My 100th day scorecard

So the honeymoon is finally over. No more 'Yes We Can' chants. No more pot shots at a botched administration to rev up the base. No more youtube videos of starstruck supporters hoping for a full tank of gas and a 'get out of my mortgage free' card.

But as an Obama supporter in the historic (:P) 2008 election I thought I'd give a rundown of how the president has stacked up against my expectations of him. Three simple categories will suffice: the 'yes we can', the 'oh no you di'int' and the 'withholding judgement'...

Yes We Can (or, I approve):

1) Closing Guantanamo Bay and banning torture in all its forms.
2) Pushing merit pay for teachers despite the outrage of powerful teachers' unions.
3) A new approach to fighting radicalism in Pakistan by providing $5 billion dollars worth of economic stimulus as opposed to that figure in tanks and soldiers.
4) Stating to the Muslim world the desperately needed proclamation, "America is not at war with Islam"
5) A reaffirmation of America's commitment to nuclear non-proliferation treaties.
6) Swift and decisive action on the economic downturn (even if I didn't agree with all that action)
7) Reversing the 'Mexico City' anti-abortion policy
8) Shaking hands with dictators (I know, scandalous, right?)
9) Calling out Rush. Could there be a better way to coronate that hack as the party leader and further pigeon-hole the GOP into obscurity?
10) Having the protectionist clauses 'buy American' taken out of the stimulus bill (a pleasant surprise)

'oh no you di'int' (or, I don't approve):

1) A 3.55 trillion dollar budget proposal... really? Do we need all that? I don't have the time, patience, or expertise to comb through it but that seems excessive.

2) When he said that not passing the stimulus package would destroy the US economy (this one really pissed me off)

3) The 25 DVDs that didn't work.

withholding judgment:

1) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There is so much in there that had nothing to do with stimulating anything. Hopefully as it starts to 'trickle down' (there, I said it) we'll have an indication of the degree to which it helped or hurt our anemic economy.

2) Cap and Trade energy tax. I'm skeptical. I think the intentions are good but those don't count. It may do more harm than good.

3) I like what I see so far with the course of action with the auto industry... not rolling over for GM or Chrysler has been good... but his administration still might.

4) Employee Free Choice Act. He has fought off the unions to this point but he'll have to make a decision before too long to push for it or to make it more moderate. Looks like the Senate is making it a bit more palatable for businesses.

In summary, Obama is doing a bang up job thus far in my book. He is further left on economic policy than I am comfortable with but the reparations he is making in foreign policy, education, health care, energy, immigration and various social issues make up for it.

Read more...

Keeping Score on Swine Flu

Yesterday, when my employer decided to buy everyone their own personal bottle of hand sanitizer, I figured I better look into this swine flu thing a little deeper. Here are a few facts I’ve found:

• The common flu kills approximately 35,000 Americans every year.
  
  
• One of the worst flu pandemics ever recorded occurred in 1918, and is referred to as the Spanish Flu. This pandemic claimed the lives of an estimated 50 to 100 million globally. Approximately half of the world’s population at that time was affected by the virus. If the death toll of 50 to 100 million is accurate, this flu strain claimed more lives than the Black Death.
  
  
• Avian Flu or “bird flu”, which had its moment in the limelight a few years ago, has claimed the lives of 257 of the 421 humans infected since its first outbreak in 1990—that’s a 61% mortality rate!!! The bird flu is currently not transmitted from human to human, but is strictly a bird to human strain. It is more difficult for a human to contract the flu from a bird strain than a mammalian strain, like the Swine Flu. Experts fear that eventually a human to human transmittable strain of bird flu will emerge, causing a global pandemic, which is the reason for all the hype bird flu has received.
  
  
• There was a Swine Flu outbreak in the U.S. in 1976. A soldier stationed at Fort Dix came down with flu like symptoms and died within a day. Four of his fellow soldiers came down with similar symptoms and eventually around 500 soldiers were known to be infected with the virus. In an attempt to preemptively attack a pandemic, President Ford called for a mass immunization mobilization. Approximately 24% of the U.S. population received the Swine Flu vaccine. Besides the soldier at Fort Dix, there were no other reported deaths from this swine flu. Unfortunately, the vaccines claimed more lives than the actual flu did: ~ 30 deaths from the vaccine vs. 1 from the flu.
  
  
• The story on the 2009 Swine Flu changes daily, but as it stands today, the World Health Organization announced that there have only been 7 confirmed deaths related to the Swine Flu and each of those deaths occurred in Mexico. This dismisses the claim that 150+ have perished so far from Swine Flu complications. There is one claimed U.S. death, which was a 23 month old Mexican boy who was brought to Texas for treatment. As of this posting there are 68 confirmed cases in the U.S.

I don’t mean to make light of this current outbreak, but just wanted to put it in context. I gathered these facts from a quick search of Wikipedia and a few news articles.

Bottom line, wash your hands and don't do this:

Read more...

The Super Defection

By now you've heard about Senator Arlen Specter's departure from the GOP to become a Democrat. As a complete amateur in the political arena, I had first heard of Sen. Specter last year when he made a big stink of his local Philadelphia Eagles getting cheated out of their Super Bowl victory because of the alleged videotaping done by the New England Patriots. He set off a tremendous chain reaction that became known as SpyGate.

Now fast forward to today where he has said:

While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation...I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

Now, maybe Senator Specter is an upstanding man of principle who fights for his local team when they are cheated and stands up for his constituents when they change party offiliation.

Maybe Senator Specter has been the constant amid shifting of morals and values and he now truly finds himself bereft of a true party, but the Democratic Party offers the closest thing to what he's always been. In other words, maybe he's right when he says,

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.

Or maybe he's wrong. Maybe he's the slick spin doctor politician that I think he is and he is pandering to whatever is most popular and most convenient. (For example, if he truly fought for what is right then he would have spoken up about the terrible officiating in Super Bowl XL. But since Pittsburgh benefited, there's no reason to pipe up. But I digress.)

Specter wants to be re-elected and he knows that being a Dem is the thing that will get him votes right now. Specter wants to be a player and he will become an instant player now that he all but seals the Super Majority for the Dems.

You stay classy Senator. Just don't think you're fooling this political amateur. I saw right through your Eagles SpyGate tour and I see through you now.

Enjoy the short-term benefits of your super defection. But don't expect much in the long run.

Read more...

I'm not dead yet

But being on the other side of the globe and with no internet connection at home limits my ability to post. As such, I just thought I'd copy and paste part of an email exchange I recently had with a friend. To set it up, let me first state that I believe financial advisors are the chiropractors of the finance world. They are shady people that scare their clients into thinking their investment services are needed. They are great for retirement planning, estate management, and tax advice. they are totally unnecessary when it comes to portfolio management. (There are a few good ones in each group, but I'd rather paint with a broad brush.)

This is an email follow up from a financial advisor sent after a meeting reviewing a portfolio. I put my comments in bold. I hope at least some of you find this interesting. I'm starting it in the middle of the exchange. I'm paraphrasing it to further protect confidentiality.

For reference, bonds are IOUs from corporations and governments that pay a yearly interest rate until the IOU comes due when they pay it all back, they are very safe unless the company goes bankrupt (I'm looking at you GM). Stocks are shares of ownership of specific companies. ETFs are baskets of stocks or bonds put together and sold as one unit. Index funds are the same as ETFs but they are managed by a company like Vanguard instead of traded on the market. Mutual funds are generally a waste of money and you should never bother with them.

Now, on with the exchange, remember my comments are in bold:
 
I don't like bonds in this climate and wouldn't buy any.  But, if you really want some you could buy some JNK or TIP; although I like various different bond funds offered and managed actively for a steeper management fee ok I'm really paraphrasing that one

It isn't a matter of 'liking' bonds or not.  They are an important holding and are particularly more valuable as you get nearer to retirement.  They provide stable income that can be counted on in good times and bad.  They give you what you need as you near retirement, certainty in your retirement income.  His problem is that he thinks he can 'pick' winning bonds funds like he can 'pick' winning stock funds.  That isn't what you're trying to do, the idea is to cover the spectrum of bond offerings from AAA down to BB.  You don't want to buy LQD because you think it will be hot in the coming months, you buy it because you want to hold investment grade corporate bonds.  
 
SPY is simply the S&P 500 ( it's okay but I like your mutual funds better ); VTI ( this is the Vanguard Total Stock Market ) == I don't recommend this until the market turns around; OIL is an Energy and I think energy stocks will do well for the forseeable future. However I prefer more actively managed and costlier alternatives. pretty close phrasing there
 
Of course he likes your mutual funds better.  They are actively managed, pay a 1%+ fee to the manager and absolve your advisor of blame when they under-perform the market.  He can just blame the manager of the fund because 80% of mutual funds fail to beat the S&P500 two years consecutive, and it goes down from there.  VTI is there for when the stock market turns around, if you wait until it has turned around, you've missed the bump.  The last bull market between 1981 and 2000 I believe that the majority of the moves up occurred on 10 individual days.  If you had jumped from stocks to funds hoping to time things, you'd likely have missed those 10 individual days over that 20 year period.  

The principle is that you don't jump in to strike when the market is going up, no one knows when it is going up, you just allocate your stocks properly so that when it goes up your VTI is already there along with your SPY and QQQQ to take advantage of it.  When the market is flat or down then you smile because your bonds are doing well, or if inflation is heating up and threatening your bond returns you rest easy because you have Oil/energy and Gold in your portfolio doing well.  What he fails to understand is that chasing after markets is a suckers game.  Sure if you're invested totally in stocks you'll do great in bull markets, but you'll also get killed when the market does poorly or goes sideways.

I believe I covered all of the areas that we discussed.  Let me know if you have any other questions.  The past year's market has caught everyone by surprise including the very professionals entrusted with guarding their clients' assets. Hopefully things will turn around and justify our fees.
 
This guy's job should be to take your needs and wishes and with them build for you the simplest, cheapest portfolio possible.  He should not be worrying about timing the market, look for definitive information, or anything else.  I believe you pay him 1% of total assets under management.  That is how much the most expensive fund managers charge in the business and they actively manage funds.  This guy directs you to buy shares of those funds for the same price.  When they do well he can point to them and say, "Look I chose good funds with/for you!"  When they do poorly he can say something like, "That fund is really doing poorly, I don't like it in this market, let's move into something with a better manager."  Here is the bottom line.  Even if the funds match the market and return the same amount, you've just under performed in your portfolio by 2% because of all the expenses.  If the market returns 10%  you're down at 8%.  If the market returns a negative 20% you're even worse, at negative 22%.  


My conclusion for all that are reading this. Please take time to understand the basics of investing, retirement, and the stock market. Pay particular attention to how horrible the stock market has been this past year and remind yourself of that anytime you hear someone speak about how they can beat the market. No one beats the market. The smartest guys in the room lost billions (and banks lost hundreds of billions) in 2008, investment advisors did no better than a monkey throwing darts. You might as well throw the darts and save yourself the 1% management fee. Next time I'll post an easy portfolio that even someone with no business experience or understanding of profit to earnings ratios can figure out.

Read more...

Too Close?

Since Ryan is in the UK and can't give us the local perspective of Manhattan right now, I thought I would chime in.

What was the FAA thinking? They do a low flyover in NYC, just miles away from the site of Ground Zero and send people fleeing thinking a repeat of 9/11 is commencing.

Nice Photo-Op, though. Was it worth it?

Seems to me to be a poor, poor choice. It's just too close to all the pain and scars that 9/11 caused.

Read more...

Obama's Leadership Scorecard

A couple weeks ago I opened up my Businessweek to my favorite column, the last page of the mag, "The Welch Way." When I saw the title, "How is Obama Doing," I licked my chops expecting Jack and Suzy Welch to break down Obama's leadership (or lack thereof) in a way only Jack Welch can. The premise of the analysis was purely leadership, not policies.

Let's start with vision, the "thing" without which a person simply cannot lead. And look, whether you like his politics or not, Obama's obviously got it. From the economy to the environment, education to health care, the President has articulated his goals to the nation.

Vision, though, is meaningless alone. To be an effective leader, you must communicate consistently, vividly, and so darn frequently that your throat gets soar. You can't, as we've said, communicate too much, especially when you're galvanizing change. Who could disagree that Obama's nailing this challenge? Every time he speaks, which is often, he's thoughtful, expansive, and candid.

Whaaaaat? I was expecting a lambasting. Maybe he's just playing nice so that his scathing remarks later on appear more balanced.

Now to team-building, another strength of successful leaders. The potential for "palace intrigue" between Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, not to mention the
White House staff and Hillary Clinton's complex, high-caliber State Dept. organization made us skeptical on this front.

We may have been overconcerned. The economic team seems to be working seamlessly, egos in check, despite all the pressure. And Hillary is refreshing in her new role, with the President clearly giving her the latitude to make a mark. (Her recent remarks about U.S.-Mexico relations were frank and overdue.)

Man, this is just not what I was expecting. And it continues...

Speed is another key attribute, and again, Obama can't be faulted. Weeks back, we actually worried he was moving too fast on too many fronts, diverting attention from the economic crisis. Since then, he has tightened his focus, making great strides, for instance, with the auto industry task force, which took decisive action with GM.

Before we begin to sound irrationally exuberant, remember that the President has yet to be tested on two key traits, resilience and the wherewithal to champion unpopular causes.

But 70 days is still plenty of time to get a sense of an executive's performance. And while we'd like to see his skills applied to different policies, when it comes to leadership, Barack Obama has certainly earned an A.

Sheesh. Welch is one of the leading experts on leadership. Maybe we've (I've) been wrong on Obama the Leader. (Again, we're not talking about Policy, just Leaderhsip.)



But, I'm still unsettled. I will concede that Obama is excellent at rallying support and communicating effectively on his vision of America. Point Obama. And it certainly appears that those whom he has appointed to surround him are extremely supportive of him. So on team building, point Obama.

But, does anyone else agree that many of his moves/actions/decisions have been the "popular" thing? The media-pleasing thing? Isn't a major aspect of leadership doing the unpopular? Having tough love?

Thanks to Karl Rove for digging up this gem:

Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoir "Years of Renewal": "The great statesmen of the past saw themselves as heroes who took on the burden of their societies' painful journey from the familiar to the as yet unknown. The modern politician is less interested in being a hero than a superstar. Heroes walk alone; stars derive their status from approbation. Heroes are defined by inner values; stars by consensus. When a candidate's views are forged in focus groups and ratified by television anchorpersons, insecurity and superficiality become congenital."

Superstardom does not a leader make. And while there are many strong leadership traits exhibited by Mr. Obama, his apparent insatiable appetite for popularity and superstardom will be his downfall. Welch was either too shy to mention this or he is not who I thought he was.

Welch's column.
Rove's column.

Read more...

TTKS Links of the Week

Back again, enjoy these links from your authors at TTKS:

The LA Times discusses how the first family has stayed in control of their public image.

What's your take on the roots of our lingering bipartisanship despite a promise for change? Here's some points to think about.

Freakonomics at it again to give us some insights as to why college tuition costs have inflated at a rate of at least double the normal inflation rate.

If it's your cup of tea, this PhD talks about "5 strands of conservatism" and how they contributed to the GOP's current lamentable status. Not the most complimentary of the great elephant though it has at least a pretense of being academic, but interesting food for thought.

Steven Johnson on the impact of eBooks and how devices like the Kindle 2 will revolutionize and, in some cases, bastardize reading as we know it.

Remember Lenny Dykstra? I grew up fascinated with him as a player with the Mets and Phillies. A couple years ago there was a really interesting "Where are they now?" article in Sports Illustrated on Dykstra. At the time I was really impressed because he had built a veritable empire of car washes in California. Now it seems Lenny's wealth is a house of cards. He has alienated his wife, mother, brothers and other family members, not to mention nearly every driver, pilot, vendor or confidant he has ever employed. A sad story. READ MORE....

Mitt on Obama's Foreign Policy.

Read more...

Obama Making the Wrong Play on Torture

On the heels of the release of the now notorious Torture Memos, President Obama has announced that he will now seek to try government officials who took part in some of the interrogations.

What I find wrong with this move is that Obama once again waffles on his promises that were the foundation of his campaign. This is yet another example of him abandoning his bi-partisan and unity rhetoric and yet another step from his “centric” stance to pander to the far left of the Democratic Party.

Additionally, he has taken the stance to not try involved members of the CIA, an organization whose support and trust he needs to keep. In my opinion, it’s a double standard.

There is a great opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today that discusses this move and its implications to Obama’s presidency. One point the author makes is that the advisors that Obama seeks to prosecute were merely offering advice at the requests of CIA operatives.

[Obama] has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.

"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'"

So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?

Another issue that could arise with this is the questions that will be hurled at certain members of congress who my have been “in the know” on the gathering of intelligence and the techniques used. The opinion piece points out that Nancy Pelosi was a member of the House Intelligence Committee back in 2002.

Bottom line, this action is going to open a can of worms. It once again shows Obama’s quickness to change tone on the promises he made during his campaign, particularly those of bipartisanship. It shows the President’s proclivity to pander to the voices of the far left in his party. I also think this is a slippery slope. Who do you prosecute and on what grounds? And who makes those calls? Obama? How far back does he reach? Whether or not this is the intended consequence, this appears to me like a “get even” play on several fronts.

Read more...

Earth Day 1970...'Spectacularly Wrong'

In 1970, on the very first Earth Day, none of the 'experts' thought any of us would be around to celebrate the same holiday (can it really be called a holiday?) here in 2009. Let's take a look at some of those very first "Green Prophecies". Al Gore, take note:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

I especially like the last one there from Kenneth Watt. An ice age during the era of global warming?!

I think it is safe to say that these experts got it all wrong. In fact, they got it "spectacularly wrong", as Reason Magazine put it, way back in the year 2000. This all makes it a little hard to take Al Gore's 5 years until the world ends prophecies seriously.

But then, there were a lot of people who thought Noah was a blabbering idiot as well...

Read more...

Earth Day: why its nothing more than a hippy holiday

One of my daughters woke up this morning cheerfully chanting, "Happy Earth Day, Daddy!"

It struck me as odd. Growing up in a family that camped the summers away in the Teton, Sawtooth, Uintah and Wasatch mountain ranges I have developed a deep sense of appreciation for Mother Earth but the words, 'Happy Earth Day' were never uttered. I want to offer a couple reasons why this might be and offer a few ways that the Average Conservative Joe might redirect their angst for the holiday.

Take a long hard look at the 2009 Earth Day poster above. Doesn't that baby polar bear just pull at your heart strings? I'll be honest. I couldn't care less about that animal. At least he has the strength to climb the damn windmill! What? Did the emaciated Somali child who they wanted pass out as he tried to pull himself up? He is actually being affected by climate change by the drought that has hit the farming lands of his country.

Or have the hippies actually done their research and found that people respond better to an endangered bear than to a suffering animal of their own species?

Or can't we at least give praise to the guy tinkering in his garage that made it big on a new alternative fuel technology? Wouldn't that at least get the attention of our conservative friends who might be interested if there is a dollar to be turned?

But as it stands, the 'Green Movement' turns people off and the vicseral reaction is to take out the aggression on the Earth, when in all reality it isn't the Earth they are pissed at.

I've been reading the comments of hecklers on earthday.net that go something along the lines of, "I'm celebrating today by leaving all the lights on in my house and spraying aerosol cans directly toward the sun." Or as one certain TTKS author said a while ago, 'whenever someone bugs me about being green at my office I throw away my styrofoam cup and get a new one. '

Back to my daughter... We are celebrating Earth Day this year at my house. It is a noble cause. We're not writing our senator to push for emission caps or protesting with dudes that look like Adam and smell like pine needles.

We are simply going outside and celebrating the Earth.
You might say, 'I don't need Earth Day to celebrate the earth!'
To which I would reply, do you need Christmas to celebrate Christ?

Of course not, but I think the Earth has done a bang up job dealing with all our nasty human industrial bi-products and deserves a day of celebration.

Read more...

Sports Heaven

Tell me you watched the Bulls-Celtics game on Monday night. Tell me you witnessed greatness live (or on DVR-delay). Because that game was a perfect example of why the NBA Playoffs are so good. A lot of people sour on the NBA because the regular season is long (true) and the regular season games don’t get good until the 4th quarter (also true). But by enduring through the 82-game season, we are rewarded with playoff intensity. You know, the level of intensity that roughly equals regular season 4th quarter effort times 5.5 plus a Vitamin B12 shot in the buttocks. (And since it’s B12 there is a slight chance that you’ll have a 3rd ear growing out of your forehead.) Suffice it to say, the adrenaline rush I get as a fan watching the NBA is almost unparalleled. In fact, watching a NBA playoff game in person is a PTPer on the bucket list of any rational sports fan.

And that brings up a very interesting topic: What are the 10 sporting events/venues that every sports fan would give almost anything to attend in person?

Glad you asked.

Groundrules: Only current, operating venues are allowed in the discussion. (Regrets to Old Yankee Stadium, for example.) Only current, operating teams/organizations are allowed in the discussion. (You can bet I just poured out some liquor for my now-defunct Sonics.)

Methodology: Who are we kidding? This is a subjective activity. But I rated the events/venues based on four categories: 1. Mystique/History (i.e. tradition, pageantry, etc), 2. Adrenaline (i.e. the aspect that keeps your heart pounding the entire time), 3. Bang For Your Buck (i.e. the accessibility to see multiple games or athletes), and 4. Opportunity (i.e. how rare of an opportunity would it be? What are the chances of doing it again?). Each category was a 1-10 ranking, 10 being the best/rarest/most valuable. Most points wins.

Rank. (Points)


10. (12) NCAA March Madness – First Two Rounds. The Final Four attracts all the hoopla and the pageantry but the first two rounds are where the fun is. When you attend a first round game, you typically get to attend more than one game. I once got to see Gonzaga, UCLA, and Indiana all in the same building! (Incidentally, two nights later is when Morrison collapsed to the floor sobbing when Gonzaga lost to UCLA.) And with the multiple game format, you’ve got better chances of seeing a thriller (like that Valpo game depicted here). Those first round upsets conjure up the very best of fan excitement.

9. (13) NCAA Track & Field Outdoor Championships. Probably the best-kept secret in sports. The only people who know about this event are people whose family member is competing in the event OR who just happen to be track & field nerds. Sometimes they are the same people. But I had the good fortune of marrying someone who competed in this event for four years so I was fortunate enough to see it live and in person on numerous occasions. I can say with some level of authority that it is one of those events that EVERY sports fan must attend. The days are long and not all the events are that exciting. (I’m talking to you distance runners!) But by the time you get to Saturday evening and the sun has gone down and the sprinters are in the bullpen – Whoooa Nellie! – the excitement is palpable. The 100. The 200. The 4x100 relay. The 4x400 relay. All the schools in their special Nike unis. It is freaking cool. And if the timing is just right, you’ll get to see the National Champions competing a few years later in the Olympics.

8. (15) NFL playoff game. No particular venue specified. Maybe Green Bay or something, but the venue is far less critical to the aura and mystique of a NFL game. (Although the weather can be a major factor.) I have never attended a Seahawks playoff game but from the looks of it on TV, that place is rockin’ and someday I want a piece of that. The Super Bowl is kind of lumped into this mix, but in reality the Super Bowl is probably more of a hassle than it’s worth. If you had it all paid for through some corporate function, then I think it would be one of life’s most memorable events, but I just don’t see the draw. Plus, everyone loves Super Bowl parties at home because of the food and commercials! But a wild card playoff game or a Conference Championship? Yeah. Sign me up.

7. (19) NBA playoff game at Energy Solutions Arena (Salt Lake City). Call me a homer if you want, but ask the players. They will tell you that there is no louder arena, no more annoying place to play, then Salt Lake City against the Jazz. I have the wounded eardrums to show for it. I have had the post-game headaches that last for a few days. It is unbelievably loud and exciting during a Jazz playoff game. That series against the Warriors a few years ago? Holy cow. Or last year’s series against the Rockets? Dang. Good stuff. It just so happens that NBA playoff games are quite accessible because every team makes the playoffs (or at least it feels that way).

6. (20) MLB playoff game at Fenway or Wrigley. Really, attending a playoff game of your favorite team is where you’d find the most excitement, so if your team is not the Red Sox or the Cubs, then imagine your team playing against them. How awesome would that be? Even though the game you would attend would only be one of several in a series, chances are you’ll feel the adrenaline during every single pitch. Baseball playoffs are incredibly unique because of the buildup for each pitch and the potential for something incredible to happen. Some people say baseball is boring. Ok, watch a playoff game on HDTV and tell me it’s boring. Better yet, attend a playoff game and then come talk to me.

5. (24*) Duke-North Carolina basketball game at Cameron Indoor (Durham). First, allow me to channel my inner Coach K and with my nasally voice say, “I love Duke.” Sike. I hate Duke. I’m the guy that named my daughter Jordan, ok? So in this game I pull for Carolina out of principle. And I would like it to be an away game for UNC because winning on the opponent’s floor is sooooo much more thrilling. Plus, nobody can deny that Duke’s hometown crowd is nuts and it would be fun to experience that environment. Go Tarheels.

4. (24*) Michigan-Ohio State football game at the Horseshoe (Columbus). First, shame on Sam for selling his Michigan-Ohio State tickets. I’m hereby giving Sam the “Shun-Unshun” treatment for that move. The greatest college football rivalry. It can’t be overstated. Don’t give me this Army-Navy baloney. Look, I love my Apple Cup (Washington-Washington State). And I enjoy the BYU-Utah cat fights. But nothing compares to Michigan-Ohio State. And thanks to (unshun) Sam (shun) I was able to attend an OSU game this past season. I honestly felt like I was walking into the Gladiator movie set with that stadium. It’s so cool. I can only dream of what that would feel like when Michigan comes to town.

3. (28) Wimbledon. So classy. So upscale. Just thinking about it all makes me feel like I’m important. It makes me want to wear a white blazer with a white sweater tossed over my shoulders and have a bowl of strawberries and cream. I don’t care if that sounds like the opposite of heterosexual. Wimbledon is cool. You get to be treated to the best tennis in the world with all sorts of games going on at the same time. The opportunity of a lifetime. And while you’re there you can probably say hi to fellow TTKS author Ryan! And while we’re across the pond…

2. (32) The British Open at St. Andrews. Probably nothing more historic in sports than St. Andrews and it’s a rare treat that the British Open is held at The Old Course. But that makes it all the more special. The weather isn’t the best – it’s the UK, what do you expect? And the grass is often yellow or dead or nonexistent. But after all these years that course still proves to be a difficult test for the best golfers in the world. And one of the great things about a golf tournament is that you can see so many different players and you have your choice of 18 mini-venues. Every single famous golfer has played this golf course. To experience The Open in person on this course would be far more satisfying than the strawberries at Wimbledon. To say the least.

1. (33) The Masters at Augusta National. If I could, I would have Jim Nantz read this for me in his Augusta voice. Don’t let the recent Masters fool you. This event is the best. Even though the ending wasn’t spectacular, that final round with Tiger and Phil was. Unlike St. Andrews, this course is immaculate. The scenery and the rolling hills of green grass and the trees and azaleas…you just can’t beat Augusta in the beauty department. And you can rarely beat it in any department. If I only had one sporting event to attend, I would attend The Masters. And maybe that’s the only criteria that matters at this point.

So in this season of NBA Playoffs and myriad other cool sporting events around the corner, find a way to treat yourself to one of these events on HDTV. It’s a lot less expensive than actually attending. But if you’re like me, you’re laying the groundwork to attend in person. There’s just nothing quite like it.

Disclaimer: The adrenaline experienced at these events may cause a 3rd ear to grow out of your forehead, but I know someone who can fix that.

*I took the liberty as the author to break this tie. There you have it.

Read more...

Torture Memos

DICK CHENEY: One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.

I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.

And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.

The same memos revealed that water boarding has been used on American soldiers during training. Is the U.S. "torturing" its own soldiers?

Anyway, I think El Diablo brings up a very fair point. If the interrogation techniques are made public (which even Obama's own Intelligence officials thought was a bad idea) then should not the results of those interrogations also be made public?

We can argue about whether or not certain interrogation techniques constitute torture, but shouldn't a key part of that debate be how effective those techniques are?

I also think it is worth pointing out that these memos clearly show that the CIA did not cross any lines nor break any laws. In fact, just the opposite was revealed - that they followed very closely the letter of the law.

I found this an interesting point as well:

Although evidence shows that the Army Field Manual, which is available online, is already used by al Qaeda for training purposes, it was certainly the president's right to suspend use of any technique. However, public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

And then this:

Disclosure of the techniques is likely to be met by faux outrage, and is perfectly packaged for media consumption. It will also incur the utter contempt of our enemies. Somehow, it seems unlikely that the people who beheaded Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl, and have tortured and slain other American captives, are likely to be shamed into giving up violence by the news that the U.S. will no longer interrupt the sleep cycle of captured terrorists even to help elicit intelligence that could save the lives of its citizens.

But beyond all of that is the crux of the argument (emphasis mine):

Which brings us to the next of the justifications for disclosing and thus abandoning these measures: that they don't work anyway, and that those who are subjected to them will simply make up information in order to end their ordeal. This ignorant view of how interrogations are conducted is belied by both experience and common sense. If coercive interrogation had been administered to obtain confessions, one might understand the argument. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who organized the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, among others, and who has boasted of having beheaded Daniel Pearl, could eventually have felt pressed to provide a false confession. But confessions aren't the point. Intelligence is. Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information is used in isolation.

Which brings me back to El Diablo (Cheney). He, again, makes a very fair point. We now know details about how that intelligence was gathered. Would it not be beneficial to know how effective that intelligence was in preventing further attacks against the United States?

ADDED: Found this clip after I posted:

Read more...

Fiscal Perspective

This is from Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw:

The Washington Post reports:

President Obama plans to convene his Cabinet for the first time today, and he will order its members to identify a combined $100 million in budget cuts over the next 90 days, according to a senior administration official....Earlier this month, both chambers of Congress passed Obama's $3.5 trillion budget outline for 2010, which includes unprecedented new investments in health care, education and energy. But the huge budget, which contemplates a $1.2 trillion deficit, has drawn the ire of small-government conservatives, who say that such high deficits jeopardize the nation's economic future.

Just to be clear: $100 million represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year--approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

Read more...

TTKS Links of the Week

Back again, here are some links provided by the authors of TTKS:

Great article describing a sexy Carl's Jr. ad featuring Padma Lakshmi. It's really about marketing and what-not and is an entertaining read. From the article:

I cannot pretend to be offended by these ads. Young men are coarse, callow, emotional imbeciles with suicidal dietary habits. In other words, from a marketing perspective, these ads are perfection itself, practically verite.



If you share America's secret obsession with all things UFO, you might be interested in this article compiled from stories of 5 veterans of Area 51.

Fox Sports' Michael Rosenberg summed up as well as anyone why the Masters was just a bit frustrating this year.

Wow. A lefty with almost as much bombast in print as a righty. "The Republican Ruins" by Robert Shrum.

Here's a very cool story about the best basketball team in the country in 1936, Long Island University, that happened to consist mainly of Jews and descendants of Italian immigrants, boycotting the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. They would likely have won the first gold medal of those games.

Freakonomics blogger Ian Ayres discusses Friday Night Lights and its discussion of teen sex. He's got some good data indicating that most teens think that most high-schoolers aren't virgins, while in actuality most are. In a follow-up, he highlights an interesting study showing (not-so-shockingly) that the problem is that most teenagers will try to conform to the perception and make it a reality.

Do you hate Duke basketball? Did their floor-slapping, whining PG Greg Paulus annoy you to no end? Well, I can definitely answer yes to both questions, but I do take my hat off to him for heading to Michigan and competing for the Michigan QB job. He will become the only person to ever play in the best basketball rivalry (Duke-Carolina) and the best football rivalry (Michigan-Ohio State). And for that I gotta give the man his due. That's awesome. Congrats Greg. READ MORE....

Boston Celtics GM Danny Ainge suffered a heart attack. At age 50. I'm sure part of the stress was Kevin Garnett's knee. (I'm not joking.) I believe another part of it is that he was recently called as an LDS Bishop. The dude has a lot on his plate. We're praying for you Danny! READ MORE...

Read more...

Two Unrelated Videos

I thought I'd post a couple unrelated, but interesting videos.

First, I had no idea reporters were supposed to shout down the people they interview:

And then there is this. I went skiing early this morning with one of the product developers at Black Diamond. Apparently he wanted to test the durability of his gear, (or just wanted to do something awesome) so he did this:



He didn't bother telling any of us that we was going to do a flip. Afterward we all looked at each other, a little dumbfounded, "did you know...did he just...did you see..."

Though you can't see it in the video, he did land on his feet and was able to ski through the chute and off into the open bowl.

Read more...

TEA Party: SLC

Typical Right-Wing extremist.

I spent an hour yesterday at the Salt Lake City TEA Party. Event organizers are estimating that 2000-3000 people attended. The crowd was energetic and enthusiastic. And contrary to what you might read in the news, this was not some gathering of lunatics. It was not "steeped in insanity".

And lest you think this was only an anti-Obama rally, you ought to know that Senators Hatch and Bennet received bellowing boos when their support of several spending bills was brought up. Gov. Huntsman also received raucous jeers at the mention of his eager acceptance of the "stimulus money". None of them were in attendance. But other local elected officials were.

From other accounts it appears that GOP officials were similarly called out at rallies around the country. These rallies, and the sentiment behind them goes beyond partisan politics. They represent a movement of people who are tired of an intrusive government. And yes, that includes many domestic programs and spending that President Bush engaged in. The frustration around the country has escalated recently because the Obama administration, along with Congress has accelerated our descent into a dignity sapping nanny state.

(Incidentally, I was driving home from an early morning ski (powder in April!) on I-215 and saw a big road-work sign that said "Putting America Back to Work: This project is Funded by the American Reinvestment Act". Do road work projects usually declare on big orange signs what congressional bill funded them? Turns out that one of the stipulations of the construction company receiving the money, was displaying the propaganda sign...but I've digressed)

Back to the rally. No, it wasn't a recruiting station for the next national threat, nor was it a hotbed of plotting and scheming. Try as I did, I never was able find anyone from Starkwood accepting resumes.

However there was something very disturbing that I witnessed. I was offered at least four different times a very suspicious and subversive looking booklet. The people handing it out said that it was a document that "limits the power of the government" and that gives "power to the people". I was skeptical, but curious, so I pocketed one of them. Its title was brazenly displayed on the cover:

The Constitution of the United States

After reading through some of its pages I was appalled, and yet also relieved. And why was I relieved? Because I knew that if President Obama had ever read this right wing propaganda about States rights and limitations on federal power, about free speech and gun rights (guns!) he'd know for certain just how extreme we conservatives really are!

I sure am glad he has never read it!

Read more...

Greetings from the UK

I'm finally here, after much trouble and effort. It is amazing how inefficient one country's bureaucracy is, but when you combine a second country and toss in some third party bureacracies, getting anything done is a miracle.

Anyway I've had a couple early impressions and I wanted to share one plus I received an email from Pat Lencioni that I wanted to post which is related. I was on the way from Heathrow airport to our place in Brighton and the driver was explaining some of the nuances about driving in the UK. I noticed a lane on the right, and he pointed out that that was the hard shoulder. If you ever have car problems you pull over there and you'll shortly be helped by government cars driving around monitoring the hard shoulder by camera.

Interesting, I didn't think much of it but it sounded very helpful. A few miles later we saw someone on the hard shoulder, stranded with their car lights flashing. "Oh don't worry about them, they'll be helped out soon by the emergency services." Lightbulb went off instantly. For those that read Adam's marathon post last week it clicked in perfectly. Rather than wrestle with pulling over to help someone or carrying on with my busy life, that decision tree was taken away as we knew the government would be riding to the rescue shortly. Interestingly charitable giving is like a fraction of 1% in this country, many many times lower than what we give in the US. Here we have a society that relies on the government to help those on the "hard shoulder" of life rather than themselves and their fellow-citizens.

So after having that line of thought going on in my head yesterday, I received this today from Lencioni. I love being a step ahead of people I consider very smart. I'm quoting it in its entirety because I don't have a link and it is all worthwhile.

Simple Wisdom POV: The S Word

Recently I received a note from a reader, I’ll call her Carrie (because that’s her name), asking a question and suggesting that I answer it in this POV. Essentially, she wanted to understand why socialism is a bad thing, especially in the context of the Christian commandments to love thy neighbor, care for the poor and avoid materialism. This is a terrific and important question, one that is not discussed enough in society.

I must admit that, as a youngster, I often wondered why people were so down on socialism, and its cousin, communism. In fact, I thought those sounded like the best ways to run a society because sharing and caring and compassion are the right ways to live.

As I became a young adult, I began to understand how the reality of socialism radically differs from the theory, and that even the theory itself has fatal flaws. When it comes right down to it, I think there are two big reasons why socialism is a really, really bad idea.

First, it just doesn’t work. At least not for very long. That’s because people are flawed and, outside of a family, a religious order, or a small group of friends, they will not continually work hard for the ‘greater good’ if they do not receive the fruits of that work themselves. As an economics major in college, I learned that this theory had a name: ‘the free-loader effect’. It is the natural tendency of people to do less and less work when they realize that they won’t see a proportionate decrease in what they can get for it.

Over time—and this is an inevitable consequence of the free-loader effect—socialist societies experience decreasing productivity, risk-taking, and innovation, along with increasing tax rates, promises of government programs, and expectations from citizens about what they can get from those programs. When the economy inevitably falters under its own weight, those expectations cannot be met.

Unfortunately, by the time enough citizens realize this is happening it is often too late for them to go back and try a different approach because there are more people in society who expect benefits from the government than there are people who pay for them. And thus begins the long, gradual descent to economic and motivational malaise. Ironically, the class of people who socialism is supposed to help—the poor—only grows because they are joined by more and more people who drop out of the shrinking middle class.

The second reason why I believe socialism is such a bad idea is very much related to the first, but much more important to me as a Christian: it diminishes the dignity of human beings. In socialist societies, individuals grow increasingly dependent on the government for their well-being, and less and less confident that they are capable of and responsible for themselves. This is an inevitable recipe for cynicism, fatalism and depression.

And as the government plays a larger and larger role in the lives of people, it inevitably crowds out faith in God. Not only does this make sense from a logical standpoint, it turns out that it was the intentional design of the men who invented socialism, communism and Marxism. Marx and Lenin were very clear that atheism was key to the success of the socio-economic systems they promoted, and that people should turn to the state for their needs, not to God. This has played out again and again as socialist countries experience a significant drop in the faith of its people, and in great irony, a rapid decline in charitable giving, volunteerism and civic-mindedness.

So why do well-intentioned people continue to tolerate or be indifferent about the growth of socialism? For one, we often don’t realize that it is happening. That’s because socialism does not usually spring up over night. Instead, it creeps. Little by little we grow accustomed to new and higher taxes (“it’s just a one percent increase in the sales tax”), more government programs (“how can I vote against free ‘fill-in-the-blank” for children?”), and the false lure of getting something for nothing.

Beyond that, as the question that prompted this article suggested, we often feel good about socialism because we mistakenly conclude that it is altruistic and compassionate. But there is no escaping the moral bankruptcy of failing to ask ourselves if those feelings actually translate into sustainable, lasting benefit for the people we are trying to help. If the answer is ‘no’, then we have a moral duty to stop supporting those programs, no matter how hard that might be for our egos to accept.

So what are we to do if we want to act on our desire to do good and make a difference? Work hard. Create jobs. Treat our employees with dignity and love. Give generously of our money and our time to good charities and directly to those in need. And demand that our government compassionately provide effective programs and services for those who are truly incapable of providing for themselves.

But we should never, ever, support a program, a tax or a proposal that makes us feel good but ends up making the lives of the people we are supposed to be helping, and the society in which they live, more difficult and dependent.


Thanks for your question, Carrie. Happy Tax Day! "

Read more...

Name That Quote

Ok, everybody. Time for the latest installment of TTKS 'Name That Quote.'

Here are the groundrules: No googling or wiki-ing. No other forms of research. Place your best guess(es) in the comments section and I will update the post with the answer this evening.

Here is the quote:

It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.

Hint: Your specific religious beliefs or leanings will not give you an advantage.

***********

Ding ding ding! Reader "jk" is right! Thomas Jefferson is the correct answer.

The commonality in our names is "-son" for those keeping score at home.

I have a new affinity for "TJ" as the locals of Charlottesville, VA call him.

And, of course, the message is certainly a good reminder.

Thanks for playing everyone!

Read more...

Happy Tea Bagging Day!

Read more...

Right Wing Extremism: The New Terrorists

The Department of Homeland Security is worried about terrorists. No, no, not Islamic terrorists. Not them. No, DHS is worried about right-wing terrorists and extremists who "are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely."

Rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority?

Wasn't the purpose of the Constitution to establish limits on federal government, and to enable and protect State authority? And now the Obama DHS is claiming that any sort of Federalist point of view is a national security threat?

The report continues, and becomes as fascist and Orwellian as possible. For all the talk about President Bush and his stomping of personal rights there was never anything has ridiculous, and unconstitutional as this:

Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Is it any coincidence that this document is being released on the eve of a nationwide series of TEA Party protests? Is it any coincidence that the document lists every major political issue and states that anyone whose opinion differs from that of Obama are being considered "right-wing extremists"?

Of course not.

And despite the breathless condemnation of conservatives, and anyone else who has the audacity to question the actions of the spend-crazy Congress and a marxist president, the report can't list one example of what they deem as "right-wing extremism". No specific group. No individuals. No recruitment efforts.

But what is implied is obvious. The mention of "right wing chatter" is aimed at talk radio. The talk of "recruitment" is pointed at blogs and the TEA Party protests. Which, incidentally have already been happening all over the country. Peacefully and lawfully. The specific mention of differing opinions on campaign issues broadly defines anyone who did not vote for our Dear Leader as a potential right wing terrorist.

The White House issued a statement regarding this document:

The President is focused not on politics but rather taking the steps necessary to protect all Americans from the threat of violence and terrorism regardless of its origins.

Unbelievable.

This all plays into the leftist strategy of "Shut Up".

Silence your opposition. Marginalize their ideas, and demonize their spokespeople.

Remember the Woodrow Wilson presidency? No? Let me refresh your memory. He said:

The gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags…who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes…

In other words: Shut Up.

Wilson arrested more than 175,000 American citizens who were found to be insufficiently patriotic. "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way!" he declared. For those who like to call themselves "progressive" you ought to take note that the founder of American progressivism is in fact: Woodrow Wilson.

Obama is not the new FDR. He is the new WW

Why else would people who want individual liberty, a limited government, safe and secure borders and economic freedom and responsibility be deemed extremists? Barack Obama himself, as the President of the United States invoked "Shuttuppery" when he singled out a private citizen named Rush Limbaugh, and told the entire country not to listen to what he has to say. Shut Up.

I am not going to shut up. I am not going to stop believing that the principles that this nation was founded upon were inspired by God. I am not going to give up my rights in exchange for an intrusive federal government that purports to take care of my every need. I am not going to ignore the Constitution; neither the rights it protects nor the limits it imposes.

I am a right wing extremist. The same as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.



LATE EDIT:

I thought I'd share how the Huffington Post is headlining this story. Playing into the rampant stereotypes found in the report, they went this innocuous image:

Read more...

The next time you negotiate...

I am taking a class in 'Managerial Negotiations' that is completely applicable for the common types of negotiations we find ourselves in everyday. In fact, I found myself in one yesterday so I thought I'd share it and a couple negotiating tips that ran counter-intuitive to me at first.

The Experience:
I just got a slick new triathlon bike. My bomb-shell of a wife got it for me for my birthday last week. Only problem: I didn't get the chance to negotiate any of the extras that are crucial to the bike, e.g., bike fitting, hydration, pedals, etc.

This gave me a great opportunity to try out my newfound negotiating skills. What I wanted most was a computrainer bike fitting and individual consultation by a certified pro.

So I prepared. I knew my BATNA (Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement), my reservation price and my target price. I had several arrows in my quiver when I walked in to talk to my Local Bike Shop. I gave him the pitch. I totally low-balled him expecting to get a counter-offer, make concessions and settle on a mutually acceptable deal.

This guy bit at my first offer! Scoreboard me!.... right? Not so fast.

The Lessons:
1) Most people report feeling more comfortable receiving a first offer as this allows them to gather valuable information about their opponent's position. But there is substantial research that says the one who makes the first offer usually comes out on top. This is because a first offer 'anchors' the negotiation and our perception of value can be dramatically impacted by a first offer. Anecdotally, this anchoring effect held up in a negotiating simulation we did in class as well.

2) Having your first offer accepted quickly sucks. Even if it is at your target price. Research shows that when first offers are accepted quickly, the one who made the offer will feel regret that the deal was reached so quickly and will question whether or not they got a 'good deal' regardless of how good it really is. I certainly learned this lesson. I should have gone in even more aggressive and made him grapple with me.

Good article from HBS on these negotiating lessons.

Read more...

Maybe Now?

A couple weeks ago I spoke up regarding the Stallworth DUI Manslaughter issue. I just feel like there's not enough of a stigma against DUI/DWI and that body count is far beyond where we should have reacted to change the laws/consequences.

And then the Adenhart tragedy happened last week.

The news of Adenhart transcended sports so I'm sure you all read/heard about it. But seeing the interviews and tributes in a sports setting like that is always a powerful message to me as a sports fan. I hadn't even heard of Adenhart's name until the accident, but watching the coverage was still an emotional experience for me.

The scary thing is that this accident could happen to anybody. Any of us could be broadsided by a drunk driver. Those of us who drink (I don't) could be the drunk driver. It happens too often.

As an aside, my wife and I watch Celebrity Apprentice on NBC (awesome show!!!). Gotta love Donny Trump. Last week he fired Khloe Kardashian because he found out she was still putting her life back together from a DUI charge. (Apparently that slipped through the show's vetting process.) But Trump wanted no part of her after he knew she had a DUI. Maybe that's just TV - Trump isn't my moral compass - but I think that's commendable of him to use his platform to speak out against DUIs.

So after the Kardashian DUI, the Stallworth DUI Manslaughter, and the Adenhart tragedy, maybe now we will get some traction on making DUI the fastest way to social suicide.

Maybe now? But probably not.

Read more...

Cherry Blossom Festival

My wife, son, and I recently took a quick trip out to Washington DC and Virginia. It just so happened that our trip coincided with the peak weekend for the Cherry Blossom Festival. We ventured out on a beautiful 65 degree day and toured The Mall and enjoyed the blossoms. I thought I'd share a few pics:



This was my first trip to DC and Virginia. It was inspiring to see DC and the monuments. I walked away with a greater sense of patriotism than when I arrived. We only had about 4 hours in DC before we had to leave to drive south to Charlottesville, VA. It donned on me, as we were driving, that we were literally driving through some of the most blood soaked soil in the country. Many of the Civil War's fiercest battles were fought very near where we were driving. Where these battles were once fought, now beautiful farms and rolling hills of grass stole my gaze. It was breathtaking and a bit of a touching moment for me. That drive, coupled with visiting the Lincoln Memorial earlier that day reminded me of the greatness of Lincoln and the centrality of the Civil War on the history of our great country. It was a great experience.

Read more...

Happy Tax Freedom Day

Congratulations Americans. It's Tax Freedom Day! On the average, you have now worked enough this year to pay your estimated taxes for 2009. So from here on out, 3+ months into the year, everything you make, you keep. Everything else you've made this year (the gross) is the amount you'll have paid in taxes before the year is done.

We look forward to celebrating with you on Budget Deficit Freedom Day on May 29 when each of us will have paid our share of this year's deficit. Here's some quick points, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation, as to just how much of a borrower and spender our current President and his predecessor are:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008.

President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts.

President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade.

President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation.

President Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs.

President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008.

Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

(Cue the humming of "Battle Hymn of the Republic" or another patriotic song) The good news is, as discouraging as it is to hear of such reckless abandon with our money, we can still correct all this. Worse economic situations in our country have been fixed, and contrary to dire predictions of how many years it will take to pay off all of the current President's new spending, I believe that if conservatives can win back a majority in either house, the solutions of today that will become the problems of tomorrow can be corrected.

Read more...

So Long, Farewell

This weekend the Seattle Mariners bid adieu to fellow TTKS author, Ryan Giles, in classy fashion, sweeping his beloved Oakland A's in their first series of the year.

Safe travels to the UK, Ryan.

Scoreboard.

Read more...

Weekly Links

We have had a good week of conversation here at TTKS. Thank you to all who have participated. It's been enlightening and interesting. Hopefully next week we can get back at it once again. In the meantime, here are the TTKS Weekly Links:

Happy Easter everyone!

• Obama and Corporatism. "Corporatism periodically re-emerges precisely because it is an appealing political formulation, seeking as it does to present a middle-of-the-road alternative to socialism on the one hand, and capitalism on the other. It was the search for just such a third way that prompted Pope Leo XIII to outline the notion of corporatism in his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum (Of New Things). Leo confronted a world in transition, like ours, in which technological advances had created an industrial revolution that was reshaping society, setting off mass migrations and creating wealth and pockets of new urban poverty at the same time. READ MORE...
• Will France ban Armstrong from Le Tour? "There is a very high likelihood they will prohibit me from riding on the Tour," the 37-year-old American said in a video aired on his fight-against-cancer foundation's Web site. The agency, known as AFLD, said on Thursday Armstrong could face disciplinary action because he "did not respect the obligation to stay under [the] direct and permanent observation" of a drug tester who came to his southern France residence last month." READ MORE...
• American Liberalism. "Like communism, Fabianism, and fascism, modern liberalism was born of a new class of politically self-conscious intellectuals who despised both the individual businessman's pursuit of profit and the conventional individual's pursuit of pleasure, both of which were made possible by the lineaments of the limited nineteenth-century state." READ MORE...
• 16 Reasons a Bike is Better Than a Horse. "...These days I cringe every time I come across a horseback rider while I am out on the trail. And it got me thinking about ways that my mountain bike is better than a horse. And so, I decided to quantify and list those reasons." READ MORE...
• Surrender Monkey? So says the UK Telegraphs' Warner. "President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice." READ MORE...
• The Long Run. "...People invest in stocks when they anticipate a profit in doing so; the profit results from an increase in value of the quoted company, and this in turn results from the firm's profitability. Firms become profitable when consumers demand their product. In this way the movement of money on the stock exchange both reflects and facilitates the free economy, being simply one part of the process whereby prices respond to demand and profits reward productivity." READ MORE...
• No Offense, Germany. "It wasn't going to happen," said an American official in Washington. "We went through the motions to placate President Sarkozy but giving special treatment to France was not on our agenda. " READ MORE...
• 4 Down, 46 to Go. "A shocking and virulent pandemic of justice seems to be sweeping across America as all of a sudden state legislatures and supreme courts waken from centuries-long comas and begin actually applying the principle of equality under law for all citizens, including the scary gay ones who so intimidate the political and religious right. Yes, the right to legal recognition of one’s marriage has finally been extended to all the citizens of Iowa and Vermont, bringing to four the number of U.S. states not under the thrall of Levitical piffle." READ MORE...

And finally, Ali G and his Ice Cream Glove: "People who has hands..." (Warning: he mumbles the F-word)

Read more...

Follow Up on Adam's Marriage Post Below

I came across an interest study. Pollster Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight constructed a regression model that would predict when each of the 50 states would pass a law against banning gay marriage.

Silver looked at 30 instances of states voting on marriage bans. He found that three-quarters of the variance between the results can be explained by 3 variables:

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

The model actually predicted the results of California Prop 8 result: 52.1 from the model vs. 52.2 from the actual vote.

So when will your state legalize gay marriage? If you Utahns think its going to be a while, guess again.

You can read all of the results here. But here are a few highlights of when each state would vote against a gay marriage ban:

• Idaho: 2011
• Utah: 2013
• Kansas: 2015
• Texas: 2018

According to the model, half the states will have voted against a gay marriage ban by 2013. Who will hold out the longest? According to the model its Mississippi in 2024.

Read more...

Damned Complacency

A good friend of mine forwarded along a blog post from a CEO in California who is campaigning for all of us to take action rather than putting on the cloak of complacency in an economy like this.

And he's right.

Now is not the time for companies to scrap their long-term strategy. Sure, cost-cutting measures can be necessary "in these tough economic times," but that should not mean that we quit investing, quit taking risks, and quit trying to grow.

He says it better:

The only real solution is for companies to stay the course in their long-term strategies (when they have them, as surprisingly few actually do) and innovate themselves back into prosperity.

Amen.

And the beautiful thing about this concept is that it applies to every aspect of life: economic, social, political, spiritual, emotional, familial, etc. Complacency will damn us in the literal sense of the word: it will stop our progression.

He provides a few ideas of how to combat the tendency for complacency:

• Understand that you yourself are responsible for your future and do not leave it to others (including the government) to make critical decisions for you;
• Don’t be afraid to fail and don't be afraid to take risks;
• Take ownership, accountability and pride in your work;
• Hold yourself and others accountable to deadlines and commitments;
• Offer creative solutions to problems and don’t go along with the crowd if you believe it is the wrong answer…speak up!.
• And last, as I always tell my employees, “Don’t read the newspapers!” All respect to that industry, it’s a guaranteed downer on any given day.
• In fact, there may be only two truths in the world today. One, that change is the only constant, and, two, that the “news,” as presented by today’s media will almost always be bad.

Now is the time for leadership on all levels. Now is the time for personal action and accountability.

(But I don't think I would go so far as to say, "Don't read the newspapers!" That info can help in decision making.)

Read more...

What being in the minority tastes like

If you have limited time, please listen for one minute between the 4 min. and 5 min. mark for what 'being in the minority is supposed to taste like.'

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

My eternal gratitude to friend of the blog, Zar for calling this to my attention.

Read more...