McCain VP Recommendations

Based upon this map, Romney is the best VP choice. He flips Michigan and Nevada at a minimum and very likely Montana, New Hampshire, Colorado, and North Dakota which allows a healthy margin of error for Virginia or Pennsylvania to go Democratic.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28192

However, I hold to my original recommendation for McCain VP:

1). Carly Fiorina (Former CEO of HP)
2). Bill Cosby (Dr. Huxtable on the Cosby Show)
3). Mitt Romney (Former MA Governor)
4). Joe Lieberman (Democrat/Independent Senator from Connecticut)
5). Elizabeth Dole (Republican Senator from North Carolina)
6). Colin Powell (Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)

Poor choices (in no particular order):

1). Huckabee
2). Hillary Clinton
3). Rudy Giuliani
4). Tom Ridge
5). Condi Rice

I guess we’ll find out Friday…

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Gayness

Happy Independence Day!

It is with pride that most of America celebrates the 4th of July. While some have chosen to sit this one out (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html), the vast majority of Americans will be sipping sodas and savoring the summer sun in social settings around a BBQ. It will be a gay time for all.

Beneath all of this though, is an underlying current of strain and divisiveness that the mainstream media loves to tout and expand (e.g. Red vs. Blue states, Hillary vs. Obama, McCain vs. conservatives, etc.). Core to this are the social and political movements that fuel politcal debate and speculation. Indeed, these movements are a proud part of American history, but as Thomas Paine frequently likes to point out to me, most movements get hijacked by radicals within their groups. Some cases in point include the labor movement in which the founding principles of a standard workweek, reasonable compensation, and fair working conditions have largely been replaced with demands for non-competitive legacy costs, unfounded rules, and benefits that simply are not sustainable in a global economy where worldwide labor couldn’t care less about whether they are changing batteries or cleaning toilets (see http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2008/04/ridiculous_work.html). Another example is the Libertarian movement that has not been able to produce an electable candidate because the party refuses to post a candidate that isn’t so far off base that 90% of America wouldn’t be afraid of them in power. Similar statements can be made for other credible parties including the Green Party as well as the Socialist and Communist parties in the US.

Mixed in with this however, is a politically correct movement that seeks to limit the speech that Americans engage in making words like “nigger” grounds for international criticism for some (http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape/) and sources of controversial, but acceptable, capitalism for others (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572287/20071018/nas.jhtml). Other words, such as “gay”, have been redefined in the latter half of the 20th Century to refer to homosexuals. Though it is largely rejected by the LGBT community (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay), it remains largely in the dominion of sexual preference. Can you imagine being named Gay (http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=228705661)? The connotations of the word - transformed in a few short decades - are amazing.

While it is sad that movements get hijacked, there is a subtle side-effect as well, where the language gets hijacked as well. The politically correct movement has not helped this. However, as part of a free country, whose Bill of Rights have not completely been shredded, we as individuals have the right to use the English language in modern contexts as well as antiquated meanings.

Therefore, let us be in gay spirits this 4th of July. Let us find find gayness in the right to free speech and let us celebrate independence with gay pride.

Indeed, I would like to begin exploring a list of words that have been hijacked to the point that their original meaning has been lost. To start the list…

1). Gay

2). Democrat - a proponent of democracy - generally these are founded upon equal access to power in government and universally recognized freedoms and liberties. However, modern democrats do not equal access to power frequently choosing selected access to power (e.g. affirmative action and special minority programs) as well as skewed liberties (Kramer can’t say “nigger”, but Kanye West can). (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy)

3). Liberal - One who supports classical liberalism including individual freedom AND limited government (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). By in large, modern liberals are fierce opponents of laissez-faire and free market economies as well as largely supporters of big government solutions such as universal health care, social security, etc.

Please feel free to comment with additional words and why you believe their meanings have been hijacked.

Absolutely, the 1st Amendment is American

In reference to an article in the IHT (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php), there seems to be a significant debate over what one can and can’t say outside of the United States. Sadly, our neighbors up north are victims of their own government’s inability to secure their rights to free speech.

There are some fundamental issues at play here. I think many of them can be summed up in the phrase by Lewis, a defender of free speech, “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.”

Free speech, along with the other protections of the 1st amendment, does not live “in an age”. They supersede time and are suspended only on the most temporary of bases (e.g. wartime). I struggle to agree with the imminence exception and loathe efforts to limit speech based upon the feelings of others. I should be allowed to walk up to a Jew and call him a Jew. I should be able to walk up to a cop and call him a pig. I should be allowed to walk up to Obama and call him a socialist wannabe nigger who is a pathetic disgrace to the proud history of true African-Americans.

However, I should be prepared to accept the consequences of my speech including social ostracization, lost business, and possibly complete emotional isolation.

The problem with exceptions to rules is that everybody feels that their opinion represents an exception. And while mine certainly does, the changing of the rules to protect the feelings of others is pointless.

The 1st amendment does truly distinguish us from the rest of the world. We should remember that the next time we allow a foreign leader to come onto our soil and call our President the devil and our country the devil’s home base. That is, of course, news but not hate speech. What would Canadian courts say to us about our leader going into Quebec and claiming that the French leaders were pansies and that Quebec is a wannabe France without the guts to even enter wars to be able to wave a white flag? My guess is that they would call that hate speech.

It’s the double standards that come into play that make these exceptions impossible to reconcile and therefore a danger to all of us. Indeed, if you limit my speech, you are one step away from limiting my thoughts. But wait, that is actually the goal isn’t it? Therein lies the truth. Free speech laws are not about changing people’s expression patterns in an effort to protect others in society. In reality, they are there to change people’s thoughts. Truly though, the founding fathers knew that a right to free speech was essential to the right to free thought. Ergo, in many countries, including many in the Western world, free thought has been outlawed.

An important commentary of our times…

I have long internally debated writing an article about “Them”.  History is replete with lamentations about “Them”, “Those people”, “Their kind” or anyone who is otherwise the antithesis of “Us”.  I have even debated on occasions myself about this faceless group of people who are responsible for no less than the End of the World (End of Democracy, End of Western Civilization, End of Life-As-We-Know-It, etc.).  But I catch myself sometimes; I have never met, “Them”.  I do not know anyone who is “Them”, and this is important.  “They” have to remain without identity, otherwise a lot of our case dissolves with familiarity or knowledge of intent.  In other words, a lot of what “They” do becomes more easily excusable the closer “They” get to “Us”.

The tipping point for me today to write this was this commentary by Victor Davis Hansen.  Reading it, I realized the truth that was staring me in the face this whole time:  There is no “Them”, there is only “Us”.  You might read the article, as I did, and say to yourself “but I believe we should take all those proactive measures!!  “THEY” are the one’s that don’t!”.  And yet, that is exactly the sentiment that got us here in the first place; blaming someone else for the problems we all face.  Until “We” are prepared to take concrete action to remedy the situations that “We” all have created, “We” can expect more of the same problems without end.

My favorite quote from the commentary

Perhaps the greatest trademark of the 1960s cohort was self-congratulation. Baby boomers alone claimed to have brought about changes in civil rights, women’s liberation and environmental awareness — as if these were not prior concerns of earlier generations.

The Founding if this country was framed in the context of this same debate; indeed this issue is timeless.  There were strident calls from some groups of Colonials for redress against British actions and there were equally passionate calls for continued reconciliation.  Need I remind “Us” that if “We” continued to allow “Them” to lock us in debate, “We” would all be spelling the word as “colour” today and mostly likely paying 40% tax rates across the board for a typically crappy Universal Health Care system.

“We” are softened to hard labor, inoculated against pain and suffering, intolerant of hardship, and apathetic to anything that might cost us more than is convenient.  “We” are very much the model of the great civilizations that have come before us that devolved into ruin while “They” debated about the causes and solutions.

I have lived privileged and sheltered life and yet my passion for history, especially “Our” history has led me to the conclusion that “good-enough” isn’t any longer.  It started for me many years ago when I registered to vote because I realized that it might the single most important Right that my Founding Fathers fought for and bestowed upon me, and the first step to taking Action.  I encourage all of you who may have become disenfranchised by the process to reconsider.  Read about “Our” history and watch any of the amazing movies that now exist about our Founding.  I highly recommend the recently aired and soon to be on DVD “John Adams” which is based on the book written by the also highly recommended David McCullough.  Let it ignite your passion for action, entrepreneurship, discovery, and gratitude.  Let it inspire you to take seriously the role “We” all play in this Social Contract, and play a bigger part.

And let it light “Our” path back to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.

Thomas Paine

Commrade Indy

Spielberg movie angers Russia’s Communist Party

The communists are up in arms about the recent release of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”. Apparently, it undermines the communist ideology. You mean this may be the first movie in recent memory that actually undermines communism rather than glorifying it or some left wing component of it? Spielberg and Co. must has be doing something right then!

I have not seen the movie and was not planning on seeing it until it was released on DVD. However, with the strong rejection by the Communist party of Russia, I will have to go see it in theaters now in hopes that, in the words of Moscow Communist lawmaker Andrei Andreyev, it might “provoke a new Cold War.”

As goes Big Oil, so goes our Country…

Sensational title? Maybe. But maybe not if you believe, as I do, that this country was founded on the nobility and ingenuity of man, and that those qualities should be neither controlled or impeded by their government. So what to make of the recent Congressional hearings where Big Oil is on trial for what is essentially success? Are these people who run oil corporations greedy? Evil people who are part of a faceless giant who only gains pleasure from bleeding our wallets dry? This seems to be the popular belief, if you accept what you are hearing on the news, or even the words of members of Congress itself.

From the article: “Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, who said: “You rack up record profits, quarter after quarter after quarter, and apparently have no ethical compass about the price of gasoline and think you are victims.””

Maybe this resonates with you. After all, with all the talk of economic problems, and the obviously high costs of most basic necessities (mostly because of gas prices), the idea that someone might make a few million just seems wrong, doesn’t it? But what if that person making the million was a friend? Brother? You? Would it still seem as wrong? There is a moral relativity to these sorts of things that really manifests when the “them” is furthest detached from the “us”.

Even if you insist this is still a clear case of “evil corporate greed”, I submit to you the following article that just appeared on my screen today. I have heard this information before, back when gas topped $3 and the world was going to end, so this is not new information, but I am glad to see it surfacing again. I’m guessing it would come as quite a shock to Mrs. Feinstein, who apparently is either unaware of the reality of the situation or is just simply pandering for votes. I want to thank John Porretto and John Wilen of Associated Press for writing such a beautiful factual piece that is devoid of angst or hyperbole. Pulitzers should be awarded for articles this informative and timely, but they probably won’t.

With apologies, my summary: Oil companies DO NOT CONTROL OR EVEN LARGELY INFLUENCE THE PRICE OF GAS. Shocked? Read the article. What of their massive profits then? Remember the price of a barrel of oil that keeps going up and up? Turns out that they are one of the beneficiaries of the speculation that drives that price. In other words, they are procuring and selling a product at prices DETERMINED BY the first group of people who are in demand of it (hint, it’s not us; it’s not even gas yet). This doesn’t even begin to tell the entire wonderful story of the Capitalism at work on this. Read the article. No really, go read it, I’ll wait.

Unfortunately the story is complicated and there may lie the issue. It’s a lot simpler to blame the “greedy corporations”. Perhaps Mrs. Feinstein is simply incapable of comprehending the complexities involved. Or, again, maybe she really is just pandering for votes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure she feels our pain. I have no doubt the person who drives her limo has been overheard discussing how much it takes to fill up the ol’ stretch. Or maybe her chief-of-staff has been lobbying for another Congressional raise to help offset those fuel costs.

Economics: The excess money that the oil companies make will be spent on things that oil companies need. Even the executives who make exhorbitent salaries need to buy things. Perhaps you supply one of these things? At the very least, these “evil corporations” employ thousands or tens of thousands who are quite content, I would guess, to be the beneficiary of the oil companies’ gains. And the money these regular joes make WILL go into everyone’s pocket as they buy food, clothes, and even gas for themselves. Wealth is redistributed. Tada! Windfall profits redistribution at work, without actually taxing someone for their success.

Lets imagine for a moment the opposite scenario; that Congress manages to create such a punishment successfully. Now the oil companies are short on cash, and unexpected expenses begin to creep in on them as this assumed “recession” takes hold. Guess who is spending less money on things they need? Guess who is laying off employees to keep the balance sheets going the right way? Companies that don’t make money won’t stay in that business for very long.

The history of economics is clear; give someone more money and they will be comfortable spending what they have. Take away their money and they will hoard it, fearful of running out. Our Founding Fathers understood this all too well as students of free economic thought and watched as British government profited from their efforts while keeping little of it in the colonies themselves. People with means empowered themselves, educated themselves, and bettered their locality. Governments could take away these means to better control the people. This is why the economic philosophers of this time believed in free enterprise and why our Founding Father’s established a government who’s design, it was hoped, would enable and protect it.

Why then would our Congress today want to publicly humiliate the people who practice this free enterprise successfully? Worse yet, enact legislation whose implicit message to all who practice is that they are Free to do so, just as long as they don’t do it too well?

Oh yeah. That pandering thing again.

““Thank you for being here today,” Ms. Waters told the executives. “If you feel a little bit beaten up on, we all feel beaten up on, so just share the pain. We get our behinds kicked every day in our districts about what is going on.””

Next time you see an oil executive, give them a hug. I’m sure they could use one.

Better yet, write your Congressperson and tell them that instead of punishing Free Enterprise, perhaps they should be finding ways to help our own American companies to better compete and provide in the marketplace.

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their
Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as
downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

It’s a mess Countrywide

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080521/countrywide_financial_ceo.html

At this point in the credit “crisis,” while many would like to believe that all mortgage brokers and mortgage companies belong at the same end of a joke as lawyers, I tend to believe that people should be responsible for their actions.

According to this article, Countrywide Financial Corp. CEO, Angelo Mozilo, is in a bit of a pickle as a result of an accidental email reply to a customer that had written in to request their ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) because “he didn’t fully understand the terms, was wrongly told he could refinance after a year and was on the verge of losing his home of 16 years because of unaffordable payments.” While this is certainly tragic, it is hardly something that is the responsibility of Countrywide.

The firestorm comes from the fact that Mr. Mozilo accidentally replied to his email with comments intended for internal staff. These comments included, “Most of these letters now have the same wording. Obviously they are being counseled by some other person or by the Internet. Disgusting.”

The reality is that his comment of “Disgusting” was not in reference to the request from the customer. It was in response to the fact that there are organizations that are coaching individuals to send in requests like these to companies such as Countrywide. The fact that the same wording is used in the letters discredits the authenticity of the letter and ruins the effectiveness of the letter.

However, what is disgusting is that this article is that they point to the personal compensation of Mr. Mozilo in comparison to the poor financial performance of Countrywide Financial Corp. They state:

According to congressional figures, Countrywide lost $1.2 billion in the third quarter of 2007 and another $422 million in the fourth quarter as the subprime mortgage crisis hit. The company’s stock fell 80 percent between February and the end of the year.

During the same period, Mozilo received a $1.9 million salary. He also received $20 million in performance-based stock awards and sold $121 million in stock.

However, as the following article points out (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2008-01-28-countrywide_N.htm), he also passed up $37.5 million in severance pay, fees and perks he is owed.

What is further disgusting is the fact that rational, honest people are signing documents for hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, and then are claiming they did not understand what they signed.

Fine, then don’t sign it.

Let us turn the tables. What if Countrywide Financial Corp. was struggling for cash (as they are now) and needed to reduce the amount of loans they had outstanding (which they need to do). Would it be reasonable for them to write an email to Mr. Bailey indicating that “[they] didn’t fully understand the terms, was wrongly told [they] could refinance after a year and was on the verge of losing [their company] of [39] years because of unaffordable payments.” Would Mr. Bailey consider this reasonable and acceptable?

Caveat Emptor. Don’t buy it if you can’t afford it. If you already bought it, and can’t afford it, plan on losing it. Otherwise, figure out a [legal] way to afford it. Don’t blame the CEO who has already VOLUNTARILY reduced his pay by $37.5 million dollars.

Personal responsibility is the responsibility of every person.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My email to Mr. Bailey:

Dear Mr. Bailey:

Caveat Emptor. May I suggest you consider working an additional few hours at your job or at a part-time job, or perhaps consider borrowing from third parties. Additionally, please look into night school for reviewing documents that you sign. It will prove to help you in the future as you assume hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

I wish you the best of luck and hope for the best for you and your family.

Regards,

Countrywide Financial Corp.

PS- Your payments are late and we’re about to send your home into foreclosure. Please contact us for alternative payment methods.

Government thuggery

I know it sometimes sounds like calls to limit government power and keep a wary eye on them even after are the ravings of a crazy and paranoid person…but reality can be very frightening.

From the “Common Sense” commentary this week:

…In Michigan, similar nastiness has been directed against the campaign to recall Speaker of the House Andy Dillon. Dillon staffers have flocked into the district to intimidate those petitioning to recall their boss.

One such blocker, hired by the Michigan Democratic Party to “educate” voters, is an eight-time felon whose rap sheet includes armed robbery. The police got involved . . . making robo-calls to residents claiming the recall backers were “extremists” engaged in an “illegal” effort.

The Detroit News piled on, arguing that the recall, precipitated by Dillon’s big tax hike, will cost Michigan taxpayers more because it requires a special election. Except that it won’t. The regularly scheduled August primary will piggy-back the recall vote — which will happen, since last week more than enough signatures were turned in.

Most of our Founding Father’s would weep to see examples like this of a government lording over it’s people.  Jefferson would probably call for another revolution.  All I’m asking for is a little due diligence when you’re called to vote.  Suffrage was one of the most fundamental rights our Father’s fought for so that we, the Sons (and Daughters) wouldn’t have to refresh the Tree of Liberty “…from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants…”.  Voting is a much less messy way, but no less Revolutionary if practiced by a people who are determined to have the government they know they have an Inalienable right to.

It starts and ends with you.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

-Thomas Jefferson

P.S. The “Common Sense” commentaries are excellent and can be sent to you via email for weekly shot in the arm about how important it is that we remain an educated, indignant, and motivated electorate.  You can sign up on the page linked above.

More on public disclosure of public servants….

This is great news for Oregonian’s (yahoo.com).

You could call this a companion piece to the article I wrote the other day about Legistorm.com. Again we have people who want to suck on the public teet in the name of “public service”, but don’t want to play by the necessary public rules. To quote someone in the article…

“I thought I lived in America, where I had a right to privacy,” Elgin City Council member Sue Moore fumed.

You DO live in America, and you have a great right to privacy…in your private life. However your financial dealings while in public office are and should be a matter of public record. Just in case. I don’t mean to disparage Mrs. Moore’s reputation as she probably is a fine public official. But how do we know that without independent confirmation that some city ordinance she backed wasn’t effectively paid for? Or that city funds are not mysteriously disappearing while her bank account is expanding?

I’ve already mentioned that there is a disturbing trend with the citizens of this fine country not taking responsibility for their elected officials. The flip side is that there is the trend of elected officials no longer recognizing that they serve the public. And falling back to the former point, we should remind them.

Only in this case, a great number of the herd is culling itself. The kitchen’s just too hot for some apparently. Good for them.

The people have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge – I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.
— John Adams

Eminent domain abuse

This is a topic that evokes the worst fears of someone who believes the government only exists to secure the rights of it’s people: Eminent domain.  Yes, our Founding Fathers did believe in eminent domain but they attempted to limit the power by ascribing that it could only be done “for public use” and with “just compensation”.  And by now we all know what the KELO decision has done to that ideal.

I suppose it’s reasonable, that in the interest of a society as a whole, the government should have the ability to designate land that is necessary for public services; utilities such as sewer and power, transit such as trains and roadways, and national parks or wildlife preserves.  But the whole ability runs counter to the rather libertarian idealism that we were Founded with.  It says that ultimately the government has control over your property because it’s not really yours.  The government is just renting it to you (see property tax) and can revoke it at any time according to it’s pleasure.  It sticks in my limited government craw, but it is what it is.

The law is written in such a way that it’s just screaming for Court interpretation on every single case; rightly so as there is no overall right and wrong–if you will accept that it’s the abuse of eminent domain (as opposed to the idea of whether there should be eminent domain).  And it’s a law that is ripe for abuse. Many state governments have redefined their eminent domain abilities in the wake of KELO and many more should be doing so (I urge you to check your own state’s reaction accordingly).  The Court system–unless you like activist judges who write laws from the bench–is supposed to be incapable of doing anything more that interpreting hundreds of years of case law, and a lot of that has sided with the government’s virtually unlimited ability to take away (until KELO which effectively rewrote the 5th Amendment’s “public use”).  The state legislators need to step in to clarify law so new case law can be established.  We must make sure that they do so as their employers.

And I’m generally all for the wisdom of the sitting judges on a supreme court; whether state or federal, but there’s something to be said about a jury of your peers helping to decide if the government has overstepped itself.  That’s notably absent at the highest levels in these cases.  It makes me wonder what the Supreme Court was thinking on KELO as most of them are likely well-off property owners.  My rule of thumb for any good law is whether you would like it to apply to yourself.

So what is “just compensation”?  In an ideal system the government and the property owners work together for a mutually amicable solution.  In the system we actually have, it would be nice if the parties involved started off with that thought.  I suspect the first notice a property owner gets from the government about the issue is an eviction notice.  That’s always a great conversation starter.  It would also be nice if the public servants in the government realize that they are just that.  No one should enter into the situation with the attitude “I’m going to take away your property and there’s nothing you can do about it”.  Even if it might be largely true, it’s still a bad start.  I would like to see an honest effort to treat the property owner as a partner in the endeavor.  Cut him in for a piece of the action, if you will, and I bet you’ll see a lot of cooperation.  It’s just unreasonable to tell a person who brought a property for $100,000 and could sell it for $200,000 on the open market that you’re going to force him to sell it to you for $175,000 and then you’re going to turn around and make $1,000,000 in taxes annually.  Give him .5% a year of the tax take.  Talk about redistributing wealth!

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
–James Madison