is best designed for is to provide security. Even living in NYC, I feel pretty safe, much safer than in Baghdad. Though I guess Detroit and Baghdad might be similar in their security situations with respect to crime, I doubt Detroit is worried about Canada attacking them with anything other than comedians, snow balls, and round bacon.

We have spent $1 trillion in Iraq. Are we safe yet?
I absolutely think we are safer. Are we totally safe? I doubt anyone ever will be, ever, but I feel relatively safer than I did 7 years ago. We have owned the terrorists everywhere we have found them, we have responded with a resolute butt kicking and have created a stable democracy in their heartland.

And please don't thank Bush for not allowing us to be attacked since 9/11.
So are you stipulating that leaders are not responsible for things that happened during their tenure? Are you setting up for defending Obama so soon?

By that logic, Bush allowed us to be attacked that fateful morning and furthermore, we must bow at the feet of Bill Clinton who kept us even safer and did it while shrinking the defense budget.
Well I think Bush accepted some responsibility, but he made up for that with a forceful response that has since caused terrorists around the world to rally to fight and then fail. Clinton on the other hand ignored the warning signs, ignored or responded weakly to the several attacks during his tenure, and ultimately gave us the world Bush stepped into on Jan. 20 2001. Or do you think the Terrorist hate started only when Bush took office?

Sorry folks, you can't buy homeland security. It can happen on anyone's watch no matter how many soldiers die, wire taps are performed, insurgents are tortured or 'patriot' acts enacted.

So then are you advocating getting rid of all FBI, CIA, NSA, and even the military? If we can't stop it then why spend money trying?



And after the tax dollars have been handed over to Detroit and tighter fuel efficiency standards have been imposed; will those millions of workers have secure jobs then? Again, security is not theirs to give. It is true that government can impose it but only at the expense of freedom.

Their jobs will not be secure be case they work for uncompetitive companies. When your product costs 2000 dollars more to make than your competitors you have a problem. Also when your average employee salary is $75 an hour when your competitor's is $25 an hour you also have a problem. There is a security and freedom trade off, are you will to give up your freedom of walking onto an airplane without being inspected for the added security of the xray setup we currently have? Most people are.

I have blogged about this before and I continue to be frustrated with our willingness to give up freedom for security. Freedom implies independence and accountability. Security implies dependence and a lack of accountability.

Freedom also can be incredibly dangerous. I willing give up my freedoms to own an arsenal of rocket launchers and automatic weapons here in NY. I also give up my freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. Not only that but I gladly give up my freedom to steal from my neighbors. So there should be lines drawn between freedom and security. Clinton drew those lines a little closer to freedom and look what it got us. Several terrorist attacks in the 90s which culminated in 9/11 for which he shares most of the responsibility. Remember Bush took power only 9 months earlier and was still getting his cabinet/staff approved by congress. Bush has drawn the line closer to security with the accompanying freedom trade-offs. Count me in the camp that is grateful for the increased security.

Read more...

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

A Tale of Two Cities: What Baghdad and Detroit Can Teach US

Detroit


Baghdad

On the surface there doesn't seem to be much that these two cities share. But the current state of affairs in these two cities 6000 miles apart have a lot to tell us about ourselves as Americans and what we cherish most.

Regardless of political party, race, color or creed our government has shown an unwavering eagerness to waste any resource, sacrifice any principle and spend any amount of money to appease its constituencies. But what our leaders seek to give us is not theirs to give.

SECURITY

We have spent $1 trillion in Iraq. Are we safe yet? And please don't thank Bush for not allowing us to be attacked since 9/11. By that logic, Bush allowed us to be attacked that fateful morning and furthermore, we must bow at the feet of Bill Clinton who kept us even safer and did it while shrinking the defense budget. Sorry folks, you can't buy homeland security. It can happen on anyone's watch no matter how many soldiers die, wire taps are performed, insurgents are tortured or 'patriot' acts enacted.

And after the tax dollars have been handed over to Detroit and tighter fuel efficiency standards have been imposed; will those millions of workers have secure jobs then? Again, security is not theirs to give. It is true that government can impose it but only at the expense of freedom.

I have blogged about this before and I continue to be frustrated with our willingness to give up freedom for security. Freedom implies independence and accountability. Security implies dependence and a lack of accountability.

With our last breath may we shout like the man who was 7 feet tall, could scorch the English with fire balls out of his eyes, and lightning bolts out of his arse:

FREEDOM!

(If you are not familiar with this most epic of men please do yourself a favor and go rent this movie)

Read more...

Romney on Detroit

I found this opinion piece in the NYT by Mitt Romney yesterday. Rather than try to paraphrase or make myself look smart by giving some lame commentary, I'm going to let Mitt do the talking. Ladies and Gentlemen, Mitt Romney:

LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT by Mitt Romney

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Read more...

Following Google's Lead



Last month I visited one of the business schools I am applying to and while I was there I enjoyed a guest lecture from the VP of People Operations at Google (People Ops = HR in Googlese). I had heard of and read about many of the innovative, interesting, and amazing things that Google did/does for their employees and it was great to hear about the methodology straight from the man who spearheaded all of it. It was also interesting to hear that they have cut back on some of the perks simply because some of them were unreasonable. Doing so has not damaged morale, however, and it certainly hasn't detracted aspiring Googlers: Google still gets 4,000 resumes A DAY! and they only hire about 3,500 in a year (only!). So, as he said, in theory, they could be done hiring mid afternoon on January 1st each year. In order to handle the insane amount of applications they have used their innovation to develop an intense computerized vetting process that has proven to be a better determinant of future success at Google than has the standard interview process. They still interview on occasion, but thousands have been hired without ever getting an interview!

So when I saw this headline today in the WSJ, my interest was instantly piqued. Proctor & Gamble and Google are swapping employees??? Talk about culture shock. P&G is the poster child for corporate beauracracy and Google is the antithesis thereof. The article is fascinating as you consider a couple dozen Googlers sitting in on P&G marketing meetings...here is an excerpt form the article that I particularly enjoyed:

As the two companies started working together, the gulf between them quickly became apparent. In April, when actress Salma Hayek unveiled an ambitious promotion for P&G's Pampers brand, the Google team was stunned to learn that Pampers hadn't invited any "motherhood" bloggers -- women who run popular Web sites about child-rearing -- to attend the press conference.

"Where are the bloggers?" asked a Google staffer in disbelief, according one person present.

For their part, P&G employees gasped in surprise during a Tide brand meeting when a Google job-swapper apparently didn't realize that Tide's signature orange-colored packaging is a key part of the brand's image.


Boy, that would be fun to join in on these meetings!

When I first read that these companies were swapping employees I immediately thought of professional sports franchises trading players (and in some cases coaches for draft picks). As it turns out this swap isn't permanent, but it's no surprise that Google is the one leading the charge on some concept of employee trading. This is a clever option and I see real value in the outsider perspective like this, which may be more economical than bringing in an omniscient consultancy.

Read more...

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Kiva: Loans to the working poor


"Lack of money is the root of all evil."
-George Bernard Shaw


An online microfinance organization recently caught my attention and I thought it was worth sharing. Kiva is the Swahili word for unity or agreement and this organization is revolutionizing the world of microfinance.

Kiva has a vast network of small, 'on the ground' partner organizations that ensure a rigorous vetting process for the under-privileged entrepreneurs they serve. With Kiva you are not donating, but rather, lending your money to individuals. The loans are usually from 6-12 months and as a lender you will get updates on the performance of the business venture you are helping to fund. After the venture is complete you can either extend another loan, donate it to Kiva, or withdraw your funds.

This is a great way to get involved in alleviating poverty without quitting your day job to go work for a NGO or doling out handouts to those who you deem indolent.

Check it out.

Read more...

Resurrecting the GOP

As a follow-on to Bitner's excellent post entitled "Re-building the GOP", I found this great article written by the "Architect" Karl Rove where he addresses this question of whether to move the party forward using traditional or reformist approaches.

Check it out here and let us know what you think. Karl seems to be an advocate of a "reformed" Traditional approach wherein he argues that the core principals of conservatism must be maintained. However, he argues in some instances we can reform our position while still staying true to our principles. One instance is in winning over critical voting groups. The GOP is losing ground among voters aged 18-29. He believes that a market-oriented "green" agenda may be a way to win a few of them back. Just an example.

Read more...

Monday, November 17, 2008

Isolated tribe wins against deforestation


I lived in Paraguay for two years so the goings-on in that little country with a GDP of less than South Dakota's is actually interesting to me. The Totobiegosode tribe (shown here) has had the forest they call home destroyed for years now. In this article (thanks for bringing it to my attention, Alex) we see that the tribe has finally won the battle thanks to the efforts of activist groups that represent the rights of indigenous peoples without a voice in government.

But let's back up here for a minute. There are only 300 Totobiegosode left in the world. Can't they just live somewhere else? What about the economy? What about all that great lumber? It would fetch a handsome price at market and provide thousands with homes and warmth, no? To borrow a question from a fellow author in the post below this one, 'Don't you think we should have better data before embarking on laws and regulations that will have profoundly negative impacts on our economy?'

Fortunately, there are still instances when we humans do not hold up the all-mighty dollar or 'the economy' as the end-all goal of the human race.

Read more...

Sunday, November 16, 2008

I should post this on my cube

I get lectured a couple times a week about being more "green" at my work place. I've decided that when people chide me for using a paper cup, I will dispose of it and get a new one. That is my way of fighting back. Since I can't openly speak against the church of environmentalism, at least I can make a difference. Anyway, in news that you won't hear about, we seem to be heading into a colder climate than Al Gore had predicted. Whoops.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.


Don't you think we should have better data before embarking on laws and regulations that will have profoundly negative impacts on our economy?

Read more...

Weekend Entertainment

A little late on this one. So I'll just have to post 2.


Read more...

Friday, November 14, 2008

I cannot say it any better

Dennis Miller said this earlier this week on The Factor. I hardly ever watch O'Reilly, but I like Dennis Miller and have liked him since his SNL days. Anyway, I thought it very eloquent and it captures how my feelings have been moving. I still feel concerned and worried about the economy and some of the bad things that the left want to do to it, but I want Obama to be successful because if he is, then that means our country is.


"I'm kind of happy now that it's over, because when they showed Grant Park that night and I saw the looks on the faces, some of the black elders looking up, who had been pushed aside to lunch counters and bathrooms, and I saw that catharsis, I thought, well, I intellectualized this would be good for the country in that way. I had no idea the depth of feeling. It pleases my heart. I'm happy for them.

Also, the guy looks so smart to me. I didn't believe anything he said when he was running. But now I know he's so smart that when two dim, mindless magpies like Reid and Pelosi trundle down there to sell their tired Willie Loman wares, he's going to pay them lip service. The moment they split, he's going to look at Rahm Emanuel and go, "Sharp elbows, dull intellects. We're not listening to those cats. Do you think I worked this hard to get to this point that I'm going to parrot what those two idiots say?" So I like the fact that he's really smart.

And you know something? He's my president now. And I am not going to do what the left did to Bush. I find it unbecoming. I hope that Barack Obama does so well that four years hence, I am salivating to vote for him. I want this all to work, because I love my country. At some point, I make Lee Greenwood look like the Rosenbergs. And I hope he does great.

But I will not turn my back on George Bush. Today, 2,619 days since a domestic terror attack on this soil. Thank you to my commander in chief, and thank you to the troops for providing us the safety to have an election like that."

Read more...

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Gas Prices and My Morning Commute Double Take


I was driving to work today listening to Glenn Beck when I passed a gas station and saw "$1.81 unleaded". Needless to say, I did a double take. Sure enough, gas was selling at that station for $1.81.

Why the sudden drop? The simple answer is demand. The credit market crunch and slumping global economy is putting a pinch on demand for oil. Despite efforts by OPEC countries to shore up prices by cutting supply, demand on a global scale continues to fall.

An interesting arbitrage situation has presented itself to speculators. To borrow a quote from this article in the WSJ:

"In recent months, contracts to buy crude in the distant future have fallen less than oil for delivery in the near term. Normally, when the difference grows wide enough, investors can buy oil on the cash market, park it in strorage tanks and sell it months down the road at a guaranteed profit."

If this price parity were exploited it could have a positive impact on demand. However, since credit is tight and cash is king, companies either don't have the funds available or are hesitant to convert working capital into inventory. Even when this spread is wide, companies would need to purchase a tremendous amount of storage oil to make meaningful income.

On the consumer front, this decline in the price of gas is definitely a welcome boost in real income. However, it's a harbinger of bad news for the U.S. and other global economies. Even the behemoth economy of China is seeing cuts in oil demand. Many analysts expect oil demand to come out to a net decline for the year, which would be a first since 1983. See this article and this article for more.

OPEC countries are really feeling the pinch. Iran is especially sensitive to the drop in oil prices. To remain profitable Iran needs to see its oil units sell at $90 a barrel. The price of a barrel of oil traded yesterday at around $56. If prices continue to fall or even stay flat, Iran may eek out an average annual selling price of slightly above $90. 2009 might be a year of hurt for the oil producing country. Other countries like Saudi Arabia have a much lower price point to stay profitable. Venezuela is another country that stands to get hurt from the drop in prices as their profitability price point is similar to that of Iran.

To some, a hurting Venezuela and Iran sounds like good news. However, at some point when demand begins to spike again (which it will), these counties will not have had the necessary capital to bolster their production capabilities and exploration. The following is a quip from this article:

"Dwindling oil investment is bad news for Tehran, which has struggled for years to boost hydrocarbon output. But it could also be trouble for consuming countries, which are depending on oil-production increases to meet demand growth expected beyond today's economic downturn."

Essentially, this drop in gas prices looks great to the consumer, who for the last couple of years and especially over this last summer, has seen a significant drop in real income as the cost of fueling vehicles has put a serious pinch on budgets. But the bigger picture looks more frightening. Lower oil prices really a reflection of slowing economies on a global scale. When China starts slowing production, you know there's a problem. We'll see how long this lasts, but analysts expect demand to continue to fall or stay flat for 2008 with perhaps a slight increase in 2009.

I think its critical that we not take our eye off of the initiative to push for energy independence. This subject became a big ticket item during the summer when gas was $4 a gallon. Now that we're seeing gas at less than $2 it might be really easy to forget the pain of $4 a gallon. We must continue to press forward for more energy independence and alternative sources to fuel our economy.

Read more...

The Most Overrated U.S. President

Guest Author: The following post is written by one of our friends and frequent participants. Zar recently graduated from The Wharton School and now works in marketing in Salt Lake City, where he lives with his wife and 3 children. He is an avid sports fan and loves debate.


Who is the most overrated President in the history of the United States? Please offer your suggestions, and tear down mine as well. As a basis, I’m using this set of rankings.

Based on the collective rankings, the historians over the years rank Lincoln as the best American President, with FDR and George a close 2nd. My belief is that Abe is the most overrated President on this list. Is he a good President? Yes. But is rated higher than he should be?

President Lincoln is primarily known for three things: 1) Emancipation Proclamation, 2) being the President as the Union won the Civil War, 3) being assassinated early in this 2nd term as President. But why is he considered the best President of the United States? Presumably a result of the first two items, sprinkled with martyr sentiment associated with the third item.

The Emancipation Proclamation actually only freed slaves in territories not yet controlled by the North in the war. So slaves in the following states were not freed: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia. Why not free slaves in all states? Perhaps Lincoln’s thoughts to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, can clear this up:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Surprise, but it sounds like this was more of a political move than anything. Further, I would suspect that a good number of politicians would have made this move if they were President. In fact, John Quincy Adams first proposed abolishment of slavery in 1839. So it’s not as if Lincoln was the first to think of it nor would he have been the only man to ‘free the slaves’ as President, especially given he won the 1860 election with nary a vote from the South, and the majority of the support from the North was given based on the Republican Party’s stance on slavery. In other words, had a different Republican candidate been the President, that individual would have freed the slaves and HIS face would be on Mount Rushmore.

Which leaves the war. So how did Lincoln do as Commander-in-Chief? Well, he replaced the lead General of the Army of the Potomac several times, even bringing back McClellan for a second chance in a moment of fear despite McClellan’s clear incompetence. Imagine if that happened in our times? Would the President get a free pass? He also managed to find time to belittle his generals in the press – something I don’t think you find in your Leadership 101 books. At one point, in early 1864, the outlook was so bleak that McClellan himself, advocating peace, was considered the political favorite to Lincoln, whose slogan was, ‘Don’t change horses in the middle of a stream.’ (maybe McCain chose the wrong strategy) Luckily for Lincoln, the sheer population and resource advantages the Union held finally paid off, and Sherman made his march to Atlanta, and Grant won a couple of important battles in Virginia, and voila – Lincoln quickly ran away with the Presidency in 1864. So did he win the war? Was he a good Commander-in-Chief? The Union resources won the war, Lincoln poorly chose and poorly led his generals, and almost lost the Presidency save for Grant and Sherman and their war successes.

Was Lincoln a bad man? No. Was he a bad President? No. Was his mark a positive one? Most certainly, yes. However, I believe careful scrutiny of his record would suggest that while a strong President, many of the good men who have served in that office could have replicated his actions. Mr. Lincoln, I do not believe you are the best President and thus, based off the rankings referenced above, I believe you to be the most overrated in our history.

Read more...

Karl Rove Is Still Fighting?!?

I guess the battle isn't over...

I know the left hate him, but the guy is a genius when it comes to political analysis. His latest article

It isn't just for Republicans to read. Here are key points.

First, the predicted huge turnout surge didn't happen. The final tally is likely to show that fewer than 128.5 million people voted. That's up marginally from 122 million in 2004. But 17 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000 (three times the change from 2004 to 2008).

Second, a substantial victory was won by modest improvement in the Democratic share of the vote. Barack Obama received 2.1 points more in the popular vote than President Bush received in 2004, 3.1 points more than Vice President Al Gore in 2000, and 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. In raw numbers, the latest tally shows that Mr. Obama received 66.1 million votes, about 7.1 million more than Mr. Kerry.


and here
In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).


Yes this was an historic election in that the first black President was elected, but it wasn't a landslide, nor was it a national mandate to veer left. I hope he does a great job and is successful as our President. As my President.

Read more...

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Re-building the GOP

Despite the landslide electoral college victory for the Dems, it is clear that America is not as Left as the media would like to protray. The election data from California substantiates this. (Scroll to the second section of that column for the analysis.) It appears Obama understands this as he moves to lead from the center.

In addition to watching Obama's moves over the next weeks/months to see how he defines his presidency, I am very intrigued by the talk of how the GOP is going to regroup. Clearly, the GOP is reeling.

So, I've enjoyed this article, courtesy of fellow author, Sam, as well as this article I saw in the WSJ. Both focus on the rebuilding effort of the GOP. The former presents two options for the GOP: get back to the traditionalist creed that Bush strayed from or reform the party to appeal to Hispanics, other minorities, and young voters, as well as concede that we have transitioned to a bigger-government kind of country. The latter presents some brief ideas from the leading Republican governors.

As a Republican, I don't want to see the party go back to our old ways entirely. I certainly want to get back to minimal spending, but I want to see the GOP become more inclusive of all races, ages, and income levels. I want to see the party work to articulatet the message that we need to be accountable for our own needs while also being aware and helpful of others' needs. This is a bit simplistic in thought, but the concept applies to immigration and welfare, human rights and commerce. I want to see the country agree that dependence is not the answer, but that we can work together in an interdependent community to raise the lower class and strengthen the middle class.

Anyway, I don't want to see leading Republicans pander and try and appeal to the Left by being more Leftist. And I don't want to see them just go back to their old ways of running the party either.

It will take years to rebuild the GOP, but I am excited to see the progress.

Read more...

Mmmm.....Crepes....

I am a breakfast guy. I love breakfast. And one of the things I REALLY love is breakfast for dinner. Slight problem, my wife hates crepes. So, little did I know that when I got married I was giving up one of my favorite meals of all-time. (In case you're wondering, it's all good. Giving that up is a cost worth incurring.)

Anyway, tonight my wife was too busy to get dinner on so she let me take the reins of the kitchen with absolutely no guidelines. So I made an entire batch of crepes, gave one to my daughter (almost 3 yrs old) and ate the rest myself. That's right. An entire batch of crepes, baby.

Wife was cool with it. She had some leftover Mexican food.

I recommend breakfast for dinner in any form, but especially crepes for dinner. Prolly shouldn't have the whole batch though.

Read more...

More Car Talk



I know I post a lot, and I certainly have had a political slant lately, but this is a finance post. We have a serious problem in Detroit and a bigger potential problem in the 'solution' being tossed around. It is also a parallel problem going on in the Republican camp that I'll touch on. In the competitive world, current thought (Clay Christensen is the leading thinker) you compete on what you have that is unique or that you are good at. For instance a good idea for Apple is to maintain their style over substance strategy, it works and appeals to a certain market. Going after the biggest, fastest computer market would be a bad strategy as they would be competing on Microsoft/Intel/Dell/HPs home turf. Similarly if you are good at drilling and refining oil, you ought to keep to that business. Pursuing wind, solar, geothermal power might not be the best move as your specialty is oil.

Real like examples? You'll note that none of the prominent horse and buggy operators moved to produce cars very effectively. New companies arose and the strongest ones survived. The inventor of the personal computer as we know it (Xerox) was not able to do anything with it, Apple and Microsoft would take it from them. Delta, United, Continental, and every other airline that has tried to compete in the low cost, no frills, hip, arena has gotten killed by Jetblue and SouthWest. Stick to what you're good at and improve your offering to your market. That is a very simplistic look at it, but it is fine for my purposes here.

Republicans now talking about moving to the center and coming around on increased government spending, environmentalism, etc. will find out that it is similar to Delta trying to create a hip new airline (named Song, for those that remember) to compete with Jetblue. You are wasting money and time, you can't win by going onto their home turf and competing with them. You have to convince your customers that you can provide a better experience to meet their needs with what you are good at.

Now we come to the auto industry. This article spurned my thinking today. The government is forcing Detroit to build cars that are not profitable and cannot compete with Japanese technology. Things are going to get a lot worse before they can get better.

The media have been terrible in explaining how the homegrown car companies landed in their present fix, when other U.S. manufacturers (Boeing, GE, Caterpillar) manage to survive and thrive in global competition. Critics beat up Detroit for building SUVs and pickups (which earn profits) and scrimping on fuel-sippers (which don't). They call for management's head (fine -- but irrelevant).

Read more...

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Bar Stool Economics

My professor used to enjoy telling this story. It is a metaphor for our tax code. I have a feeling there will be quite a few "10th" men who decide to stop going to the bar in the coming years.


Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men—the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “But he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Dr David R. Kamerschen Professor of Economics University of Georgia For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Read more...

Monday, November 10, 2008

Legislation to keep an eye on


The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) made its way onto the Senate Floor last year in June and after passing the House was narrowly defeated (51-48).

This is the big kahuna for every union in the United States. It is so close they can taste it and after pouring $400 million into the presidential campaign behind Hillary and then Obama they are fully expecting that this will be a priority of the new president.

This piece of legislation is definitely worth tracking as it will tell us much about the voices Obama is listening to as his fledgling presidency gets off the ground. Before too long the president-elect will give us a run down of what he plans to accomplish in his first 100 days. If the EFCA is on the list it will mean for many (including myself) that Obama is going against the mass of political moderates that got him elected and is pandering to the left of his party.

Now for an up-shot of the bill's major tenants for those who are unfamiliar with it:

It would take away the secret-ballot elections in union campaigns. If a majority of employees (half plus one) sign a union card the company will be required to recognize the union. This undercuts a fundamental democratic exercise and replaces it with a one-sided campaign in which there is no fact checking, no debate, no discourse about what welcoming a union could mean for the employees. Companies may not even know that employees are signing cards before they have a union in their facility.

I wish I could say that was the most sinister part of the bill. The most unfavorable piece calls for mandatory arbitration after 90 days of bargaining. Basically, if the company can't reach an agreement with the union after 90 days a third party comes in and tells both sides what the resolution will be. What incentive will the union have to come to an agreement, you ask? NONE! They will wait it out and in most cases get a much more favorable agreement than they otherwise would have. I'm all for not letting working folks' wages stagnate but this will put American business at an enormous disadvantage.

This bill (in its present form) is a pathetic excuse for helping working people and will hurt those that it purports to help as businesses hire less, close their doors and move overseas. American businesses will be unduly burdened and the only winners here are the unions themselves, not their members.

Obama has the chance to show America that they made the right choice. That he has what it takes to get our economy back on track. If this bill comes up in the first 100 days and if it passes in its present form he'll have told us plenty.

Read more...

I love Andy

Isn't he awesome?

Read more...

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Send Help FAST!




Just saw this in the WSJ today.


Pelosi and Reid want to bail out the auto industry with some of the 700 billion in the rescue package. Aside from main reason why I oppose this (government bailing out companies in general makes me uncomfortable, let me articulate what I think to be a solution that adequately addresses the causes.

Flash back 2 years ago when congress was telling Detroit how they had to make cars. Remember that? They made a law to increase fuel efficiency standards and to penalize companies not in compliance. Harmless sounding right? Well it turns out the Big 3 didn't have such a strong competitive position to go in that direction. Their Japanese competitors did. Congress thought that by passing a law, they could solve the oil problem, dewarm the environment, and "make" our auto industry more competitive.

Flash forward to today. After retooling factories and sinking billions into new model designs for cars it turns out that demand for hybrid/high efficiency cars is waning as the price of oil has dropped dramatically. Less demand for the cars = horrible prospects for the companies that ditched their competitive advantage to compete against companies that are decades ahead of them in their specialty. Oops. Looks like Congress isn't very good at picking winning technologies. So now the auto companies are in deep trouble and really Congress is largely to blame.

Not so fast unions, I also have a problem with your involvement in this equation. Your unwillingness to negotiate in good faith has led the company you claim to love into the brink of bankruptcy. The costs associated with producing a car for Ford and GM far exceed those of their competitors largely because of the corrupt behavior of the unions and management's unwillingness/inability to stand up to them.

So the problem is two fold. It is the fault of Congress and unions that the auto companies need to be bailed out. The solution I propose will make both groups pay for their sins, just like they have made the "fat cats" on Wall Street pay through their lost jobs and tanking stock values. If auto companies get federal money then the government has to step in adjust downward, considerably, the compensation and work packages that the unions benefit from. Just like Congress wants to limit the pay of executives at the banks because of their responsibility, they also need to limit/reduce the pay of the union fat cats that are getting paid 6 figures to stay home and not work.

How does Congress end up suffering for their actions? They get to tell their union constituents that they are taking a pay cut. Have fun with that.

**Edit**
Looks like someone else had the same idea as me, just remember mine came out first.

Read more...

Religious Bigotry


I had an experience today that got me thinking about some below-the-surface bigotry within myself. Basically, this post is a self-therapy session to flesh out, understand and conquer it. I live in a neighborhood that has had quite a bit of activity from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Conversations have been swirling between neighbors, "so, did the J-dubs get a hold of you yesterday?"

They knocked on my door today as fate would have it. It is a particularly cold day in Columbus today and too many memories raced through my head of being in a similar situation on the red-dirt roads of Paraguay to not let them in.

Let me press 'pause' on this story and tell you about my preconceived notions about what is about to happen in my front room: These militant religious zealots are going to tell me who Jehovah is. I am going to disagree and point to scriptures that prove I'm right. They'll do the same. They'll leave, muttering between themselves how backward the Mormons are and I'll do the same about them.

But here how it really went down: We had a beautiful discussion about God's kingdom on earth based on Matthew 6. There was a fluid exchange of theological ideologies and we wrapped up an half hour later thanking each other for the meaningful worship that we had engaged in.

I am ashamed of the jokes I have poked at this group and the feelings I have harbored for different religions that I saw as being complacent, lazy or intolerant; especially while serving as a missionary myself. There is simply no room for that in the life of someone who strives for discipleship of Christ.

On a macro level, it is sad that conflict between the West and the Middle East evokes an "International wipe your arse with the Koran day" and death threats against the infidels. It is unfortunate that Presbyterians, Lutherans, Mormons and Baptists can band together in a cause as important as the preservation of marriage, only to turn around after the ballots have been cast to continue producing disparaging films and pamphlets about the groups they just worked hand-in-hand with (*I am not blaming any specific group for this- I just know that it happens).

It is altogether possible to be firmly rooted in one's faith and yet still respect and appreciate the views of others. I have been guilty on numerous occasions of tacit religious bigotry and I resolve that going forward, I will be the guy in the neighborhood who stops the joke or turns it into something positive.

For behold, are we not all beggars?
-Book of Mormon, Mosiah 4:19

Read more...

Friday, November 7, 2008

A note to fantasy football addicts

I imagine most of the readers here are not addicted to fantasy football. I happen to be in 3 leagues and love/hate it. I read the following blurb on espn.com today and laughed until my sides hurt.

My big epiphany: Really, the fantasy football season isn't fun. Winning is OK; losing is agonizing. You constantly feel awful about your choices and your bad luck; it's the only exercise that causes arguments with friends you normally never would argue with; and you spend roughly a kazillion hours managing your team for the 10 percent chance that you might win your league. There's just not a ton of upside. It's almost like smoking cigarettes -- it started out with good intentions, and it's something to do, and it can be fun in the right moments, but ultimately, there are an inordinate amount of moments when you find yourself leaning out a window in 20-degree weather to puff out a quick cig as your nose gets frostbitten, or bumming a cig from a group of horrible girls and then feeling obligated to talk to them, or waking up in the morning and coughing up your right lung. Really, it's more harm than fun. And yet, we continue to do it. And love it. This entire paragraph made me want to smoke.

Well, I have never smoked no part of me wants to, but that was a fantastic analogy.

Thank you Sports Guy for this insight.

So for you addicts out there, maybe it's time to think about quitting at the end of the year.

For you who have never played fantasy football, it may be wise to just stay away.

Read more...

Will the race card go away?

Had an interesting discussion with family members last night about the effect of an Obama presidency on the use of the race card in America. Tuesday night was a hallmark event four our country, no doubt about that, but what we really don't have a handle on yet is where all this racism talk will go and how race will be used as a lever in politics. Theoretically, we should not have to worry about it any longer, right? We should be able to judge others by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. We've grown as a society to to be able to do that. Right? Well, in most cases, I would agree with that. But when 97% of blacks voted for the half-black candidate, are we really all the way there in terms of race? If whites voted that way this time we would have not only had a landslide electoral college victory, but also a popular vote blowout.

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Obama campaign, in terms of black support, and the victory celebration, had parallels with the OJ case in that it doesn't really matter if Obama's not the best person for the job or the best black person for the job, but dammit he's black so we're pulling for him. (akin to the fact that everyone knew OJ was guilty, but when he was acquitted it was a victory for black people no matter what, guilty or not.)

But I digress. The question I am considering is how are blacks and other minorities going to react now that they have a black person in the highest of political offices? Will they discontinue using the race card? Will it go away? The thing is America is NOT a racist country. We didn't need Tuesday, November 4, 2008 to tell us that. We will ALWAYS have racists of all colors and creeds in this country. They exist today and they will exist tomorrow. Hopefully, their numbers will continually dwindle. But having a very small faction of racists, does not a racist country make. So it will be interesting to see how the race card will be used now.

Ironically enough, in the wake of our conversation last night, my sister heard John Ridley's essay on NPR this morning, which highlights this topic: is Black America ready for a black president? You can read the text of it here.

Read more...

Iraq warns US on deal over troop withdrawal

Article from the Financial Times this morning:

"Two days after Barack Obama’s election as president, Iraqi officials were insisting on a withdrawal date for US troops regardless of conditions on the ground,"

Translation = we want you the hell out of our country!

Hopefully this administration will listen to the voice of a sovereign nation asking to be left alone.

Read more...

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Is this humor, or still too soon?


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Read more...

Politics and Humor

My sister passed along this NY Times article to me a couple days ago and aside from cracking up several times, it was pretty intriguing to consider how your political persuasion can affect the way you interpret humor, or what you consider humorous.



Who doesn't chuckle when they look at this?


I actually think the average politically aware person would laugh at that photo. Thems are a couple of cheesy smiles right thurr. I love it.

But, the study of humor on the Left vs. humor on the Right is pretty interesting and this article makes the case that conservatives are unduly labeled as stiffs and uncreative when it comes to jokes. According to this study, it's actually the pessimistic Left that struggles to find much to laugh about because so much of their focus is on what's wrong with society and how we can't be happy until we have change. I have actually wondered this myself. I can't quite grasp why liberals (in general) seem to weigh themselves down with disgust/sorrow/depression because of the problems they see in the world. Look no further than the presidential election as an example of this: we were a racist country until Tuesday, November 4, 2008. Really? Yep, but now we're not and we can now be happy with at least that one thing!

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP