Sotomayor: Case in Point

A controversial case is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. One of the ruling judges on the case in review? Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's nominee to replace Judge Souter on the high court.

With a single paragraph, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and two colleagues dashed the hopes of firefighters here who believed they'd scored high enough on exams to win a promotion.

Indeed, those firefighters did score well enough to be promoted. But why were they not promoted, as they expected they would be?

The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters scored high enough.

And I think that is all anyone needs to know about Judge Sotomayor, and how she uses "empathy" on the bench.

She said during the hearing:

We're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired, if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?

Isn't that the very essence of a test? To separate one group from the next? And in this case, the top firefighters from the mediocre firefighters? And is it not in the best interest of any employer to promote the very best of its employees?

Of course it is.

Unless, that is, those employees who prove the most valuable are not the right color.

EDIT: Another great read on SCOTUS nominations.

Read more...

Guantanamo: Setting the Record Straight

It's been a while, but I'm feeling the need to expound a bit on my responses to Sam's recent post about, among other things, Guantanamo. (Bless you, Sam, for being our only liberal though StupidBike is all but authoring his own posts with his very welcome, refreshing comments on ours.)

As something of an agnostic regarding Guantanamo, I do pay quite a bit of attention to the debate. My observation is that the debate is losing itself as the legal issues that make it a controversy are misunderstood and ignored in favor of fairly hollow rhetoric and fairly emotional disputes over the morality of tortue. To a certain point, anything that Bush did will be hard pressed to find legitimacy of any sort, but let's look at the issues and I think we'll be able to figure out at least what the right question is.

Although torture leads the headlines, the legality of torture isn't the problem that Bush's lawyers couldn't figure out how to fix nor is it the one that Obama's lawyers now grapple with (ironic that Obama was purportedly a constitutional law guru). The issue is what type of law are we willing to apply to so-called "enemy combatants"? If you're a POW, you wear the uniform or are under the orders of a traditional nation-state, and there are international laws that apply. Similarly, if you're guilty of a war crime, we have an internationally-accepted (more or less) forum for prosecuting those criminals. But even war crimes have to happen within the context of a war in a more conventional sense.

So, what do you do with these individuals who may have actually been caught in the act of planning, conspiring, assisting in acts of terrorism? What if they're citizens of the U.S.? What if they're not? What if they just have enough connections with known terrorists that we're worried they're doing these things? It's pretty simple when they're caught IED in hand. It's less so when they're making the wrong phone calls.

Now here's the real conundrum. When we know that we wouldn't have enough evidence to prosecute these "enemy combatants" in a court of law in the United States but we're sufficiently nervous that they could be ready to pull the trigger on any number of awful acts against innocents in the United States or elsewhere that we can't in good conscience let the go the way we'd have to let go a petty thug in any city jail, what do we do with them?

One the one hand, it doesn't seem fair to give an enemy combatant the full protection of the United States Constitution which is notably generous to potential criminals. After all, a completely different set of rules apply to enemy soldiers at war. Isn't this situation more like that?

On the other, some of these detainees are citizens of the United States, the weight of evidence against them does not seem sufficient to hold up, and they're not being given much of an opportunity to confront their accuser and the evidence against them. Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of values that we hold very near and dear?

And what the heck is an "enemy combatant" anyway?

These are the issues that drove the Bush administration to stick them in Guantanamo. At least there they'd be out of the hair of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, at least there they'd be out of the jurisdiction of non-military courts and the judiciary wouldn't be forced to answer these questions. At least these guys would be out of circulation and not be endangering American lives.

That was the thinking anyway, and this is what Obama's lawyers are trying to figure out. No solution I've heard is a perfect one and it's all compounded by the fact that we have nowhere to release these prisoners that makes any kind of sense as the international community, while quick to use Guantanamo as a symbol of American arrogance, hypocrisy, and cruelty, is unwilling to house any released detainees much less help develop a canon of international law that could apply to enemy combatants in this type of instance.

Again, I'm not sure where I stand in all this. As it stands, any of the alternatives to just holding those guys in Guantanamo until we figure out what to do with them requires a sacrifice of priorities: "safety" or "values". I don't feel any more comfortable with the current administration's capacity to handle this than I did the previous, and I don't feel tremendously comfortable with the judiciary handling it either.

What about Congress? Shouldn't they be the ones to define these enemy combatants and create, at the very least, a domestic body of law under which to prosecute them? Oh wait. They don't like to tackle real issues like this without any political capital to gain.

Read more...

Praise to the Man: Chile's Financial Prophet

Maybe you read it, maybe you didn't, but there was a fantastic article in yesterday's WSJ praising Chile's Finance Minister, Andres Velasco. And rightly so, for he single-handedly prevented Chile's government from the same economic failures that beset nearly every other country in the world right now.

I certainly recommend reading the entire column, but I wanted to get a few snippets on the blog and add my comments thereto.

During the emerging economies' commodities boom a few years back, Chilean Finance Minister Andrés Velasco was a wet blanket at the fiesta. Chile, the world's largest copper producer, was reaping a bonanza from the quadrupling in the metal's price. Mr. Velasco insisted on squirreling away a large chunk in a rainy-day fund.

As the savings swelled above $20 billion -- more than 15% of Chile's economic output -- Mr. Velasco faced growing pressure to break open the piggy bank. In September, protesters barged into a presentation by Mr. Velasco, carrying an effigy of him and shouting, "The copper money is for the poor people."

Unbelievable. He had the guts to sock away billions of dollars knowing that it may well result in his being ousted from office as he was quickly becoming the most hated man in Chile.

The country's top union leader wanted a full-scale worker strike because he believed Velasco was at war with workers (by resisting wage demands with all this money sitting there). Politicians within Velasco's own coalition -- no doubt looking out for their own political skin -- were becoming tired of the saving policy and they voiced their concerns publicly. The bloggers even got personal:

Bloggers mocked the handsome and well-groomed finance minister as el metrosexual. Some politicians saw Mr. Velasco as an out-of-touch, Ivy League technocrat. "I was a friend of Velasco's father, but the son is arrogant and would not listen," says Sen. Adolfo Zaldívar, who was drummed out of the Concertación partly because of his attacks on Mr. Velasco.

The man couldn't catch a break.

Well, he got his break when the financial crisis rocked the global economy and he was able to open up the coffers and use the savings to stimulate the economy and weather the storm. Jobs were created and hearts were warmed.

Here are a few quick takeaways:

I love that we now have a tangible modern-day example of a politician sticking to principles and doing what he/she knows must be done, even and especially in the face of embarassing scrutiny. That's leadership. And it's need now more than ever.

I am impressed with the simplicity of Velasco's approach:

The program is "exactly what any household would do," Mr. Velasco says. "If you get some extra money, you will ask, 'Will I have this again next year?' If not you say, Well, I'll save part of it.'"

Essentially, he set the budgeted price of copper far below the current, inflated market price and created the policy that any surplus would be saved. Just like a rational household would. Velasco knew Chile's history for economic failure, especially as it relates to inflated commodity prices, and he approached what he deemed as another commodity bubble in a truly rational manner. Take a look at the charts in the article to get a clearer picture of just how amazing this is.

Maybe it's easier to experiment (and gamble your own future) like this when you are in an emerging-market country as opposed to our Titanic-market country, but I believe if we had real leaders at the helm that the U.S. could learn from Velasco and be more prudent and more disciplined. Yes, smoothing the income means the highs won't be as high, but it also means the lows aren't as low.

Maybe we can get Velasco to replace Timmy G up in the Treasury.

Read more...

What a Day!

Tuesday was one of the most politically eventful days of the year.

President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina (it's very important to mention that), to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Her chief qualification? She has empathy. Oh, and she hates old white people. She wrote:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Has she been nominated to write an Oprah Book Club novel? If so, the above would be supremely relevant. Otherwise I can't see what her Latina experience has to do with justice.

However, much has been written about the empathetic judge and the implications of her selection to the court. I will let you peruse those articles on your own. But I will say this: Her nomination provides an excellent opportunity for conservatives (and supporters of the Constitution) to spark a national conversation about the role of a Judge - at any level. And so I ask you, what is the role of a judge in our legal system, and is empathy at all a relevant attribute to that role?

The California court upheld Proposition 8. Supporters of same-sex marriage chanted "shame on you" outside the courthouse. Shame on who? On what? Furhter, the decision created an odd dualism in the debate because it declared that same-sex marriages that were performed during its brief legal life are still valid. So now you have two classes of gays, those who got married (I wonder if they were chanting?) and those who want to get married, but now are unable to. And we thought California was already a trainwreck? But more importantly, what happened yesterday, and what helps explain the courts decision was that the court did not necessarily uphold the amendment defining marriage, as much as it upheld the process which created the amendment. Somehow I think that the role of a judge, and this decision are related. Discuss.

North Korea launched nuclear missiles. Six of them as of last night. The White House has been largely silent on the issue, releasing a brief, rather general statement about the incident. The implications of a nuclear North Korea are far reaching. Needless to say, Japan and South Korea are extremely upset about this. And I would think Israel is also, seeing how Iran and North Korea are the 2 remaining cogs to that fictional "evil empire" and have been busily working together on means to a nuclear end. Are we heading for another Bay of Pigs?

And while this is not exclusive to Tuesday, there was some new momentum behind this story that surfaced yesterday, and I've been meaning to mention it for a few days anyway. There is some chatter among several blogs that the Chrysler dealerships being shut down are being targeted by the White House because of their political affiliations. Indeed, early evidence suggests that GOP donors who also own Chrysler dealerships are being singled out, many of whom are having profitable businesses inexplicably closed. And regardless if there are political reasons for doing so or not (which would be a massive scandal) the very fact that the government is closing down seemingly random dealerships is rather concerning. Incedently, there are nine Utah dealerhsips being closed. From a Chrysler attorney:

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers... It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

And you all wonder why I think Obama is an American Mussolini?

Not only was Tuesday busy, but the last week has been fairly eventful:

• Obama signed new credit card legislation.
• The U.S. is now at risk of losing its AAA credit rating.
• The President pledged $100 billion to foreign bailouts.
• General Motors received another $4 billion in "assistance".
• The government looked for ways to bail out "minority-owned media".
• Health care reform was seriously discussed.
• President Obama proposed doubling the budget of the IRS
• Cap and Trade was advanced along its merry, tax increasing, fantasy-laden road.
• Four would-be terrorists were captured in New York. They had planned on blowing up NYC targets. And yes, they were Muslims. (Converted in prison. Still want GITMO detainees in our prisons?)
  
• Terrorists exploded a bomb outside of an NYC Starbucks. (Somewhere Bill Ayers is fist bumping Bernadine Dohrn).
  

And as if all that were not enough, Obama declared with the audacity that only he so gracefully demonstrates that "we are out of money". Let me repeat that: "We are out of money". And now, let me finish the sentence for the President: "We are out of money, so we are going to take yours!" I also want to take this opportunity to thank the President for giving any potential GOP challenger a massive hammer to swing in 2012. "We are out of money" will be the new "read my lips...".

I don't know about all of you, but I am going to take the advice of our outspoken Vice President who counseled us that in tumultuous times such as these there is only one thing to be done:

"Gird your loins."

Read more...

Humor Interlude

Read more...

obamashoes.tv

I have become an avid watcher of Dora the Exlporer (pronounced Explora in our house) over the last few months because our 3 year old just loves Dora, Boots, and Diego. Who can blame her? We have the DVR set to record the show every day and without fail she requests to watch the show when she wakes up.

On Saturday she had a stretch where she watched four straight episodes (while I was making/eating an entire batch of crepes) and I nearly lost my breakfast when this crazy Obama Shoes ad came on after Dora. http://www.obamashoes.tv/

Now, I'm a shoe guy. I love shoes. I recently went 18 work days without wearing the same pair twice. (It was a challenge and I had to accept the challenge.) But I wouldn't even wear a pair of Jordans with Jordan's image on the shoe. So the prospect of a pair of Obamas with his mug on the shoe is so over the top, it's like someone eating an entire batch of crepes by themselves. That's just not right.

I hope they come in Euro sizes though so when BHO hands these out to heads of state that, you know, they actually fit.

Heads of state are one thing, little kids watching Dora though? C'mon now.

Read more...

Tuesday Morning Bliss

Nothing better after a long weekend then to wakeup to a beautiful piece written about one of my modern-day heroes.

For much of the Beltway, the Cheney surge is baffling. After all, when Mr. Cheney left office, his reputation seemed divided between those who thought him a punch line on late-night TV and those who thought him a war criminal. As so often happens, however, the conventional wisdom seems to have blinded Mr. Cheney's ideological opponents to the many advantages he brings to the table.

First is his consistency. The case he is making now is the same case he has been making for the past seven years. Even people who disagree with that case would have to concede its coherence, resting as it does on the notion that the United States is at war with terrorists and must react as a nation at war.

By contrast, Mr. Obama's war policies are increasingly incoherent. As a candidate, he excoriated the Bush approach to terror root and branch. As president, however, he has adopted some of the Bush policies, flip-flopped to the Bush side on others, and found himself at odds with his own party on closing down Guantanamo.

His speech on Thursday reflected these contradictions, at once reassuring the antiwar left that the Bush antiterror policies have been fully repudiated while trying to signal everyone else that he has retained most of their substance.

Cheney is the one politician that I'd actually give money to support. Others may come along, but right now there is Cheney and then everyone else in the political realm. It's a shame what ignorance and a willing press has done to his image.

Read more...

Memorial Day

A late Memorial Day addition...

Read more...

90 Senators can't be wrong

Two votes solicited an overwhelming 90 votes in the Senate this week. One was the bill to keep Guantanamo Bay open. Fellow TTKS author Adam wrote about it earlier this week here. Adam argues that the Senate voted in this way because they saw that Obama didn't have a plan on where to keep them.

The other bill with 90 votes was signed today by President Obama to curb credit card company shenanigans of charging fees whenever they felt like it and charging obscene interest rates, sometimes retroactively.

And I too, like Adam, will attempt to explain why the Senate voted in such a way:

GITMO: Its not that 90 Senators don't want it shut down. Its that 90 Senators know that their states don't want the 240 detainees in their backyard. Not closing down Guantanamo is a terrible mistake and it stands as a beacon to our most vile enemies of the hypocracy and double standards of American rule. Here is a little excersice for the skeptics. What do you think of when you hear the word "Auschwitz?" Did you think of a nice little town in Poland or the 3 million Jews that died there? GITMO is a symbol and a stain. Keeping it open is a lingering reminder of a botched experiment.

Credit Cards: This one sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? One thing I know is that the credit card companies are smarter than the Senate. They will find ways around it. And who will it end up hurting? The people who make their payments every month. Mark my words. Politicians are great at pointing out who the winners are going to be. They are terrible at pointing out who the losers are going to be. This bill is a terrible one. And 90 Senators voted for it. Why? I'm sure it took one of their interns 10 minutes to run a report of average credit card debt in their states to make that one a no-brainer.

My point: Playing the 'look, 90 Senators said so' card is sketchy.

Read more...

TTKS Links of the Week, 5/22

Yet another offering. TTKS author Chris usually heads these up and has been otherwise absent from the blog of late. He's going for the record for consecutive weekends leaving town (up to 4) during otherwise stressful times (finals), so this is all he can provide for now.

In case anyone was still wondering, we're not entering the Second Great Depression. Thank you, news media, for your typical hyperbole. Why don't you go back to reporting "Stormwatch '09," "The Latest Pandemic," and "The One Speaks"? Seriously, though, good series of articles from Freakonomics comparing where we are now with the early days of the Depression.

L.A. sports fans take their licks (By the way, Staples Center fans cannot simultaneously be weak sauce but sufficiently not so to affect officiating in Kobe's favor. Take your pick, haters of Lakers Nation.), but they sure have a heck of a place to watch baseball--oddly, enough, now the third-oldest stadium in the country.

Love Hulu? Want to hear from its CEO? I thought so. (Link here)

Chris may one day finally get to his expose on the legal reality of the arguments surrounding gay marriage to flex his law-school brain, but let's face it. It may never happen. In the meantime, the folks at the Pew Center did a very good job of making it a bit more realistic than "I hate gay people" v. "I hate your archaic notions of family."

Climate-Industrial Complex?

Read more...

Season Finale Week Recap

!!!SPOILER ALERT!!! For those of you without TVs, DVRs, Internet, iPhones, or the dedication to watch these shows live or within a reasonable day or two of airing, you may want to NOT read this post.

Its been a busy couple of weeks with season finales. Let's check a few scores:

24
I thought the 24 producers pitched a good seven innings with this season. The last two were pretty lame, in my opinion. The Tony storyline was too back and forth. I think there’s a limit to how many times someone can switch sides in a season. I think that limit is at most two.

As I posted about a couple months ago, I thought it was hilarious how many hot button issues the producers threw into this season: torture, female president, U.S. unwanted occupation of a foreign country, etc. Adam, Bitner, and I were at lunch Wednesday and discussed the last episode where Jack and his new-found Muslim friend sort out Jack’s repentance. A kind gesture for sure. Not all Muslim’s are terrorists. The message was clear.

This season, in my opinion, was successful at satisfying the cravings of the most loyal of 24 fans who have gone a couple years without a season, but I still say Season 1 was the best. You can’t beat the days of Jack at CTU. Now we all wait for next January.


American Idol
We all have an opinion on this, even if you don't watch regularly, so everyone join in. Those of you men (and yes, real men watch American Idol) who didn't have a chance to respond to Bitner's questions (excellent ones, for sure), here's your chance to chime in. Ladies, keep the love going on Bitner's post with your comments.

My household voted for Adam. Sure he’s a bit flamboyant and theatrical, but the guy’s a star. As a fan of Queen, Led Zeppelin, Boston, Guns N Roses, and many other great classic rock bands, I found Adam’s voice compelling. He could sing with any of those bands. When they started playing We Are the Champions last night with Queen, all I wanted to have happen is Kris to put down his microphone. He had no business singing that song. Let the glam rocker show you how it’s done, son.

Kudos to me: On Tuesday (day before finale), my wife and I were talking about what kind of artist Kris would become. I told my wife that Kris will become a crossover country star, like a Keith Urban. Who did he perform with on Wednesday? Yeah, you saw it. Point goes to Josh.


The Office
Not much of a finale in my opinion. Sure, Jim and Pam are pregnant. Maybe we’ll finally be able to close the chapter on Jim and Pam’s flirtation turned relationship turned engagement. Its time to move on. Get married, have a baby. Or in this case, have a baby, get married.

Does anyone else feel like The Office may be running out of steam? How many more story lines can we dig out of Dunder Mifflin? The Dwight/Andy/Angela love triangle is dead. Jim and Pam should be wrapped up by next season (please). Sure, we’d all love to see Michael find a good woman to settle down with, but that may be the final chapter, no? You gotta love Michael’s showing with Holly at the Dunder Mifflin picnic. Classic.


The Biggest Loser
I love this show. In my opinion, it’s the best reality TV on the air. Great season this year. Do you realize how many Mormons they had this year? I count at least 4. I was a huge fan of Filipe and Sione. Gotta love the Tongan Cousins.

I was a Mikey fan for a long time until I realized he’s the spawn of Satan. Was Ron not the Godfather? I love how he called Filipe out as being a liar, but then jimmy rigged an elimination so that Kristin would still be eliminated without him having to vote for her, as he promised he’d never do. But congrats to Mike and Ron for a successful season. And I think Mikey's brother ought to be a shoe in for next season. Anyone else agree?

Never was a fan of Tara, but have to give the girl credit for being a tenacious competitor. That girl has grit. Too bad she’s obnoxious. And why the heck couldn't Jillian figure out that her name isn't prounounced "Tahr-uh", but rather, "Tare-uh" like we're all used to saying. I'd never say that to Jillian's face though. She'd beat me down.

Congrats to Helen. 117 lbs at the weigh in. Unbelievable.

Read more...

A Chance for the Ladies

Ok, ladies, we know you're out there tuning into this male-dominated blog. Ok, so we think you're out there. And we are seeking your input to balance our little universe here at TTKS.

I'm going to bring up a few questions about this season's American Idol that culminated last night and I only want the ladies to weigh in on the topic. So fellas, I'm sorry, but please refrain from commenting. Let's see what the women folk can bring to the table. I'm expecting great things.

Ladies, you can address whatever question you want (or all of them), you can disguise your true identity if you don't want us to know who you are. But bring a strong opinion and don't be afraid to defend it.

Is there something (anything) attractive about runner-up Adam Lambert? If so, what?

Will you be purchasing Adam's albums?

Do you think the fact that Kris Allen won the competition was a surprise and/or do you think his victory says anything meaningful about America's morals/values?

Do you wish your husband or S.O. was a singer and talented enough to compete on Idol?

What makes you think Kris Allen is going to stay married to his wife? (Was that below the belt?)

Lastly, how do you feel about the show in general? Are you an avid or passive fan or are you anti-Idol all the way?

Alright ladies, plenty of angles to take with these questions. Have at it!



Note: We actually welcome your input on any post and any topic, but it just happens to be mostly men who comment.

Read more...

Open Thread

I could not, in good conscience let a post about RG's intimate life sit at the top of the blog. I mean, who wants to even think about that?

And so, for the express purpose of bumping that down the ladder I am posting this pointless open thread which I hope will remain utterly void of intimate insinuations about the sex lives of our authors and readers.

I could say "To Much Information" in regards to his post, but that just does not cut the mustard in this case.

So, consider this an 'open thread'.

Discuss.

Read more...

Freakonomics Post

Just wanted to bring to our readers' attention an intersting post on Freakonomics It is short and sweet.

In the delightfully sophomoric movie Clerks 2, Randal tells Dante, “Odds are there’s someone out there who’s a better match for you than the girl you are about to marry.” Even if Dante engaged in the most thorough possible search for a wife (which he certainly didn’t in the movie), Randal’s statement is correct.

Despite that, rational marital search, job search, or search for a high quality/low price product should stop when the gains from additional searches begin to fall short of the cost of spending the time and money searching and of giving up the pleasure of what you can already get.

There is always some job out there that will suit you better, some better match as a mate, or a better deal on a purchase. Randal’s implied advice is bad economics. If followed, it would guarantee permanent bachelorhood for Dante.

Jamie got home today and after not having talked to her for 5 days, I'm very much looking forward to coming home from work to her. I did a very thorough search, but mainly I got quite fortunate. (I'm pretty sure she won't read this because we don't have internet at home, so for those of you who think I'm only writing this to increase my score at home, you're wrong :P )

Read more...

Quick Thoughts on UK Politics

Not sure if you guys are hearing this over there, but there is a major bruhaha going on over here about politicians living outside the rules. They are making expense claims for their housing situations that are ludicrous. Like claiming 1200 pounds for a 200 pound heating bill, or claiming a second home as their primary home and therefore tax free. It is very interesting as it has generated quite a bit of outrage.

I find it almost parallel in principle to what happened when all of Obama's nominees seemed to have problems obeying the tax laws. Ok maybe not all of them, but it seemed like that. Anyway over here it is like EVERYONE in parliment seems to be gaming the system to the tune of thousands and millions of pounds. Transparency seems to be the only solution to cleaning up the corruption that has plagued politics since ancient Egypt. Of course Geitner is still in treasury dispite abusing the tax system (and curiously enough he now oversees said system), but at least for a time people cared that he was corrupt.

Anyway, back to the UK. I drove today and it was terrifying. I cannot describe it in any other word but terrifying. I hope to survive till the end of this assignment.

Read more...

Congress Falls on its Sword

Barack Obama is widely known for his elevated rhetorical admonishes. He has recently lectured the American people to stop "living on credit", and to "sacrafice". He told Notre Dame graduates to be be "open-minded". And you may recall that in January he ordered the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, bellowing with austere confidence that:

"We the people will uphold our fundamental values as vigilantly as we protect our security, once again, America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership."

It was to be a great victory for all those who pointed to the facility as the poster-child for American thuggery, torture, and arrogance.

Never mind that Obama had absolutely no idea how he was going to shut the place down, nor where he would send the imprisoned people. Never let reality get in the way of Hope and Change.

However, apparently the United States Congress is not so hopeychangey today, nearly 3 months later. Today they voted (90-6 in the Senate!) to deny The One the needed funds to shut down the 'American Gulag':

In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it sought to close the prison.

The 90-6 Senate vote — paired with similar House action last week — was a clear sign to Obama that he faces a tough fight getting the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut down the detention center and move the 240 detainees.

Good news right? Perhaps.

But the question is why? Why would a Congress that has heretofore been compliant in everything that Obama has asked suddenly deny him a few million dollars to shut down what is certainly a scourge and a plague to American moral superiority? A superiority that the Light-bringer is so readily trying to restore throughout the world?

Why, I wonder, couldn't those millions have been tucked away into one of the multi-billion dollar budgets that have recently been signed into law?

I have an answer.

And it is simply because the entire world recognized that Obama had no idea what he was doing when it came to (among just about everything else) GITMO. He had no plan, no timeline, and no idea for how to close the gates and transfer the prisoners.

And so Congress is going to fall on its own sword for The One. When January 2010 dawns on the world, and GITMO is still open for business, Obama will remind us all about that day in May when he was handcuffed by a Congress unwilling to put capital (political and otherwise) behind morality and voted to keep the torture chamber's gates open. He will wag his finger in defiance at the short sighted politicians who voted with the polls, and not with their hearts.

No doubt, it will stir those who can see no fault in Barack Obama. No doubt it will cause a hum of understanding among the media, who will point out all the many democrats who are now in trouble of losing their seats in the upcoming 2010 elections because of their unwillingness to spend just a few million dollars to help restore the tarnished and bushed (pun most definitely intended) image of America.

Ah, to be Barack Obama, and to be able to control the minds and votes of what were once, at some time in history, independent lawmakers.

Audacity indeed.

Read more...

If Owning a Racehorse Were All the Rage...

It's pretty well documented that I am a total sports dork. And I'm fine with that. I even love this time of year for horse racing. I can't swallow all the pre-race coverage, but I tune in for the triple crown races even though I have no money or rooting interest at stake. C'mon, the races take 2 minutes. Who doesn't have two minutes?!

So I was excited to see Mine That Bird make his move and come from behind to steal the Kentucky Derby. I was equally enthused to see if he had what it took to take the Preakness against the Filly, Rachel Alexandra. And, as you probably know, the Filly won the Preakness, which is something that hasn't happened in some 85 years. Great theater, imo.

Anyway, so this weekend I got thinking about how I like the unique horse names that comes with horse racing. And I wondered a bit how these owners come up with the names and so forth. Then I got thinking: what if owning a racehorse was the thing to do? What if it were almost a rite of passage for celebs and sports stars? You ain't nobody unless you got a Triple Crown candidate.

Well, if it were all the rage, here is a short list of who would have horses and what the horse's name would be:

Note: In some cases, I predicted that the celeb would have a female horse (a Filly) and it is indicated in those instances by (Filly) next to the celeb's name.

NBA
LeBron James – Chosen1
Kobe Bryant – Doin’Work
Dwyane Wade – Chuck’sFave
Phil Jackson – ZenMasterFlash
Charles Barkley – RoleModel

Sportscasters/Writers
Bill Simmons – Simmons4GM
Scott Van Pelt – UuuuusefulShot
Kenny Mayne – ReallyFastHorse
Dan Patrick -- YouCanOnlyHopeToContainMe
John Madden – AhehegegehYa’owWhatIMean?

Actors/Other Celebs
Oprah Winfrey (Filly) – PassThePotatoes
Tom Hanks – Wilsooooooooooooon!
Ivan Drago – IfHeDiesHeDies
Ryan Seacrest – SeaMeEverywhere
Michael Scott – That’sWhatSheSaid

NFL
Terrell Owens – GetchyoPopcornReady
Tom Brady – America’sNextTopModel
Peyton Manning – I’mTheBestThereIs-PlainNSimple
Ricky Williams – WeedMeUpScottyHaHaHa
LaDanian Tomlinson – Playin’Hurt

Politicians
President Obama – I’MthePRESIDENT!
George W Bush (Filly) – MrsBinLaden
Sarah Palin (Filly) – HotMomsRule
Joe Biden – HoofHearted?
John McCain – Hotblooded

Miscellaneous
Tupac – HitEmUp
Notorious B.I.G. – ItWasAllADream
Michael Phelps – BongBu-BongBongBong (or EightGolds)
Phil Mickelson – FiveDollaFootlong
Tiger Woods (Filly) – FillyNamedPhil

MLB
Albert Pujols – RacingClean
Roger Clemens (Filly) – MissRemember
Manny Ramirez – FertilicizeMe
Big Papi – RemembaWhen
Barry Bonds – TheClearWinner

Pick your favorite or share some of your own.

Read more...

Bush Update

The media sure did a good job hiding any achievements of Bush. I wonder if they will perform the same service to The One?

Anyway, here is an interesting article this morning.

When George W. Bush took office, the U.S. had more than 6,000 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Today, that number has been reduced to less than 2,200. The U.S. had originally planned to reach this milestone on Dec. 31, 2012, but instead met its goal this February.

How did the U.S. achieve such dramatic reductions so quickly? Answer: By abandoning traditional arms control. When Mr. Bush took office, he decided not to engage in lengthy, adversarial negotiations with Russia in which both sides kept thousands of weapons they did not need as bargaining chips. He did not establish standing negotiating teams in Geneva with armies of arms-control experts doing battle over every colon and comma. If he had done so, the two sides would probably still be negotiating today.

Instead, Mr. Bush simply announced his intention to reduce the U.S.'s operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by some two-thirds and invited Russia to do the same. President Vladimir Putin accepted his offer. These unilateral reductions were then codified in the 2002 Moscow Treaty, a three-page pact that took just six months to negotiate. By contrast, the Start treaty signed by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev -- and now being revived by the Obama team -- is 700-pages long and took nine years to negotiate.

The audacity of the man to just ANNOUNCE that he is going to cut nuclear arms without properly negotiating!!! It actually reminds me of when the British announced they were dramatically reducing tariffs on all imported goods in the 1800s and proceeded to dominate the globe economically as a result (having just lost their military dominance to France, Prussia, and their little colony to the West).

If we were to announce to the world tomorrow that all corporate taxes will be cut from 38% to 15% do you think there would be a positive effect on the US economy? Just a fun thought experiment.

Read more...

So True

Today's Dilbert.

Read more...

Keeping Score on Campaign 2012

I was at a minor league baseball game last Friday night when my friend got a text message: "Huntsman is resigning as governor."

My first thought was, "uh-oh...scandal." But that was quickly replaced with, "Oh, wow, big-time political move by Mr. Obama."

But what does Mr. Obama's appointment of Governor Huntsman as Ambassador to China really mean? There are many questions surrounding this move.

Just last year Huntsman, the LDS, now-former Governor of Utah, was positioning himself at a run for President in 2012. He backed McCain instead of his Mormon brother Romney, thus playing the right GOP cards to be a viable, leading candidate when his time came. Even in recent weeks he has furthered his Presidential intentions. So at first glance, Obama's move here seems like a very shrewd move to put the potential leading GOP candidate in 2012 overseas, out of sight, and on the shelf. Genius.

Or did this move have anything to do with 2012 at all? After all, Obama is planning on two terms, not one, so as long as he is deemed a success in these next 3 years, no 2012 competitor will matter, right?

Furthermore, Huntsman is a fabulous candidate as ambassador to China. He's fluent in Chinese, he's a successful businessman and politician. From a 'fit' standpoint, the choice can hardly be scrutinized by the Right. (The Left, however, may not like that Obama chose a Republican, but that's beside the point.)

For those bemoaning Hunstman's chances in 2012 as a result of this move, consider this:

China's influence in the world will only grow; the country's expanding influence will undoubtedly make it a constant flash point of U.S. foreign and economic policy.

Huntsman, already fluent in Mandarin Chinese, is positioning himself to be one of the country's foremost experts on the issue. That could come in handy in a presidential debate down the road.Other names being bandied about as Republican candidates in the near and long term — former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — are economy-focused, letting future foreign policy debates pass them by before they have happened.

Huntsman will likely never be lampooned for claiming to be able to see China from his house in Utah.

Clearly, from Huntsman's perspective there are some tremendous gains to be had from this experience and it appears the stage is set for him to shine. Then, depending on how Obama's first term goes, Huntsman may just bide his time until 2016.

One final thought: In consideration of this appointment, is Obama more Lincoln-esque than we thought he was?

That was a more eventful minor league game than I expected.

Read more...

The Tax Man

First of all, check out this graph. Knights of Columbus!! 90% taxes under FDR! It took several decades just to turn the ship around that FDR set to sail. Imagine getting a bonus when you're in the highest tax bracket under those circumstances:

Oh wow, thanks for this $100k bonus. Good thing I'll be able to keep $10k of it. Sweet. I got a better idea. How about you just send me on a nice vacation?

That graph was printed in connection with this column in the WSJ on Tuesday that highlights the fact that Obama kept his promise of raising taxes for the highest tax brackets but broke his promise of where the income tax threshold would be. He said $250k and now it's $235k.

His excuse for changing the number? Oh we were referring to AGI (adjusted gross income).

The Treasury Department's description, known as the "green book," showed that the new 36% rate would apply to an adjusted gross income of $250,000 "less the standard deduction and two personal exemptions." Those items effectively represent the minimum that a couple could subtract from adjusted gross income, officials said. A senior administration official estimated that that produces taxable income of about $235,000.

Put differently, we never want a crisis to go to waste and we wanted that $235k number so badly that we put our heads together, got our calculators out and discovered that the standard deduction plus two exemptions will get us there. Gravy.

Why should we care, though? It's only affecting the rich, right?

Well, I don't know, do you want to go back and live in an economy of the 50s, 60s, 70s? Because here he is, ratcheting up the taxes for the wealthy.

Look, Obama's own supporters call him a Class Warrior. Clearly this is a move that will empower him down the road with the middle and lower classes as he seeks to reign in the upper class. This tax policy (and by the way you can bet your house that that graph will continue to trend upward for the next 4 to 8 years) coupled with his attempts to regulate compensation in the finance sector (only the first of many sectors to be touched) is ample indication of his intentions.

If this plan is approved by Congress, which I consider a foregone conclusion, we'll be right back at the Clinton threshold of 40% as the launching pad for his White House tenure. My guess is we'll be at 50% or higher if he's there for 8 years. Ugh.

Right now is not the time to raise taxes!

In connection with RG's portfolio advice, maybe this Roth idea is the way to go afterall...At the very lease we would be wise to diversify between Roth and Traditional.

Read more...

My Fire And Forget Portfolio

I've talked a bit about investing on this site, and while it doesn't generate nearly the excitement as the political hand grenades I like to lob, I rest well thinking that they might actually be more beneficial to our readership (we have over 22,000 visits to the blog now btw)

Before I reveal my fire and forget portfolio, let me first speak briefly about asset allocation and diversification. Asset allocation refers to the types of stuff you hold in your investment portfolio. Stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities (oil, wheat, natural gas), precious metals, art/pornography, etc. (ok no one that reads this should really be investing in art...) When I speak of asset allocation all I'm referring to is the % of your portfolio that you have invested in that asset. So 60% of your money is in stocks, 20% in bonds, 10% oil/gas, and 10% real estate is an easy example. If you have a $100,000 portfolio that means $60,000 of it is in stock and stock related funds, $20,000 in bonds and bond related funds, 10% in oil (not oil companies necessarily), 10% in real estate (home or other investments).

When I talk about diversification it means that you have invested in these different asset classes such that when one does poorly (see stocks, real estate, oil this past year) you have at least something in your portfolio making money. This is important because if you are retired and the stock market does what it did this last year, then you'd be forced to live off sales of stocks that were going straight down. If you had enough bonds in your portfolio you'd be able to live off those while waiting for your stocks, oil, and real estate to move back up.

My Fire and Forget Portfolio (FNFP). I'll be using only Vanguard Index Funds, these are very cheap and ideal for long term investing. I've broken it into 2 separate groups, stocks and bonds. If you decide you want a safer portfolio then you might divide your money into 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you then divy up the money according to my suggestions.

Bonds
Inflation Protected Treasuries (safer than cash) VIPSX (20%)
Intermediate Investment Grade Bonds VFICX (30%)
Long Term Bond Index VBLTX (20%)
High Yield Corporate Bonds VWEHX (30%)

Stocks
S&P 500 index VFINX (40%)
Small and midcap not in S&P 500 VEXMX (20%)
Developed Markets (Europe and Pacific) VDMIX (10%)
Emerging Markets VEIEX (20%)
REIT Index VGSIX (10%)

You'll notice in my stock holdings I did not add oil, gas, wheat, art, etc. I kept it pretty straight-forward in putting the majority into US-based companies with a slightly higher weighting in large cap. There is a small part reserved for real estate (REIT) as well.

There you have it, the Fire and Forget Portfolio. Just set up the allocations and twice a year look at your holdings and adjust them to match the original allocations. The total managment fees for this portfolio are about .2-.3% So you're giving yourself an extra 1% return by not relying on those silly financial advisors.

Read more...

Quieting the Dissenters

Nobody can deny that Urban Meyer is the most coveted college football coach in America. He's young, he's handsome, he's creative, and he's a winner. With all the success comes a lot of confidence and with all the confidence comes the expectation for dominance and control in every situation. It's to the point now where Coach Meyer won't even accept dissent within Gator Nation.

In last year's championship run, the Gators lost one game. That lone blemish that came at home at the hands of a conference enemy, Ole Miss. After that loss, former Gator QB star, Shane Matthews, shared his opinion about what went wrong and why:

When I watched the Ole Miss game and Ole Miss played our wide receivers about 90 percent man-to-man, it was a slap in the face to our wide receivers and passing game. I can't understand why we didn't take advantage of that.

Seems fair enough for a former player, someone invested in the success of the program, to question the coach or the players or the program in general. He's earned that right.

Not according to Meyer.

In a recent Gator Club appearance, Meyer said:

If you want to be critical of a player on our team or a coach on our team you can buy a ticket for seat 37F, you're not welcome back in the football office. You're either a Gator or you're not a Gator.

Wow. In other words, "Shut up!" It would be one thing if this were Tim Tebow (current Gator QB) raising the questions, but this is a former player.

Is this the new leadership trend in America, or what? Doesn't this "Shut up" vibe sound familiar? It's the vibe we get from Barack Obama and his administration.

I won. I'm the President.

Read: "It's my way, don't question me, fall in line or get out."

While it is true that there are moments when leaders must not be questioned and must be followed without dissent, those moments are exceptionally rare.

And in college football, former players don't fall into the category of people who must kowtow to Dear Coach.

Similarly, in politics, Senators, Congressmen, and citizens in general don't fall into the category of people who must kowtow to Dear President (or his administration). (Examples: quit listening to Rush, support the bailout, belittling those who speak up and speak out like Joe the Plumber or the TEA parties, etc.)

You don't hear Obama saying quite like Meyer, "If you want to be critical of anyone in this administration then you're not welcome in America." But, I feel that overtone from him and from his Administration. Questioning and challenging from the outside has become taboo.

Is Meyer taking a page out of the Obama book of leadership and building on it? It appears so.

Where are we headed with this kind of leadership taking hold? Nowhere good.

Don't question Urban.

Read more...

Vacation From My Problems

I spent last week aty Disney World with my family. We had a lot of fun. Really we did. And one of the nice things about spending a week waiting in line for silly, and sometimes creepy, rides and overpriced ice cream was the chance to take a breather from my regular routine of blogs (and blogging) news, and work. I watched a little basketball, but for the most part I was limited to headlines and a few glances at TTKS on my phone while waiting for our turn on Splash Mountain.

I've had a chance to catch up a little on the political activities over the course of the week and I thought I would chime in on a few of the things that stood out the most to me.

First of all, this might be the quote of the year, coming from an anonymous "top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager":

I'm appalled at the anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it's the real world. I'm surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing. He's a real class warrior.

Gee you think? It must be terrifying for wealthy Obama supporters as they slowly realize that all along Obama was referring to them when he talked about 'sacrifice'.

Barack Obama yucked it up at an elite press dinner over the weekend. He even took the time to joke about the expensive photos taken above New York City last month that sent New Yorkers into a panic. The $357k photos (of which just one was released to the public, who you know, paid for them) were ill-advised. Obama is dealing with the fall-out as he does most of his other bad choices - he threw someone under the bus and then joked about it:

Now Sasha and Malia aren’t here tonight because they’re grounded. You can’t just take Air Force One on a joy ride to Manhattan. (Laughter.) I don’t care whose kids you are. (Laughter.) We’ve been setting some ground rules here. They’re starting to get a little carried away.

And as if that was not cringe inducing enough, at that same dinner, Obama laughed along with Wanda Sykes as she joked about 9/11, and Rush Limbaugh being a terrorist and deserving of water boarding and a painful death.

As always, the liberal elite is as classy as can be.

This was hilarious irony: A boat powered by wind and solar was floundering in the Arctic and had to be rescued. By an oil tanker.

As more time passes, and Obama continues to act like Royalty, the more I have to think that the Obama's actually believe they are Royalty, rather than elected public servants:

The 65th Anniversary of D-Day is fast approaching. Barack Obama will attend the events on June 6th as George Bush did in 2004 for the sixtieth memorial service. Here is the rub, as of now Obama’s State Department has asked (read demanded) the French government not allow tour guide services to operate that day. It is a big day for Normandy tourism. Yet, the king will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day. Obama is very important you know. This is an unprecedented request. I hope the French come to their senses and deny it.

And finally, some Disney related snark from my vacation:

Disneys' Animal Kingdom may as well be Disneys' Green Kingdom. Scattered about the park are all kinds of green posters, signs, and of course Disney characters encouraging the kids to recycle, re-use, and so forth and on and on. My kids were even given recycling pins for playing "basketbottle" in which they toss an epmty plastic bottle into a recycling basket. They also learned that the park benches were made from recycled milk cartons. One bench requires over 1,000 cartons.

But what was interesting to me was the little efforts the park used to appear green, despite the massive amounts of gas, water, electricity and garbage the park(s) churn through on a daily basis. At one point as we waited for an inter-park shuttle we were standing in the midst of at least 10 running buses. The flow of the buses was constant. As one would pull away from the curb another would fill its place. A security vehicle drove by and plastered in large block letters on the door was "HYBRID". I suppose among the fleet of thousands of gas powered buses, a few hybrid SUVs help to create a responsible image.

Another example were the paper straws given out at many of the food carts. Paper straws. I think most people realize that paper, if not coated in wax will dissolve when wet. And so, a straw made from paper would logically dissolve in a drink. And so it did. After a minute or two it was a soggy mess that left unwanted floaties bobbing in the cup, and me searching for a real plastic drinking straw.

Also vexing was the eco-friendly sunscreen that we were all required to wear at Discovery Cove (not part of Disney). The eco sunscreen was designed to be compatible with the dolphins, fish and stingrays that we were able to swim along side (very cool incidentally). We all lathered up with the thick, pasty goo and went about our day. Except that every one of us got nasty sunburns through the eco-friendly 'sunscreen'.

So like many things green, the straw and the sunscreen were well intentioned. And, like those well intentioned green utilities, they just don't work worth a darn.

I was impressed with the efficiency that the Disney parks are run with. The collective parks, hotels, transportation services and other offices must employ hundreds of thousands of people. The economy of the entire central Florida area thrives because of these parks, which witness a constant flow of tourists everyday of the year. The amount of money, food, supplies and souvenirs that are moved day in and day out is simply mind boggling. And really is an example of capitalism at its finest.

One need to look no further than the number of people happily paying $4.00 for a popsicle as testament to the wonderful principle of supply and demand that Disney is so perfectly practicing.

Read more...

Living and Prospering: Monday Morning Movie Review

My wife and I don't get out to the movies much now that we have 2 kids, but we tagged along with a group of friends going to Star Trek and I thought I would pass along my opinion.

First of all, it must be known that I was raised on Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Indy was my idol and Hans Solo was a close second. Princess Leia was Princess Leia. So for me, Star Trek was a joke. It was a cheap wannabe of Star Wars. In fact, I think the term Poor Man's Star Wars has always been an appropriate descriptor for Star Trek.

But, in 2004 I took a Strategy class in my final year of undergraduate business school and the professor (who was a total stud, btw. Josh can attest - he was there), spent the intro of one of the first classes talking about Captain Kirk and Spock and the basic premise of Star Trek. Then he showed us a clip of a little Game Theory application in one of the episodes and I gotta admit that my interest was picqued. So that little sales job by a business professor/practicing lawyer laid the foundation for this weekend.

I still laughed at the dorks wearing Trekkie outfits and I still think there is a measure of 'kid brother' in Star Trek when compared to Star Wars. Nevertheless, I found the new Star Trek wildly entertaining and I can't wait for the sequel(s). There were only a couple lame/cheesy parts that I would change (the snowy scene when Kirk is fending off some weird snow animal, which called to memory the scene when Luke Skywalker was on a snow-covered planet fighting a weird snowbeast), but the movie contained the proper amount of humor mixed in with action and suspense.

I would see it again and I recommend it to all you Trekkie doubters and haters out there.

You may want to take my opinion with a bag of salt, however, because I watched Twilight with my wife when we got home from Star Trek and Twilight may have skewed upward my opinion of Trek. "May have" is the operative phrase there.

Just know that by watching Twilight I was heeding the Vulcan admonition, "Live long and prosper."

Read more...

TTKS Links of the Week, 5/8

Here they are for your Friday and weekend time-wasting pleasure:

Have you noticed that there are no good Obama jokes out there? Even GOP faithful could chuckle along with dishes against Dubya, particularly since he was easy fodder. Is it because of his race? Is it because he's dealing with a "real economic crisis" and needs our support? (Right.) Here are a couple of takes that are interesting reads.

The public education system in California is a mess and, like any good train wreck, is hard not to watch. Teachers can be paid for years for not teaching while their performance is reviewed, bad teachers can't be fired, and the school districts are begging for legislation to make it easier. I know the President campaigned on the idea of making it easier to hire and fire teachers based on merits, but I haven't heard anything about it lately. Anyone have any new info out there on that?

Love In-N-Out? Read on.

Headline: "Specter hints Kemp died of GOP agenda." Really? Are we sure that Senator Specter wasn't replaced by an alien? Stay classy, Arlen. Hope that change of colors works out for ya.

If you're like most men and have a tortured man-crush on Tom Brady where you simultaneously hate him and want to be him, you might be interested in this take on why his career is, in fact, over. Just say no to fashionable little hats, Tom.

"Disney parks stop scans for topless riders." 'Nuff said.

Leave it to the Germans to show us the way on how to take the fun out of naming a baby in Utah. Here's hoping our legislature wises up and does the same.

Read more...

The PED Pantheon

Somewhere in Europe Ryan Giles is giddy about Manny Ramirez’s suspension for becoming a known PED-user. Fair enough. Everyone has their own opinions on Man-Ram and PEDs. With each superstar whose skeletons finally come out of the closet, however, I become increasingly curious how the Hall of Fame will handle this 5, 10, 15 years down the road. If Pete Rose’s plight is any indication of Bonds’ or McGwire’s future, they ain’t gettin’ no Cooperstown bust. I happen to be the driver of the bandwagon that runs on the platform that all of these jokers should be in the Hall. Whether you give them all their own little dark wing within the Hall, or you put them among the rest of the stars and simply tell their respective stories – however speculative – I don’t think it matters. But they merit being in the Hall because they are integral to the history of this era.

But, my bandwagon doesn’t have good horses and I don’t believe any of these guys will get into the Hall, so I’ve come up with a new idea.

The PED Pantheon.

The great thing about the PED Pantheon is that it is wholly separate from any one sport. It will house the oversized busts of all the major (i.e. superstar) athletes who are known or suspected PED users. And, I’m thinking we can get a sponsor to purchase the naming rights of the Pantheon. Personally, I think it would be fitting if Planters Peanuts sponsored the PED Pantheon. The alliteration is a bonus, but the best part of having Planters Peanuts buy the naming rights is obviously the symbolism to one of the major physical deformations that occur in men who use roids. My backup sponsor would be Fat Heads, but for obvious reasons, I would prefer Fat Heads sponsor the oversized busts.

So we all know who would be grandfathered into the Planters Peanuts PED Pantheon, right? I mean, there’s no mystery there. Ben Johnson, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Marion Jones, Bill Romanowski, Floyd Landis, etc. all the way up to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Shawn Merriman, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and LeBron James. Whoops, the word on James has yet to be released. My bad.

Clearly, there will be plenty of Fat Heads Oversized Busts to produce in advance of the opening ceremony. The more pressing question is, where do we place the Planters Peanuts PED Pantheon? What’s the perfect city for it?

We could build it in Wilkes-Barre, PA, which is where Planters Peanuts was founded. While a cute idea, it just doesn’t have that ring to it.

We could build it in Bay Area, perhaps on the same ground as the BALCO lab. That would be very fitting. Very symmetrical.

We could build it in Detroit, you know, just because the economy there sucks so bad we could give them something for tourists to come see. It could be the proverbial shot in the buttocks that Detroit needs.

You could make a similar argument for Katrina-ravaged New Orleans. The Pantheon would really boost tourism down there. Plus, with our luck we could just buyout the Superdome (which can withstand even the worst that Mother Nature can inflict upon it) after a few years since we’ll definitely be able to use the space!

What about NYC or Chicago? Between athletes and politicians and Wall Streeters, we’ve got ourselves a hotbed of cheaters and frauds that would probably welcome the Pantheon’s presence. Plus they are already destination cities so we’d certainly have tourists already there.

Or we could build it in D.C. since Congress has done such a fantastic job of digging in and solving the PED problem for Major League Baseball. Surely this would be a fitting tribute to how effective and productive our federal government is.

I don’t know what to do about location. So many good choices. I’m sure you have other ideas as well.

But as Herm Edwards says, “We can build on this.” (We didn't even get a chance to discuss Gift Shop ideas!)

No matter your feelings on the PED era we live in, or how badly you despise the athletes themselves, you can’t deny that the Planters Peanuts PED Pantheon would become a landmark tourist site in this country.


Funding opportunities will be announced on July 3rd, 2009, when Man-Ram returns to baseball. Announcement date subject to change.

Read more...

Exporting Adulation

I snapped this shot in the airport bookstore as I was leaving Amsterdam. I thought for a moment it was an Obama-store, not a book store. Superstar indeed.

Read more...

The Poor: Whose Responsibility?

Michael Medved got religious in a great piece in Townhall yesterday called Don't Confuse Justice and Charity. I was moved by the Spirit to post about it. Just kidding. (Sorry, totally inappropriate religious reference.) My next post: Taking Tongue-in-Cheek Humor Too Far and How to Recover from a Lightning Strike.

The crux of his column is a topic we've discussed loosely on the blog a few times. The topic is essentially "Whose job is it to care for the poor?" I guess what grabbed my attention was the fact that Medved quotes and analyzes scripture ad nauseum in the column. But he makes a few solid points amidst his Hebrew translations. For starters, he quoted Leviticus 19:15, in a very modernized translation:

"You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow."

For comparison sake, I include the King James translation:

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour."

Medved continues:

"The unmistakable commandment to avoid favoring the poor comes as something of a shock: doesn’t the Bible, and especially the New Testament, repeatedly remind us to deal generously with the less fortunate, and to care for widows, orphans and paupers in general?

"The truth is that the Bible – both Old and New Testament—views compassion as a personal obligation rather than a public priority for governmental or judicial policy. "

Medved is right. The caring for the poor and needy is a personal obligation. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is the charge to care for the poor. Many churches, such as mine, encourage church goers to tithe a portion of their income to help those in need. They also encourage being active in charities and offering of time and talents to good causes.

Another interesting point that Medved makes:

"President Obama faced his first opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. In some of his campaign comments about criteria for such an appointment, the future president specifically indicated he wanted a judge with a “heart” for the poor and downtrodden, and who would concentrate on their specific interests and needs—in other words, precisely the sort of jurist prohibited by Leviticus.

"Allowing justice to be twisted by emotions of sympathy for the unfortunate is no less corrupting than bending toward the rich and powerful out of a sense of awe or admiration, or in hopes of personal advancement. In both cases, feelings block the scrupulous application of rules of logic and fairness."

From a principle standpoint, is he not accurate? President Bush has been chided by Democrats for favoritism of corporate "fat cats" via, most notably, tax policy. If the charge is "favoritism" how is this different than flipping the coin and passing tax law that favors low income earners, such as the tax policy that Obama has proposed to increase the amount of refundable tax credits? People who pay no tax are then eligible for a tax refund. Medved even argues that the progressive tax system we have is an injustice from the same standpoint.

Finally from Medved:

"At a time when the outspoken religious left wants to claim scriptural sanction for its redistributionist schemes, when President Obama searches for a judge who will follow her compassionate heart rather than the Constitution, it’s appropriate to recall the timeless and necessary Biblical separation between public justice and private compassion."

Amen.

Read more...

More Euro-Thoughts

The thieving here is a problem. Surprise! When you as a society permit all kinds of morally questionable behaviors to exist you attract thieves and scoundrels.

Last night while driving home from dinner our host pointed across the river and said, "there is the red light district". We looked over and could see what I thought initially were manequins standing in the windows. They weren't, they were prostitutes, government regulated prostitutes, displaying their wares. (Clothed from what I could tell)

There are a ton of bikes here in the city. Everyone rides those old timey bikes. I asked our host if they've seen the newer more modern version of bicycles. He replied that they had but that no one gets them because bikes get stolen so often it makes no sense to spend a lot of money on a bike. (I didn't inform him that bike locks have been invented to prevent that from happening)

When we parked the car to go to dinner my coat was on the back seat. He told me to put it in the trunk or it would likely be stolen by someone breaking the window to get at it.

So here we have a society where they are constantly in fear of their goods being stolen, slipping out of their hands into the hands of others.

Oh one final observation. People here love to smoke. In fact 30% of the population are smokers in the Netherlands. In this office there are smoking rooms right next to the bathrooms. If you peak in you can see some cheery folks sitting around a conference table smoking away.

How Euro!

Read more...

Defection Follow Up

Last week we predicted this would happen: Defector Specter is not finding love and respect among Democrats. So it comes as no surprise. (Thanks to Rev for bringing this to my attention.)

But it's still fun to recognize.

Despite promises from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) would retain his seniority after switching parties, Specter will be put at the end of the seniority line on all his committees but one under a resolution pproved on the floor late Tuesday.

Ouch. Arlen, really, you should think a few moves ahead when you do something as strategic as, you know, switching parties. Oh, and you should have been prepared to pretty much shut your mouth when it comes to supporting a Republican.

Democrats said that while unrelated, Specter’s comments to the New York Times Magazine this weekend indicating he would support former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) disputed re-election bid against Al Franken have angered many Democrats.

“Sen. Specter better watch comments like these. They won’t help him in the caucus,” a Democratic leadership aide said, adding that the comments have “caused a lot of heartburn in the caucus.”

Good luck in your re-election.

Read more...

Euro Quick Hits

I'm actually in Amsterdam right now working on a project in my new role. I had a couple thoughts I'd like to share, just quick observations made during my Euro-excursion.

Everyone leaves their trays in McDonalds for someone else to pick up. I was amazed at first when seeing this, but it has been consistent across fast food places. There are trash cans (rubbish bins) for us to clear our trays with, but no one does it.

Going through the airport yesterday I noticed there is an extra layer of security we all have to pass through. A dedicated shoe xray line separate from the normal xray line. I asked my colleague why they separate the two, doesn't that just create more bottlenecks and longer waits? "More jobs," was his reply.

Finally the best part. I pulled into my hotel yesterday in Amsterdam and there was techno music blasting in the streets and scruffy looking college aged kids partying at 6pm. On a Tuesday night. Doesn't that just capture Europe as we have stereotyped them? (I found out later that they were celebrating liberation day from the Nazis, but I had to wonder how much they really cared about Americans, Brits, and Canadians liberating their city vs the opportunity to party)

Read more...

Hope and Change Quote of the Week

In this NPR interview from 4/28/09, Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, discusses brilliantly, the current administration's vision for the U.S. auto industry (the quote is at 3:35 in the audio file, or you can just take my word for it):

Jackson: The President has said - and I couldn't agree more - that what this country needs is one single national road map that tells auto makers who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is they need to be designing and building for the American people.

NPR Reporter: Is that the role of the government though? I mean, that doesn't sound like free enterprise.

Jackson: Well, uh...ih...it , it is free enterprise in a way.

Oh, totally! Yeah, that's totally free enterprise.

I think the kind of car they need to be making for the American people is probably the one the American people want to buy. I mean, call me crazy.

Read more...

Top 10 Worst Tattoos in the NBA Playoffs

Confession: I like tattoos. One of my favorite shows to catch on TLC is Miami Ink. You get to watch a bunch of people get tatted up and tell the stories behind their tattoos. Its pretty cool. But enough of that.

I also love the NBA playoffs. Sure, as Bitner pointed out about a week ago,the regular season is long and regular season games are a bit lethargic, except for maybe the occasional nail biting 4^th Quarter. But the playoffs are a different. All of the sudden, games really matter. They matter to the players and they matter even more to the fans. The Bulls-Celtics series was incredible! Bill Simmons said it best:

“Think of all the crap we deal with as fans. "Bulls-Celtics 2009" explains why we put up with every story about Clemens and Bonds and Michael Vick and Terrell Owens and everyone else who conspires to make sports less fun.”

So I took two of my favorite things, the playoffs and tattoos, and present to you the Top 10 Worst Tattoos in the 2009 NBA Playoffs.

10. Lebron James - Chosen 1. Nothing wrong with the tat' necessarily, but how many of you knew that the NBA's poster child was that arrogant? No really, that arrogant.

9. Tim Duncan - Jester. I just don't really like Duncan. He has another tat' on his chest of a wizard. WTH?






















8. Deron William - "Noguts, Noglory". The letters are too close together man.
















7. Chris "Birdman" Andersen - Wings. This tattoo is just as ridiculous as his post-dunk flying act.


















6. Kenyan Martin - Neck Kiss. Dumb. Period.















5. Luke Walton - Grateful Dead mockery. On Luke's right arm is a depiction of 4 Grateful Dead skeletons, representing him and his 3 brothers, dancing around a fire holding balls in their hands.
















4. Stephon Marbury - Starbury. Marbury has a shoe line and decided to have the logo permanently placed on the side of his noggin.


























3. Kobe Bryant - Vanessa. I still don’t understand this tattoo. Yes, I see the angel wings and the crown and the halo, but come on, let’s face it, its ugly.






















2. Mike Bibby - Hoop. Did his kids draw this?












1. Brad Miller - Scrappy Doo. Come on, bro, you're 7' tall and 280 lbs. Time to cover that thing up with something a bit more "boss".


















Honorable Mention - Tracy McGrady - Barbed wire. Since T-Mac is out , I couldn't put him in the top 10. But I couldn't leave it alone. Nothing says "street" quite like a single band of barbed wire. Maybe he and Pam Anderson got their tat's together.




















That's it folks. Please chime in with comments. I'd love to hear your thoughts on other Worst or Best tats from the NBA.

Read more...

A Quick Note on Jack Kemp

I didn’t know a lot about Jack Kemp until this weekend. In fact, I still really don’t. But over the course of the weekend as news of his death broke, I read a few articles about this man and my admiration grew.

For those of you who consider yourselves “supply-sider” economists, this guy ought to be one of your heroes. Ronald Reagan’s landslide campaign in 1980 ran on the ideals of lowering taxes and growing the economy. Jack Kemp is largely credited as the person who persuaded the GOP to push the low tax ticket during the election season. It was Kemp who was the author the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, known as the Kemp-Roth tax cut, which is the first of two pieces of tax legislation that formed the foundation of “Reagonomics.”

Not an economist by trade, Jack actually began his career as pro football player. He spent a brief stint in the NFL, but the bulk of his career was spent in the AFL. His interest in economics came in response to the economic turmoil of the 1970’s. He became a self-taught expert of fiscal and monetary policy. He championed conservatism and put a fresh face on the GOP with his ideas and enthusiasm.

Below are a few great articles that were published over the weekend to honor him. He passed away on Saturday after a battle with Cancer. He was 73.

Wikipedia

What Jack Kemp Accomplished - Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

Capitalist for the Common Man - The Wall Street Journal

Read more...

TTKS Links of the Week, 5/1

I heard about this girl on Dennis Miller a while ago and the L.A. Times just picked up on the story. She's a UCLA student bent on exposing some of the shady practices that Planned Parenthood occasionally gets away with. Basically, she goes undercover with a camera pretending to be a 13 year old.

Clive Crook had a good take on the Obama v. Torture debate. He's vehemently against anything resembling torture, but also has a few things to say about why a witch hunt at this stage isn't worth it. It's somewhat unique in that it's not using an "ends justify the means" argument to justify anything that was done but still points out the faults of pursuing Bush officials at this stage.

Our beloved Wall Street Journal's editorial scorecard of Obama's first 100 days. Fairly objective take, so don't be scared, Sam.

More on the GOP's efforts to not just be "the party of no."

Warren Buffett is the face of Berkshire and enjoys a lot more time in the limelight than his partner and Berkshire Vice Chairman, Charlie Munger. Here's a quick read on Munger from the WSJ that talks about Munger's role in a few of BH's deals and some sentiments as Buffett and Munger prepare for Saturday's Berkshire shareholder meeting.

(From Bitner) I don't think many people truly understand why I love sports as much as I do. I know that there are a few guys like me out there, but the more I interact with peers at work or future MBA classmates and so forth, I realize most people just don't care like I do. Last night watching the Celtics-Bulls Game 6 on my DVR at midnight, my wife had to "SHHHHH" me 6 times. Six. I was on the rollercoaster of emotional highs and lows that comes with a passionate sporting event and evidently I was about to wake the kids. Who stays up till 12:30am watching tape-delayed games? It's the second time this week I've done it and I'm about ready to collapse. Frankly I wonder if I care too much. But, this column from Bill Simmons says it better than I can. He articulates why I love sports. I asked myself the same questions. I'm not sure who I'm writing this for, but man, I love sports. It's just part of me.

Read more...