Gates arrest: its not about racism, its about a lack of the use of judgment

I intentionally waited to see how the situation between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge police department shook out before commenting on it, when mid of last week, Barack Obama decided to wade in head first without looking. During a speech last week on Health Care reform, our ‘esteemed’ Dict….er, President called out the Cambridge police department saying they were “ignorant” in their actions…

It’s not often that you will find me taking the side of Liberals and our President on an issue, but this time I have to say that I agree with what Obama had to say on this issue and, even more so, how exactly he said it.

For too long now, police departments nationwide (particularly here in Southern Florida) have ‘shot first and asked questions’ later. I understand that those who undertake the difficult job of becoming a police officer deal with things on a daily basis that you and I couldn’t possibly dream of, but it is becoming more and more apparent that those who take up these difficult jobs, lack any common sense themselves, and are perpetually doomed to failure in situations when the use of their better judgment is required.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that Gates, a black man, in no way fits the stereotype that one would associate with someone who is burglarizing a home-particularly in Cambridge, MA. For one, the man was wearing some pretty expensive clothing at the time of his arrest; for two, he was obviously educated and well spoken. These 2 facts alone should have tipped the officer off enough to at least allow the man to prove who he claimed he said he was at the time-that is, the owner of the home he was being accused of 'breaking in' to.

This in turn leads me to the claims by both men which resulted in the eventual arrest of Mr. Gates. For Sergeant James Crowley, the arresting officer, he claims that Mr. Gates was belligerent and aggressive, leading to his making the arrest for disorderly conduct, a charge which has since been dropped. For Mr. Gates’ part, he claims the officer was being rude and aggressive himself, insinuating things with his general tone and demeanor which he found insulting and in turn, obviously felt obligated to defend himself vociferously.

Personally, I am torn on this issue.

Firstly, I hate that this has become an issue of “racism”-a false term in my opinion, and a discussion that I will maybe get into at another time.

On the flip side, I am happy that this is raising some serious questions about how our police officers conduct themselves in situations where their lack of judgment, especially when facing obvious evidence to the contrary, puts them into embarrassing situations with potentially drastic consequences-for both the arresting officer and the accused. As someone who has, unfortunately, been on the ‘wrong side of the law’, it has been obvious to me for some time that most (not all) police officers fail to use any judgment whatsoever in every situation they find themselves in. This behavior is what creates the feelings of distrust and abuse on the part of communities as a whole, relative to their policing agencies, whose job it is to maintain law and order and whose further duties it is to serve and protect the public. Sergeant Crowley showed such poor judgment in his actions that he has again made it all too easy for a large portion of the American public to look down upon our nation’s law enforcement agencies as nothing more than bullies looking for an outlet for their inability to deal with their own personal issues.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gates immediately took the ‘racist’ side of this argument, making it all too easy for many people to look past the obvious mistakes by Sergeant Crowley, thereby giving Crowley some community wide support because such arguments are as socially polarizing as the abortion debate. This in turn takes away from what I see as the real issue: that of the lack of the use of judgment are the part of our “LEO’s”.

So long Sarah (Palin)

She leaves the national political scene the same way she came into it: suddenly and controversially. Sarah Palin, the attractive former Governor from Alaska, shocked the political world in the summer of 2008 when she was chosen by John McCain as his Vice Presidential nominee. With her striking good looks, well spoken manner and tough, ‘pit bull’ political style, the admittedly Conservative Republican captured the attention of everyone last year and continued to do so in defeat, but then just 3 weeks ago she decided to step down as Alaska’s Governor with 18 months left in her term, leaving us all to ask why?

Question’s and theories abound as to why Palin decided to leave her office prematurely: there are ethics probes and mounting legal bills, all pointing to something sinister in her political background. And then there are the countless rumors of her courtship by Hollywood to host a TV show (perhaps a more republican version of The View?), rumors of book deals and a potential run up to the Republican nomination to run for president in 2012. No matter what her reasons, one thing I think we can all say with certainty is that she isn’t going to go quietly into the night. For better or for worse, we have far from seen the last of Sarah Palin.

Whether this is a good thing, I know not. I was never a huge fan of the McCain/Palin ‘ticket’ last year, but I did like that Sarah Palin spoke well, spoke her mind without remorse, took no bullshit from the establishment and would go as far as necessary to expose corruption where it prevailed-even within the confines of her own party. Her hard conservative beliefs turned me off, but I don’t believe she would have ever tried to force them down anyone’s throats. Personally, I always thought she would lead by example as those things were concerned, which was something I could respect.

Regardless, for now we must say goodbye to Sarah Palin and turn a questioning eye as too why? Why now and what for? Is there some seriousness to some questionable ethics practices on her part in Alaska? Probably, but I have my reasons to doubt that it could be anything worse than we see out of politicians on a daily basis in this country. Whatever her motives may be for her sudden departure from the Alaskan Governorship, we will be questioning why for some time to come, but there are 2 things we can say for certain about it: she leaves the national political scene-most likely temporarily-the same way she came into it-with more questions than answers; and, as a red blooded American male, it’s not a bad thing to watch her walk away…

Cash for Clunkers: another attack on Capitalism by the Fed

As part of a near $trillion stimulus package our Federal Government-specifically Barack Obama-has stuck in a little bill called “cash for clunkers”. This bill grants up to $3500 in trade in value, towards a new car, for cars that are no more than 25 years old and get 18 mpg or less.

For proper implementation this program is being spearheaded with car dealerships nationwide, which brings me to a serious problem and points out the dangers of our Federal Government getting involved in any direct way with our economy: How is this going to affect the real world values of our cars?

Under this bill all cars which fit the criteria are valued the same. That early 1990’s clunker of a Buick, with 150k and sitting on blocks, is potentially worth the same as your 2001 Hummer that you paid $40K for.

Even worse, the newer your car, the less its value becomes.

Going back to the Hummer-an easy vehicle to pick on in this case-what about all those which are 5-8 years old? They are still blue booked in the area of $10-20k and now dealerships will be giving no more than $3500 for them because there is no incentive to do so. This same logic applies to any and all SUV’s which fit the criteria of a “cash for clunker” because there is NO demand for any of these vehicles currently due to the price of gasoline and economic restraints.

An even worse part of this bill is that all of these cars which are traded in under the “cash for clunkers” bill is that they must be scraped-meaning they can’t be resold as is which makes them all worthless. This, in effect undermines Capitalism at its most basic of levels, making the “cash for clunkers” idea not only a bad one, but just another prime example of why the Federal Government has no clue what being “productive” means and why it needs to be no more than a regulating body for only specific sectors of economy. Needless to say the cash for clunkers bill is a bad one, and we won’t be seeing the ramifications of this “feel good” legislation for years to come. My only hope is that the automotive industry survives it. The Big 3 already have enough issues to deal with, but with the Fed resetting the value of used cars, it will only be harder for the American automotive industry to survive as a private enterprise.

But then, seeing as how the Fed already owns nearly 2/3 of GM and Chrysler, perhaps that is exactly what they want to happen so as to take control of the entire industry themselves.

Of course, the only saving grace of the cash for clunkers program is that it is temporary, but however long it lasts is relevant if the damage to the value of cars becomes permanent.

A problem with crime.

The general consensus definition of crime is an illegal act committed against an individual or the state, or some such vernacular which says something similar. If you ask any average person on the street as to what makes a criminal a ‘criminal’ more often than not the word violence comes out as a part of the criminal’s actions. For hundreds of years, when it came to defining a criminal or felon, violence seemed to be a prerequisite, with more so called “petty” crimes thought of as civil infractions or public nuisances punishable by a fine or maybe a night in the local jail, but with no permanence of a record attached or negative label to be lived with. As a result, those who were caught on things such as public drunkenness or disorderly conduct of some kind were never branded as being a “criminal” or felon; they were a public nuisance on the level of the stray dog who refused to leave the public square, but they never had to be worried about being thought of in the same light as murders and rapists. Today, in 21^st century America, with all of its liberal socialistic laws, everything short of speeding infractions is considered a “crime”, making it very easy to be branded a “criminal”-at least in the eyes of the states and their laws.

Get arrested for a suspended driver’s license-you are a criminal.

Get caught using a bush to relieve yourself because you couldn’t hold it any longer while waiting in line at the Porta Potty-you’re a criminal.

Get a little loud, but not physical, with your significant other after a bad week, leading to a neighbor calling the police and whomever they determine to arrest becomes, you guessed it, a criminal.

Needless to say, just about anything today that is deemed “punishable” by law or which is considered an “arrestable” offense, makes it all to easy for you, or anyone you know, to become a criminal. There are 10’s of thousands of laws in America which cover every possible “out of the norm” act imaginable, to the point that it is nearly impossible for anyone to not become a criminal. In fact, I’d be willing to bet, that not one American has not committed a “crime” at some point in their life, and the only difference between them and those with a record is that they never got caught.

Compounding matters for people just trying to get by and stay out of legal trouble is the ease with which it now is to become a Felon-if being a criminal wasn’t bad enough, becoming a “felon” is something no one wants to be called.

Felons are considered to be the most heinous of all people in our society. They are the worst of the worst. To be a felon used to mean that you had committed crimes so atrocious, so violent against society, that many of the rights guaranteed to you by our Constitution were stripped from you-leaving you barely half a citizen in the legal sense. Today, however, state and local laws have made it much easier to become a felon. Many states have what are called “habitual” statutes for so call repeat offenders of non violent, lesser crimes (misdemeanors) which, once you are classified as a habitual offender, you become a felon. The problem with many of these laws that you can be habitualized for is the ease with which a person can be arrested for the original offense-particularly as it relates to traffic laws, most commonly driving under a suspended license.

In many states, as here in the state of Florida, once you get 3 arrests for driving with a suspended license, you become a felon-a ridiculous notion given the ease at which states can suspend and keep your license suspended relative to a mode of transit that is unquestionably a necessity in today’s society. In fact, if ever given the opportunity, take a look at the reasons for which your state can suspend a persons license and it will shock you. So vast and varied are the laws for which states can take your license-pretty much for every and anything-that having a valid drivers license is almost entrapment, and its no wonder that very few people ever get only one violation for driving on a suspended license and why so many eventually become a felon over a relatively victimless crime.

Of course state lawmakers would have you think otherwise. They would tell you of the epidemic like proportions as to the number of people driving on a suspended license and the cost that these drivers pass along to everyone else via increases in car insurance rates, all the while ignoring the fact that they have made it many times easier to lose your driving privileges than it is to keep them.

Pointing out the idiocy of license laws is all too easy, but in the state of Florida you can be habitualized for such petty crimes as simple battery (giving someone a black eye) and petty theft (stealing a candy bar) thereby allowing for a whole new genre of felon’s that essentially become wards of the state-dependant on government programs such as welfare, social security and food stamps for survival, which could very well be what our politicians want-a class of people, which they create, dependent on them for survival.

Of course, if you are willing to do the crime you have to be willing to do the time, but there is a rational and logical line that I believe has been crossed by our laws when it becomes easier to become a criminal than to be a productive citizen, and this, I believe, is one of the biggest problems with “crime” in America today-not necessarily the people committing them, but the laws through which you can be made a “criminal”.

The useless U.S. Senate-Why America is becoming progressively Socialistic.

Due to extensive research I am currently conducting for another project, I am learning some things about the history of our Constitution which I either didn’t know or had forgotten. Among those things which I had forgotten was some of the details concerning the Constitutional debates of 1787 which eventually gave birth to the U.S. Constitution.

When reading those debates, you learn exactly what it was that our nation’s Founding Father’s thought and how they believed our nation’s government should not only be structured, but what the purposes for each branch of our government are. While securing the purpose for each branch of our government, our Founding Fathers also attached each branch of our Federal Government to a different form of election to help preserve that purpose.

The House of Representatives was intended to represent the citizens of America, and therefore was to be elected by popular vote from the districts to which they would represent; members of the Senate represented the states from which they were selected, and were therefore to be elected by each state’s legislature; there was much debate over how to elect the President as his primary job(s) was to serve as commander in chief of our Nation’s armed forces and as a legislative check against both houses of our Congress. In the end, it was decided that so called “electors” would be chosen by popular vote, who would then "elect" our President in the Electoral College. This left the Supreme Court which was to be chosen by the President, with confirmation by Congress.

For over 120 years this is how all 4 branches of our Federal Government were elected and/or selected, as such they served their respective purposes (and electors) dutifully, allowing America to quickly (relative to its age) rise to become the most powerful nation on the planet due to the freedoms and responsibility assumed and espoused upon its citizenry.

But then a fundamental change was approved of to our Constitution in early April of 1913: Senator’s were now to be elected by popular election (the 17th amendment), and so 3 of the 4 branches of our Federal Government were to be, in some way, elected through popular vote (i.e. Democracy).

For students of Philosophy, what happened within the next 20 years, after the passage of the 17^th amendment, should be no surprise: First, the back bone of our economy essentially collapsed in the 1929 Stock Market crash which forced America into what became called The Great Depression. Shortly there after, Franklin Roosevelt was forced to take drastic measures to stabilize the economy and our society by writing a set of bills called The New Deal which established heretofore unacceptable socialist programs regulated from within the Federal Government. From this time on ward it is easy to trace the Socialistic progression of our Federal Government (especially when under control of the Democratic Party) to where it is today.

By now you may be asking what all this history has to do with my perceived “useless”ness of the U.S. Senate. It’s rather simple, really, if you understand how our nation was intended to be governed and what the purpose of each branch of our national government was.

Once our Senate began to be elected by the people at large, it no longer served its intended purpose. In the beginning-and for its first 120 years or so-the U.S. Senate’s purpose was to serve the states, not the people, therefore it’s members were elected by the state governments for which they represented and not the people at large. Once our U.S. Senator’s became elected by the people, this greatly skewed the balance of power, and how legislation was viewed, within our Federal governing body. With each state no longer having an independent say in how legislation was passed, the power of making and creating laws was shifted from one of balance between the people, the republics (i.e. the states) and the greater Federal Government to one nearly completely controlled by the public through Democratic election. By becoming elected through popular election, the purpose of the U.S. Senate became meaningless-they simply became 2 more popularly elected members of the House of Representatives, just under the guise of another name.

For student’s of Philosophy this is very relevant because Democratic elections by popular vote are viewed as not only a predecessor to chaos, but are also seen as base socialistic policy (i.e. Socialism), which is why the current state of our country, and the current socialistic agenda being so readily supported by our current Federally elected leaders, should come as no surprise.

With 3 of the 4 branches of our Government chosen through popular election (i.e. society) is it any wonder that our nation has become progressively socialist since the early 20^th century? With the natural checks and balances of our original Constitution now in large part removed, what was once considered a Democratic Republic (the United States of America), is now a pure Democracy and pure Democracies are doomed to failure due to their tendency towards chaos (and if you don’t see the chaos that dominates our country today, then you are in more trouble than our country is).

Is there a fix? Absolutely.

Is it an easy fix? Easy, no, but it is a simple one.

Will we fix it? Not likely.

Even average every day people like power, and the only power of any kind most people in America will ever experience is the power to elect their local and national leaders, so it would be unrealistic to think that they would ever give up their “right” to elect our Senators.

No, unfortunately, that right (to the states) is gone for good-unless Americans learn to understand what is supposed to make our nation great; why our nation has been losing that greatness over the last 100 years; and how to fix it.

FairTax basics-in laymens terms

If you have never heard about the FairTax then I strongly encourage you to go to www.fairtax.org or to buy The FairTax Book by John Linder and Neal Boortz, in the meantime, if you read on you will learn the basic’s of it. Before I get started, I am admittedly a huge supporter of the FairTax, but in no way am I being paid to propagate it. I am merely a very vocal supporter and believer in the FairTax, which has the ability to not only turn our economy around instantly, but also put us back were we belong in the global economy-as it’s leader.

The FairTax (known as H.R. 25 in Congressional lingo) is a plan currently before Congress which replaces the current system of taxation in America. Essentially the FairTax is a tax on consumption (i.e. sales tax), but it is not a tax of addition to what we have now, it is a tax of replacement to what we have now. So don’t think that if it were passed things would cost 23% more (the current estimate of the FairTax) than they do now. To the contrary, in many cases-such as medical services-goods and services would cost less.

To properly understand the beauty of the FairTax you have to understand 2 things first: free market capitalism and the fundamentals of our current system of taxes.

In free market capitalism the consumer (i.e. purchaser or buyer) dictates the success and failure of goods and services, as such this ideology puts you, as the purchaser/buyer, in a position of power. Unfortunately, most American’s either do not realize this or are incapable of accepting it as a supposed “leadership” role they do not want. Either way, whether you think it or not, as an American buyer, you have power in our economy, which is a great thing.

The current system of taxation in America is one of taxing income-on individuals and businesses. More properly, it’s a taxation on earnings and/or profits, but I will stick with a taxation based on income because that is an ideology which everyone understands. Something which people are not aware of as it relates to our current system of taxation is that it was illegal until the 16^th amendment was added to our constitution in 1913. In it, the power was granted to our Federal Government to collect and assess taxes on our incomes. To grasp how extreme this idea was, you have to first realize that, to most of the founding fathers of our nation, national governments had no business assessing and collecting taxes on the public at large because this was seen as a symbol of servitude and/or enslavement: only Kings and Dictators collected taxes, they believed, and they weren’t set about creating a government of either. They were creating a government by the people, for the people and of the people. So, needless to say, the idea of setting and collecting an income tax was an extreme one even when the 16^th Amendment was added in 1913.

At first, the American “Income tax” was set as a simple percentage where by American’s took how much they made each year, multiplied it by a set percentage and wrote the Fed a check for that amount. However it wasn’t long before Politicians discovered how vastly so “simple” a system of taxing incomes could be manipulated and once the idea of “withholding” came into being the current 60,000 or so pages of I.R.S. codes and regulations that we know of today were well on its way to reality.

What this has to do with you and the FairTax is quite simple really. You see, everyone-and every business and corporation-is taxed in some way by our Federal Government. Businesses-both large and small-consider taxes an expense and, like all expenses, they are incorporated into the cost of the goods and services that we, the consumers and purchasers, eventually pay for. Now, the people who have been working on the FairTax for the last 20 years or so have hired many an economist (of both a republican and democratic political ideology) to find out exactly how much of the price of goods we pay is in these embedded taxes prior to paying a state sales tax. The number they came up with varied depending on the industry from 22-26%, of which, the writer and supporters of H.R. 25-the FairTax bill-settled on 23%. (When thinking of this number, keep in mind the vast amount of taxes a business pays. Not only do they pay taxes on their incomes, but they also pay payroll taxes, workers compensation taxes and matching social security taxes to name a few other taxes that they have to pay, which is one big reason why it's so hard to start and stay in business in America).

What the FairTax does is this: it rewrites our tax code and removes all of these embedded taxes which you and I, as consumers, pay for anyways, and replaces them with the FairTax. What would happen is that, at the point of sale, the price we pay for goods and services would be cheaper before the FairTax (and your state sales taxes) are added to it. Because that 23% of previously embedded taxes has now been removed from the cost of what you are buying, the price you pay ends up being the same after the fair tax is added back on (in some cases it will be cheaper). One of the neat things is, that your receipt of sale or bill of goods will reflect this price and how much tax you paid to the Federal Government.

So what does it mean for you and I, the consumers? A lot; it means no more filling out of tax forms and filing a return every year. It means no more taxes on “interest earned” or “capital gains. It means that if you make $500 bucks a week, you keep $500 bucks a week. It means that, individually, we have control over how much in taxes we contribute to our Federal Government each year (not owe) because the tax we pay is based on our spending habits and not on our income. In a nutshell, it means real freedom for you and I.

For businesses it means even more (which means more for you and I as well).

For them it means no more payroll and corporate taxes, which would make it very desirable for companies to establish their regional and global headquarters in America (and producing their goods here too), thereby creating 1000’s, if not millions, of new jobs for American’s. It means new industry and growth and it also means economic stability and putting America’s economy ahead of every other economy on the planet. Most importantly, I believe it will mean accountability to us, the voting public, on the part of our nationally elected leaders-which is something they haven't had to worry about in decades.

Of course this is a very scaled down analysis of the FairTax and I’m sure you have many more questions about it, for which I would direct you to www.fairtax.org or The FairTax Book for answers…Hopefully you will become as vocal a supporter of the FairTax as I am, and help to make it reality so that we can take back control of our money from the government.

Reviewing Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince

All of my friend’s and family know what a huge fan I am of the Harry Potter books and movies, and so, for the first time, I will review one of the movies for those who might be curious as to what I thought of the latest installment of the books in movie from-Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince. So here it goes…

If you are a fan of the Harry Potter books you are going to hate the 6th installment of the movies. If you love the movie versions, then you are going to love this latest of the series.

As a fan of both the books and the movies, I find myself decidedly torn as to just how good HBP in movie form is. To no surprise the director's and producer's of the movie series were forced to stray even farther from the book with HBP the movie. As a result, those who know the book well may be shocked as to how far from the book the movie strays. The main difference this time, however, is that the producer's and director made no attempt to hide the fact that they were going to have to stray from the book in telling this installment of the Harry Potter saga. From the opening scene the movie differs from the book, and throughout it's 2:30 (2:45 with previews) the movie has a choppy feel to it relative to it's book counterpart that another 10 minutes worth of film would have helped with greatly.

Fans of only the movies will love this one-if they can follow it and don't get lost. As a movie, HBP is one of the best so far, but it has a fundamental flaw: the director and producer's took a lot of creative lease with HBP. It was obvious from the opening scene that they were left without the choice but stray nearly 100% away from the book format. Further, for those who have read the books, you get the feeling that the director and producer's assumed that those who read the books wouldn't mind how far they were forced to stray while putting up the movie portrayal of HBP. As a result, fans who have only seen the movies may find themselves having a hard time keeping up with HBP and following the plot and fans of the books might get frustrated by all the differences between the book and movie. For example, there never is an explanation given for the time that Harry and Dumbledore spend together; and the relationships and humor that develop throughout the movie are jumbled together in ways that may leave viewer's who haven't read the book yet wondering exactly what is supposed to be going on and the ending feels 'sudden'-as if it was without a plan. However, it is very interesting how the makers choose to move HBP along, and fans of the books and movies (even the more critical of us like myself) will enjoy watching how they changed this one to fit the big screen, but given it's already 2 and half hour length, it's my opinion that they would have been better served adding another 10 minutes to properly explain the plot of HBP which is likely to elude many fans who have never read the books.

Did I still enjoy it? Yes. Was it worth my time? Yes. Was it worth the money I paid? Yes, but only because I went to the discounted matinee showing. If I had to pay the normal $8-10 for a movie, as a fan of the series, I would have been disappointed.

Perhaps I am being too critical of the movie makers, but I expected more out of the movie's as the series progressed through them. The Order of the Phoenix disappointed me and this one did as well, that said if you are a fan of either the books or the movie's all Harry Potter fans have to see this-if for no other reason than curiosity's sake.

Finally moving people...

There was a time that the Detroit People Mover was considered a regional eyesore. Neat, efficient and inexpensive, it was designed to navigate people around the downtown core. Unfortunately, there weren't enough "sights" that were on the route, to really make it profitable and show how it could affect traffic. And most of the area's professional sport teams arena's were too far away to get any real use out of it...As a result, for more than a decade after it's 1987 grand opening, the People Mover sat nearly useless But then the former "Coma" came...And then ford field came to downtown along with the Casino's and well, finally, the masses came...Suddenly the People Mover was moving people, and its still just 50 cents!!!! Unreal! 22 years in the making and inflation still hasn't caught up with it...Anyways....
Despite it apparently working out, and finally making a penny or 2, the People Mover is still half of what it could be. Another 6-10 miles of track (at a price that very well could come in at fewer billions of Dollars than they think) could really make something out of the People Mover and maybe something out of Detroit. How much more we wont know until we would see their first idea's, but, I think it could be done, and done well..I wish I could say that I believed in Detroit's ability to make something like this happen, but I don't, sad but true. I just don't have the faith that those who need to will change their old world ways and allow for The "D" to be reborn...The People Mover is finally moving people (and making a profit?), but I think it's too late for it to help save the city...sad, but true.

The economy: It's about us.

Have you been to a book store lately and browsed the "hot titles" or current events/social sections to see what was new? It seems like every other title is either about how great the Obama ideology is or how bad it is, but there is not one title that is about 'us', the American people; the people who put Obama in office; the people who his policies affect. No one wants to talk about it from our perspective, and it's not only annoying but treasonous in my opinion.
At the risk of sounding like a nationalist (i.e. national socialist) I am choosing to take up this argument because the truth is that both sides of the fight as it concerns our Federal Governments current domestic and economic policies have no ones interest at heart but their own. Oh sure, they try to make us think otherwise by using fancy language and complex economic formulas to confuse and/or convince us that they know better and that because they are the only ones smart enough to understand it all, that we have to take their word for it and trust that they know what they are talking about. The problem is, I happen to be one of those outside of the system who really does understand it-and I don't need them to tell me (at least) whether or not Obama's domestic and economic policies are bad or good for America.
But since this is about us-the American public-and since I feel more obligation to my fellow man than those whom we have elected to office, I am going to take the time to explain some simple economics to you.
First, allow me to assume something, something which I have experienced often in my life: the average American does not understand how Capitalism works. This isn't a slight on anyone, and in no way am I saying you are stupid, but, it has been my experience that the average person in our country, even many whom are college educated, have no real understanding of how our (American) economy works relative to what helps it grow and to what makes it contract (shrink). This is no fault of your own as our government funded public educational institutions have gone to great lengths over the last 75 years to make sure that the 'average' American stays woefully ignorant as to how American economics and politics work. With that said here is 3 things that economists know works for our economy: limited (or a decrease in) taxes-particularly on employers and corporations, limited (but necessary) regulatory controls at the Federal Governmental level and governmental incentives to spur research and development and growth of new industry.
Here are 3 things economists know does not work in our economy: increasing taxes-particularly on incomes and corporations, strict and unnecessary Federal regulatory controls, and Governmental involvement in the private sector economy (whether through regulation or attempts at competing in the marketplace).
How do we know these things? History.
History tells us, that after both FDR and LBJ passed the broadest sweeping and most expensive socialist domestic policies in our history that our economy recessed for years afterward. In the case of FDR, his New Deal package of bills was necessary for the time due to the Great Depression, but even he recognized that they should only be temporary laws (which they were until LBJ came along and helped to make them permanent), and after they were passed, the economy shrank further (something our schools like to skip over as it relates to us working out of the Great Depression is that FDR's policies weren't working and that it wasn't until we were forced into WWII that our economy came around).
History also tells us that the Federal Government is horrible at business. Amtrak, the USPS and the USA Today are all easy and relatively recent examples of poor business attempts by the "Fed". And we need to look no farther than the current state of our National deficit's to see that our Federal Government has no clue how to run or operate on a budget (and yet they have the audacity to tell us that, as individuals, we need to 'tighten our belts' in terms of the money we spend-!?Que).
History also shows us that in times when Capitalism is left alone-not unregulated per se, just not over regulated-that we experience great periods of economic growth. Of all the recent presidents Bill Clinton seemed to understand this best. He didn't let Capitalism run amok like the domestically truant Bush did for 8 years and he didn't over regulate it either. He simply left it alone. One of the deregulations which he did allow, however, was within the telecommunications industry which is what lead us out of our early 90's recession into a 5 year period of rapid growth. Although, just like all growth, there were growing pains associated with it and the growth was much to rapid which, in the end, caused a partial collapse. But this was no fault of Capitalism, this was just how Capitalism works (relative to whether its being over regulated or not-there is fine line to regulation). And, if anyone had noticed the "bust of the tech bubble" had no where near the affect on our economy as Bush's lack of regulatory watch-dogging had during his administration-the way too long 8 years of it.
In sum, what history shows us is that, when Federal Governments make economic policy that is more about government growth and control, than about personal growth and freedom, economies suffer, which mean we suffer.
This brings us full circle to what I started off with: all these books attacking Obama's policies or supporting them. None of them truly cover the economic's of his policies from our perspective. No, they only cover them from the particular partisan perspective of the respective writer which is either a far left liberal or a far right conservative. True, they attempt to draw us into the discussion, but their attempts are thinly veiled at best, and in either case, they attempt to skew the information in their favor just to make them look better, all the while succeeding in doing nothing but alienating one side or the other while at the same time muddying the waters as to what is really going on and alienating the people they are trying to win over to their side of the debate.
So, in an effort to clear up the 'water', so to speak, I will put down (yes, put down) Obama's economic policies much more simply and succinctly than any book today can...Here are a few more things that history tells us: 1. That large governments are unsustainable without the leadership of a dictatorship (and still they are not permanently sustainable). 2. That governments who claim economic growth through growth in govermental jobs are parasitic to economies because, 3. It forces the over taxation of a small percentage of the population which is usually the most productive and the most intelligent of them. This in turn leads to (4.) the smartest and brightest of a population to flee to more economically relaxed nations.
Now, I don't ask you to take my word for it, all I ask is that you do the research for yourself-look back at history (honestly) and see what it tells you about how Capitalism works and under what conditions economies grow and shrink, then reexamine what Obama's domestic and economic policies are and then ask yourself (honestly) if you still think that Obama's domestic and economic policies will work. Seeing as how his policies are about them (the government) and not about us (the average American) your answer should be obvious-unless you see 'us' as including the goverment. If so, then I have to believe that you believe the needs and aims of our government are the same (at least relative to today). And if that is the case, then there are a lot of things besides how Capitalism is supposed to work that you may not understand either (No offenses I hope).

GM out of Bankruptcy

Whatever you want to say about GM’s bankruptcy proceedings, one thing you can say for certain is that I was quick. It only took a few months for GM to drag it's overly large corporate structure out of bankruptcy and what do we have left? A company privately controlled but 60.8% owned by the American government (i.e. American taxpayers) and Fritz Henderson, GM’s supposed CEO, telling us that "business as usual is over". What this means is anyone's guess, but based on what is left of the GM that most of us grew up with and have grown to know, “GM” essentially no longer exists.
The changes to GM are vast: They only have 4 makes now instead of 8, they have cut thousands of blue and white collar jobs along with restructuring their union contracts, and have slashed nearly 2000 under performing dealerships nationwide. Even with all of these changes and cuts our Federal Government still had to spend nearly $50 billion on GM to help save the company. That’s right, we, the American tax payers essentially donated $50 billion to a lost cause.
I call it a lost cause because the GM that was once there is no longer, in fact, you can’t even say that it is a “shadow” of it’s former self. What is left is little more than a shell and it leads me to having many questions about the situation, as well as similar ones concerning Chrysler which hasn’t come out of bankruptcy yet.
However, I will restrain myself to only 2 of them.
Firstly, I would like to know why, if it was going to take such massive measures to bring GM back to being a productive company, the Federal Government didn’t let GM die and allow Capitalism to pick up the pieces naturally? In other words why did we the tax payers have to spend so much money on “helping” GM get through bankruptcy if in doing so GM no longer going to exist anyways?
Secondly, how and when GM is going to repay this $50 billion loan? It is a loan after all (so the Fed says anyways), so it is fair to expect that GM will have to pay this money back, but, how are we to expect them to repay us in a reasonable time frame if what is left of the Company is little larger than a regional retail outlet?

As I see it, what is left of “GM” is not capable of repaying the American taxpayers who paid so much money to help it come out of bankruptcy. Making it worse is that over 60% of what is left of GM is now owned outright by our Federal Government.
From a capitalistic standpoint this majority ownership means a lot of things. It means that everything GM does from here until the load is repaid will have to be done with government approval first. If no government approval is obtained, then GM will be unable to do many of the things they would otherwise be able to do to repay their debt to the American tax payer. This in turn means that private sector investment will all but dry up because of the Fed’s pathetic history in its attempts to run businesses who compete with the private sector.
All added up you have to ask yourself what was the point? If this is what it was going to take to make GM a viable company again then why didn’t the Federal Government simply let GM die as a result of its on gluttony and burdensome unionization?
Of course we can speculate as to why this is, but only Obama knows the real reason for it is he who approved the massive “bailouts” given to both GM and Chrysler. Whatever the reason’s, what we now have is government ownership of private enterprise. This is called Socialism, and from the looks of it we will be dealing with it for some time to come.

Questioning Joe Dumars

If you know me, then you know that I have much respect for the Detroit Pistons General Manager Joe Dumars. When Dumars was first hired in 2000 he made some moves that turned heads and made people in the world of professional Basketball ask "Is he on crack?", but considering how well those moves turned out, and the success which those moves generated for most of the decade, everyone, including myself, recognized the brilliance of Joe Dumars as being one of the, if not the best General Manager in all of professional sports.
Fast forward to this month and some very interesting moves that "Joe D" has made for the pistons.
The signing of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva are nice additions, but I question the price he paid for them. Gordon gets $11 mill a year, and Villanueva $7 mill a year. That is a lot of money for a pair of players who, to be quite frank about it, have done nothing in their careers. I don't claim to know much about Villanueva, but I've watched Gordon play against the Pistons for years as a Bull, and the best they can boast of is a 2nd round defeat against the Pistons a few years ago. As such, I have a hard time understand why the big dollar contracts were dished out to 2 players who are only going to make it more difficult for established players such as Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince to get minutes along with rising stars Jason Maxiel, Will Bynum and the heir apparent to Chauncey Billups, Rodney Stuckey.
Leading to more questions about Joe D's moves as of late is the way in which he handling the coaching situation the last 2 years. He gives Mike Curry a shot after only one year as an assistant with the organization, saddles him with Allen Iverson in a last ditch attempt to get to the Finals with the core of players he first developed, then, when it all fell apart, Dumars got rid of Iverson and the coach. After firing Curry, he had Avery Johnson sitting there for him on a silver platter-2 years out of the league and chomping at the bit to get back in, but, instead of trying to make a deal work and staying fast to this stance that he wanted someone with more experience, what does Joe do but go with another assistant. This one the Cleveland Cavaliers "offensive" coach John Kuester.
True, Kuester possesses much more experience than Curry did when he was hired, but again I have to ask: what has Kuester done? This guy's claim to fame is coaching Lebron James offensively-as if that is a hard freaking job!
I just don't get it. The Pistons are obviously heading into a transition year and the last time they did so they went to the Eastern Conference Finals before winning it all in 2003 against the Lakers. Back then, even though you couldn't see what the plan was back then, you could tell by teh personality of the players assembled and the coaching staff in place, what kind of team they were going to be.
This year, with players who have more of a playing history to examine, it's impossible to tell what kind of team they are going to be heading into the 2009-10 season. Will they score 100+ a game? Will they give up more than 100+ a game? Will they play a 3 guard set or play point forward? As of now, we have no clue, and, based on Dumar's past, we won't have a clue until we see it all on the court.
Regardless of how you look at it however, it does make you wonder-again-about the decision making of Joe Dumars.

The loss of passion in America

Over the last 20 years or so, it has become apparent to me that passion in America has gone from a tool utilized to “fire up” the masses, alerting them to the idiocy or dangers of certain policies or laws being put forth by their elected officials to a nuisance emotion better left dead.
Today it just seems to me that showing any passion for anything is construed as anger, emotional instability or pointless complaining over that that you-as an individual-have no power over. The pendulum has swung so far from the very passionate decade of the 1960’s-when leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. made it “hip” to be passionate-that even having passion for simple things such as time spent with your family, is ridiculous and mocked by many of those you many count as friends. And don’t ever get caught telling your buddies about planning a night of “passion and romance” with your significant other because they will, as the British like to say, take the mickey out of you for weeks for it.
Even worse is showing passion for a particular movement or belief.
It used to be that someone who was passionate about their beliefs could stand up, orate them freely, and attract a crowd of supporters cheering them on, regardless of location. Today such actions would be seen as those of either and angry and unstable person, or that of an raving lunatic who belongs in a loony bin. Take the Fair Tax and "Tea Bag" movements of today. Those how vociferously support these movements are considered "wacko's" by those who do not.
Of course there are other, and in some ways better, methods to express ones passion today (such as using the internet), but gone are those individual acts of passion which spawn whole movements as Rosa Parks did in the 1950’s.
No, unfortunately American's are either too scared, to weak or just don't care enough. As a result America hasn’t just turned its back on passion, I think we are losing more of it each day.

The decade of decadent Corporatism

When history looks back on the first decade of the 21^st century it unfortunately may be remembered more for its greedy corporate downfalls than for the global acts of terror perpetuated by radical Islam that started with the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Beginning with the collapse of Enron in early 2002 and culminating with the bankruptcies of 2 of Detroit’s Big 3 auto’s these last 2 months, the last 7 years of corporate America have been by far the worst in our nation’s history. So sever and dramatic have these numerous collapses and bankruptcies been that former president G.W. Bush felt ‘obligated’ to bailout Wallstreet banks and brokerage houses to the tune of $750 billion in funds because he couldn’t “let the backbone of our economy collapse”.

AIG, Citibank, Bank of America and all the rest didn’t deserve one penny of our-the tax payers-money. They got to where they are by their own greed and poor business practice, and along the way nearly brought down the greatest economy in the world.

Unfortunately, the worst part may yet be to come.

Because of their collective irresponsibility on the part of these companies, the government, and the consumer (yes the public is responsible too), the politicians in D.C. were “forced” to step in with government “bailouts” and so called loans because these companies are “too big to fail”. The result was and is the perfect opportunity for the Democrat party and its leader Barack Obama to expand their socialistic policies and influences by “buying in” to all these companies to keep them from failure until their loans are repaid-which could take so long that the U.S. Federal Government could be forced to own them outright.

When it is all said and done the biggest victim of all may not even be the American people themselves, but the very idea of Capitalism itself.

These corporations took advantage of the very worst aspects of the greatest economical engine ever devised while they were under the watch of a domestically truant president-George W. Bush.

Thanks to Bush falling asleep at the proverbial domestic policy wheel while favoring the war on terror (specifically in Iraq), these corporations were able to bilk the investing public of Billions of dollars through the packaging of poorly written mortgages as investments, thereby allowing them to fleece the public at both ends through their warped Friedmanesque ideals of Capitalism.

In the case of General Motors and Chrysler, it was the sudden spike of oil prices (driven by speculation) combined with terribly negotiated union contracts, with greedy and corrupt union officials, which prevented them from being able to fairly compete in the global and domestic marketplace.

When the dust settles and the smoke clears, only time will tell how we, as a nation, come out of this decade of corporate decadence, but for now, thanks to this greed, the greatness of Capitalism is in dire straights. I only hope that it survives and bounces back well enough from the attacks of socialistic policy currently being implemented by our President to prove that, once and for all, Capitalism is the best form of economics ever created.

The idiocy of the governmental budgeting process

After 2 years of shrinking tax coffers and watching all levels of governmental bodies forced to slash programs and cut jobs, I am forced to contemplate the process by which our local, state and national legislative bodies establish and set their budgets for the “coming” year.

What I question is: how can you establish a budget and allocate resources when you don’t know exactly how much money you have to work with? To me, this is the same fiscal attitude which gets so many young adults into financial troubles early in their life-they spend money they don’t yet have by using “credit” cards with the thought in mind that they will repay the money back later. But then, they lose their job or their hours get cut and now that lavish lifestyle they have been subsidizing on borrowed money, which they “expected” to have, they can no longer support.

How did we allow our legislative bodies become so backward thinking about our money? Can’t they learn to manage their-sorry our-the way every middle class family in America does-by planning for what they want and need with the money they know they will have. This is not how our local, state, and federal officials run their budgets; no, what they do is they speculate. And we, as a society, learned about what speculating got us over the last 5 years didn’t we? Unrealistic prices which free market Capitalism cannot support.

How this relates to our various levels of government is this: by speculating on what they think they will have to spend in the coming year they allocate funds for projects and programs that actually do not exist. Not only is this a pathetically poor budgeting process, but it also creates a government that is in constant flux across all its departments, lacking no long term fiscal or managerial stability.

With this sort of budgeting ideology in practice nationwide, it’s a wonder that more cities and states aren’t in the same situation as Detroit and California are-the verge of bankruptcy.

On the accumulation of wealth: selfishness and greed

Every time that I hear the Liberal movement or those dreaded wealth envyists, talk about how the “evil rich” are “selfish and “greedy” half of me wants to laugh my ass off at their open ignorance, and the other wants to grab them by the scruff of the neck and angrily put their closed mindedness in its place.
For starters, the words selfish and greed are way over used and completely misunderstood by the Liberal movement and wealth envy class, in my opinion.
To be selfish or greedy are natural aspects of our inherent human natures. As a child is it not considered “greedy” to want bigger and better presents for Christmas than our siblings? As adults, are we not selfish while in college if we are more dedicated to doing well academically, so as to have a successful future and career, rather than spending our time and money partying those years away? Even our core human instincts of survival: self defense, need for food and shelter, and mating are based in some part on selfishness and greed.
In sum, greed and selfishness are natural for humans.
The irony is that the Liberal movement combined with the wealth envy class, by their own actions, show themselves to be just as selfish and greedy as those they scream about. Is not “spreading the wealth” in some way greedy by essentially saying that “what is yours is mine also”? Is it not selfish to monopolize the press and portray your viewpoints as being more “evolved” than those of the other side? How selfish and greedy was it of their “chosen one”-Barack O’bama-to go out and raise $100’s of millions for his presidential campaign-more than double what his opponent could raise-and then use all that money to monopolize the airways to scream his bogus message of “change you can believe in” in our faces everywhere we turned? Nahhhh, that wasn’t selfish at all…
The Liberals and wealth envyists seem to forget many important things about the “evil rich”.
For starters, many of their own party and movement are wealthy themselves.
Those with money have the money to give away!-to the tune of $100’s of millions each year to charitable organizations-which is pretty freaking unselfish of them if you ask me.
The Liberals and wealth envyists also seem to forget that it is those with money have the means and ability to not on create 10’s of thousands of jobs, but whole new industries to boot.
There is, however, one place where selfishness and greed are big problems-corporations.
There is little doubt that the world’s largest corps seek to profit at the expense of the common man-especially these days in America. But they are the exception and not the rule, and they get away with it because the consumer, i.e. the American public, fail to hold them accountable. In other words, just don’t buy their products and services.
But, then again, to the Liberal mind, that would be considered “mean” I bet…

The NBA and Stanley Cup Finals

(Note, this post was originally written on 6/15/09).

Since I was “indisposed” for a bit and unable to comment on either the NBA or NHL Finals’ matchups as they took place, now is as good of a time as any to catch up and take a look back on them…

I have to admit to not being very surprised that the Orlando Magic made it to the NBA Finals. I didn’t pick them, per se, but I wasn’t as surprised by it as most seemed to be. I could tell from the beginning of the Eastern Conference Finals that the Magic had Lebron’s and his Cavaliers number-they just matched up too well against them. The biggest surprise to me, however, were the Denver Nuggets. I knew that when they acquired Chauncey Billups in the Iverson trade with the Pistons that they would be better, but its been quite some time since I’ve seen one player have such a profound impact on the overall attitude of an entire organization. After the Nuggets stole one from L.A. in L.A., I thought maybe they had punched their ticket to the finals, but, alas, it was meant to be the Lakers year, and once they had made it to the Finals I knew it was only a matter of time before they were crowned champs once again. Does this settle the Kobi question of whether or not he can lead a team without Shaq to a title? I’m not so sure about that…When considering this question you have to consider Kobi’s supporting cast and I would say that his supporting cast this year was better than Shaq’s supporting cast in Miami a few years back when he lead that team to a championship without Kobi before Kobi was able to do it without him…Anyways, I did think that the Magic would give them a little more of a challenge than they, but, ah well…Before I move on, I have to give some credit where credit is do: my good friend Mike Davies called the Magic for the Finals before they had dispatched the Boston Celtics-a point on which at the time I disagreed with. Good call my friend (bow)…

As for the Stanley Cup Finals…What the fuck happened to my beloved Red Wings?!! They have game 7, at home, and they can’t manage to score more than 2 goals against those pathetic tuxedo clad arctic birds?! Come on! After finding out the outcome, I was almost glad that I was unable to watch that game 7-almost (I still believe that I had been able to watch it, they would have won lol). Anyways, no one was really much surprised that it was a rematch of the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals in which the Wings won, particularly after Detroit got rid of pesky Anaheim, but I do think Pittsburgh pulling off the win the way they did surprised most people especially given that the Wings outscored them for the series. Unfortunately, all that matters are the wins and losses and the Wings lost the most important game of the season during the most important series of the season-a trait we Wing Nuts are used to seeing in our beloved team…Oh well, there is always next year, and, like the Yankees of Baseball, the Wings are more likely than not to be there when it’s all said and done…Again I have to give some credit where it is do. My life long friend Amy called me during the Eastern Conference Finals to tell me that, should the Wings at that time have made it too the Cup Finals, they “ didn’t stand a chance against either Washington or Pittsburgh in a 7 game series”. As a die hard Wing Nut, her statement shocked me and of course I abused her for making out. However, in the end, she was proven to be more right than I and so, it is with much eating of crow that I say-good call dude, you got me, this time lol.