The state of . . .

Moved

2010-07-08T23:45:00.001-07:00

As of the end of May, I moved out of San Francisco to the warm environs of the East Bay. What does that really mean? Well, at night I get to see a lot more stars, it's a lot warmer during the day, I have a pool, and I don't have to move my car twice a week to avoid parking tickets. Course, I'm driving everyday anyway to get to BART, go to the store or to take my daughter to get ice cream. All of this is to say that I know get to get involved in the issues of surburbia; yeah for you.

It also means that I no longer have a vested interest in the politics of San Francisco....course, I still work in San Francisco, and now BART into work everyday (or drive, depending on the situation- btw, time of use pricing for the Bay Bridge??? I'm all for it!) so I'm not completely immune to it.

So, what's the purpose of all of this? I could say 42, and many people would get it, but that's just a joke. I do hope to have time to delve into specific issues that I find interesting and important, and hope that I bring a unique point of view to it.

Obama Surrenders to the Mayor of Tampa

2010-02-01T11:25:00.001-08:00

U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.

Poor Gavin, he feels so left out.

2010-01-20T12:09:00.000-08:00

Maureen Dowd has an interview with Ess Eff Mayor Gavin Newsom in her article today. Here is where the wistfulness comes in:

Like many pioneers who go first — from the “Ellen” sitcom to the Hillary drama — the mayor who staked his career on giving equal rights to gays may have to settle for paving the way. The lawyers get praised, but he got pilloried?

“Grand understatement,” he said dryly, noting that he still remembers press coverage from before the 2004 same-sex marriage eruption about shooting stars of the Democratic Party.

“There were five of us,” he said, with a teasing nostalgia. “A guy named Obama. I’m like ‘Why is he in here? This is ridiculous. I mean, he’s a state senator. I’m kind of insulted.’ Life was really good, and then it came crashing down. ‘You’re not going to be speaking at the convention. We overbooked.’ And then it becomes the house of cards with the Democrats excusing themselves from visits to this city and being in the same room with me.

Even Gavin Newsom was insulted at being upstaged by a measly state senator from Illinois.

Oh, I'm getting sucked back in. . .

2010-01-20T11:32:00.000-08:00

You know, it was kind of enjoyable pushing down the temptation to wield my keyboard and spout off online knowing that no one reads this and that I could basically get my point across using less verbiage on Facebook and . But with the Scott Brown victory last night and something I read in today's Chronicle (course, leave it to the Chronicle to do that), I will probably start writing again with a little more frequency. Plus, the primaries are 5 months away, and I most definitely will not be able to control myself.

So, what from today's Chronicle caught my eye? This article on a bill introduced by my State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. In the article, it talks about a bill to regulate tattoo and piercing parlors, which are not subject to state jurisdiction, rather, are left to local authorities. I don't disagree that some amount of jurisdiction needs to be had over these operations, as the article notes there are significant concerns regarding the safety and cleanliness of these operations. Tattoo needles do pose health concerns if not disposed of properly. Ok, that's all fine, be it the state or the cities, just pick one and be consistent.

No, what got me was this: "She also wants to ban the tattooing of anyone under age 18 - regardless of whether a parent consents." The article fails to dig into this any deeper, rather, focusing solely on the safety aspects of the bill. What is the rationale for this? The illogical and inconsistent treatment of those under the age of 18 in this state boggles my mind- if you're under 18, you must have a parent to get a piercing, to get a tattoo (for now), or to even go see a movie. No, the State of California has decided that all of those are decisions that must be made in consultation with a parent; yet, when asked to have an adult be notified about whether or not to have an abortion, well, of course you can't do that, think of the safety of the minor. If Fiona Ma wants to protect people under the age of 18 from getting Hep B by banning them from getting a tattoo, why can't the same logic be applied to underage abortions? I simply do not get it.

Now, while I voted for those propositions for adult notification, my analyses of those propositions were predicated on a sense of consistency; how can the state have laws requiring parental involvement for things like the above, but be insistent that having a similar law in place would be bad when deciding on whether or not to have an abortion? I'm asking for consistency and some logical reasoning. I, of course, realize that I'm talking about Democrats in the legislature, so consistency and logical reasoning are noticeably absent the vast majority of the time.

Nevertheless, I'd hope that saner heads prevail on the topic of banning people under the age of 18 from getting a tattoo. If, as Fiona Ma seems to argue, the point is to make these places safer, then make them safer, but there's no reason to simply ban a portion of the population from getting a tattoo if their parents are fine with it.

Gas up the truck!

2010-01-20T11:23:00.000-08:00

Where's your editor?

2009-07-28T15:38:00.001-07:00

From the San Francisco Examiner Parenting blog:

The best baby grinder.

Now, I know San Francisco isn't kid friendly, but I had no idea. But really, it's a story about making your own baby food, but I guess the title was just too good to change.

Long time gone

2009-07-27T16:52:00.000-07:00

Was out on paternity leave. . .but, wanted to pose this question:

Perhaps this is the reason why Senator Kent Conrad is holding up health care?

Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Conrad, hoping to get re-elected, is trying to make good with his constituents, who likely oppose government-run health care. If he can water it down enough to make them happy, perhaps they won't vote him out when he's up again. Sen. Dodd, on the other hand, has no idea what you are talking about ("Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.").

The quest for stimulus money

2009-05-14T11:08:00.000-07:00

The S.F. Chronicle has an article today that notes that if California, in attempting to close a $16-21 billion deficit cuts too much funding from education and health care programs, it will lose additional stimulus money.

How ironic.

The stimulus bill requires that state spend a minimum amount of money on certain projects, and if the state cuts spending below that amount, they will have violated the terms of the stimulus agreement, and will have the money taken away. So, California, trying to cut spending in the face of a dramatic deficit, will be punished for trying to do what Washington can't do: live within their means. The states are required to have a balanced budget, Washington is not. Congress passed a stimulus bill earlier this year that directed funds to states and cities for specific purposes, which was the first mistake of this whole mess. Instead of directing the money to be used for specific purposes (and threatening states and cities to abide or else), Congress should have just given each state a lump sum and let them decide what's best. Instead, we get Congress dictating to states how to use the money, which ends up causing a big mess. From labor groups lobbying the Administration in protest of previous wage cuts, to not allowing cities to swap transportation funds, even if they have no projects to fund, to governor's rejecting stimulus money because it creates a future unfunded mandate on certain programs.

The OMB has noted that stimulus money cannot be used to pay down debt, but only for spending on specific programs as directed by Congress and the Administration. So, what happens if a state has to cut money from these programs below the requirement set by the legislation in order to balance their budget? Will the Federal government really take away that stimulus money because states are bound to balance their budget?

California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has already said that she doubts this deficit can or will be met through tax increases, and she also notes that spending cuts will be severe, especially if Propositions 1A through 1E fail next week, which is likely. Instead, Bass was in D.C. to get the Federal government to provide a guarantee on new "Revenue Anticipation Notes" that she hopes will get the state through whatever length of time is needed.

What in the world is going on here? California needs to make spending cuts to balance their budget. Those spending cuts, however, may impact the ability of California to receive stimulus money, money that is being relied on by California to help off-set that budget deficit; if the stimulus money gets pulled, that would make the deficit situation even worse. So, California wants to issue short-term borrowing notes, backed by the Federal government, so that it can borrow even more money, at much higher interest rates than before, to balance the budget today but at at the likely loss of revenue in the future due to interest payments. This is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

You know what, screw the stimulus money- it's a sham anyway that is not even coming close to meeting anything that this economy is "so urgently" needing. Furthermore, the Administration has admitted that unemployment will still likely rise this year, even if the economy meets the Administration's wildly optimistic and unlikely growth expectations this year. Even before the stimulus was passed, the Administration said that unemployment without the stimulus would hit near 8.8% by the end of next year, guess what, we're at 8.9% right now. California should just reject all of the stimulus money, and be thankful that it will not be beholden to the wishes and whims of this Administration as it dictates to states how to run their own business. After all, it's worked so well for the auto industry and their creditors.

Someone will pay for this

2009-05-12T13:00:00.000-07:00

This is amusing.

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document. ... The document, labeled "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege," says that if the EPA proceeds with the regulation of heat-trapping gases, including carbon dioxide, factories, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulation.

"Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide ... for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the document reads.

Someone, somewhere inside the Administration apparently didn't get the memo that the Federal Government must step in do something about this, costs be dammed. According to the Administration, that view came from an unnamed agency inside the Federal government.

I'm guessing that whoever wrote that memo is not long for his job. After all, who cares about science when there's a special interest group to cater to; I mean, look how the Administration caved in on Yucca Mountain- I'm gonna bet that the Administration has no plans of reimbursing ratepayers for those lost costs that were recovered from ratepayers to fund studies and move forward on building the repository at Yucca Mountain. It's only about science when they agree with the science.

Update- Environmental Capital has more on the memo and EPA's new position on carbon (endangerment doesn't mean regulation). It also notes that the Administration admitted that the document was prepared by someone at OMB and is based on a multitude of opinions from throughout the government. According to the post, the memo notes: “The amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty." In other words, the EPA, and by extension the Administration, went ahead with a policy based on politics.

There is a word for this type of activity

2009-05-08T12:55:00.000-07:00

It's called extortion.

From the L.A. Times:

"The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget."

As part of the budget deal passed earlier this year, the legislature cut
$74 million from its budget that would have helped pay workers that care for low-income and elderly Californians. The Department of Health and Human Services, at the request of, surprise, the SEIU, sent a letter to the Governor saying that if he didn't reinstate those lost wages, California would see $6.8 billion less in stimulus money. Nevermind that the state is already facing a $23 billion shortfall in revenues this summer and could go "broke."

Yes, this is nothing short of extortion- the Federal government, at the request of the union, is threatening the state to comply or else. The Federal government is threatening to withhold a significant amount of money to the state, all to show how far this Administration will go to bend at the will of the unions, the economy be damned. They've already catered to the unions on Chrysler, so it's no surprise that they would cater to the unions on this.

Not to mention allowing GM to simply stop the Saturn line, which, as the Newsweek article explains, was once the next big step in U.S. automaking, but soon found itself mired and stuck in union anti-competitiveness assurances (or, as Mickey Kaus puts it, "Could it have been that Saturn's success--in a plant where workers traded inflexible work rules for responsibility and job satisfaction--threatened the hide-bound Wagner Act rulebooks of all of the UAW's other locals? So that the UAW pressured Saturn to build cars outside of its Spring Hill, Tennessee home--while it supported GM in systematically starving Saturn of new products? Just asking!"). Once GM announced the end of the Saturn line, as part of their post-bailout plan, the Administration quickly bestowed upon them another batch for federal funds to keep GM going.

Again, not that the Administration really cares about the viability of the automakers, all the Administration cares about is the continued support of the unions, at the expense of the automakers, and the American public at large, who will be on the hook for all of this.

Street sweeping leads to drop in revenues

2009-04-23T15:50:00.001-07:00

Earlier this year, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency decided that a good way to save some money would be to change the street sweeping rules in parts of this city. What that meant was that some neighborhoods would start seeing their streets swept twice a month, instead of every week. Muni projected roughly $1 million in savings by not sweeping as often. Plus, as a resident of one of those neighborhoods, it was quite tiring to have to move your car twice a week just to avoid getting a ticket- couple that with limited street parking and tourists taking up those spots over the weekend, I would spend upwards of an hour sometimes just driving around trying to find a parking spot.

Well, it turns out that by not sweeping and not issuing parking tickets to those unlucky people who forget to move their car is costing the city $3.8 million a year in lost revenue from parking tickets. As usual, the geniuses that make up the Board of Supervisors want Muni to go back to revisit this decision, noting the loss of revenue.

Just so I'm clear here- Muni made a decision that it could save some money by not running street sweepers as often, not to mention that some streets just don't need to swept every week. Case in point- the numbered streets in the Inner Sunset went from every Monday and Wednesday to the 1st and 3rd Monday and Wednesday's of the month (except for 9th, which is a business district; they still sweep twice a week), but streets like Lincoln and Irving kept their sweeping schedule. So, Muni appeared to have done some amount of homework on what streets were being over-swept. But, due to the lost revenue from parking tickets related to street sweeping, the city wants Muni to go back and see if they should re-institute some of these inefficient sweeping schedules, solely because of the lost revenue.

I don't know, but I was unaware the certain municipal activities, like street sweeping, were supposed to be revenue earners for the city. I thought street sweeping was supposed to, you know, clean the street of debris and other safety-related reasons. But the city, never missing an opportunity to reach into the pockets of its residents (who, pursuant to City housing rules, likely do not have adequate on-site parking), want to figure how Muni can recover that lost revenue, and potentially re-institute Muni's otherwise wasteful and inefficient use of its property and personnel.

Since I no longer have to drive around twice a week to find a parking space, I can only wonder how much emissions I'm no longer emitting due to these new rules. Not to mention the emissions from the street sweepers and the little parking ticket vehicles that fan out in front of the street sweeper, writing $50 tickets. You'd think that if the City truly did care about emissions, these rules would be welcomed; instead, all the city really cares about is money. And if an otherwise good program ends up costing the city in lost parking ticket revenue, well, by-golly, that can't be right.

My random baseball suspension post

2009-04-20T14:01:00.001-07:00

Josh Beckett had his 6 game suspension for throwing at Bobby Abreu reduced to 5 games today by Major League Baseball. It means that Beckett won't miss his next start.

Forgive me, but what's the point of suspending him in the first place? He is a starting pitcher, which means he only plays every 5th to 6th day in the first place, all those other days he's sitting on the bench or doing his otherwise scheduled workouts. So, he's suspended for 5 games, which doesn't mean anything to him because he's a starting pitcher, and we're supposed to assume that that taught him a lesson? It didn't teach him anything, as the article notes, Beckett didn't think he deserved even a game suspension.

If an everyday player gets suspended for 5 games, he misses 5 games (unless you're Milton Bradley who tends to get hurt and wasn't going play in those games anyway); if a starting pitcher gets suspended for 5 games, he doesn't miss anything. How does that make any sense? Baseball needs to figure out this suspension policy as it affects starting pitchers, because if the goal is to show how a starting pitchers' actions can harm a team, then they need to tie it to starts and not to games. As the Beckett example shows- 5 games is still a serious suspension, for an everyday player, but it doesn't harm a starting pitcher who doesn't miss a turn in the rotation.

Challenges ahead

2009-04-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

In a surprise move that has basically been telegraphed since the day after he said it last year, President Obama said they he will not re-open talks on NAFTA. In the Democratic primary debate on February 16, 2008, Obama was crystal clear on his view of NAFTA:

"I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA], in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. ... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far."

It didn't take long for the campaign to offer whispers to Canada that Obama didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA. In fact, members of the campaign allegedly met with Canadian officials 8 days before the debate to re-assure Canada that whatever candidate Obama said publicly about NAFTA was simply for show to get nominated.

Backing down from this promise is good news for markets and for all three countries involved. The article also notes that there are positive steps in getting the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia moving forward, after the Democratic congress shamefully refused to hold an up or down vote on these agreements solely for political posturing on behalf of labor unions during the final days of the previous administration.

There is an interesting article from Yahoo news today talking about whether couples who make $250K a year are rich. The conclusion: probably not. The problem, the article finds, is that as these couples' wealth have increased, education and health care costs have skyrocketed beyond their income growth. The article notes "data show that over the last 10 years, education costs have risen 5.91% annually, and health- care expenses have gone up 4.16% annually, while wages and income have risen only 3.7% over the same time span. That means many families are seeing a greater percentage of their income going toward those two areas." Additionally, that wealth may also be tied up in their house, and with falling housing prices, their wealth may also have suffered as a result. Then there are those who live in states with high costs of living and high tax rates, such as California. That is to say, the tax code does not take into account standards of living. As San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said, "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley." Yet, the Obama budget plan seeks to increase taxes on just those people, based on an arbitrary definition of "rich."

One can only wonder what other tricks this charlatan has up his sleeves in his attempt to pull another fast one over on the American people? Carolyn Lochhead at the Chronicle has an idea: "Obama hopes we can't count."

Why am I not surprised

2009-03-26T09:48:00.000-07:00

So, the San Francisco City Council wants to pass an ordinance that would require businesses to turn off all non-essential lights at night. The idea behind this is to not waste energy and, ostensibly, to show just how gosh darn green this city is. The legislation would give building owners one year to upgrade their facilities to make them more energy efficient, but after that, they would be subject to fines for keeping on unnecessary lights in the building at night.

San Francisco BOMA is opposed to the legislation as currently written because 1) city buildings have already done a lot towards reducing lighting at night, and 2) thinks that building owners don't need more onerous rules put upon them by the city council.

I have my own reasons- California is night-time wind peaking state. In other words, the majority of our wind blows at night, thus, most of our wind-based generation occurs at night. The goal of this ordinance, as well as the other stupid idea Earth Hour, where everyone turns off their lights for an hour, is to show how green they are, how much they care about the environment and other such smuggery. The problem with it, as it pertains to California, is that the majority of electricity you are most likely consuming at night comes from non-GHG emitting resources, like hydro, nuclear and wind. For all the carbon savings you'd like to go out and claim for this, I'm sorry, but this little stunt isn't likely to produce very much in California.

The "Earth Hour" nonsense makes even less sense to do since it is occurring in winter/early spring when there's no benefit to the grid, rather, the grid operator will have to deal with a sudden drop in usage, causing frequency variations, then have to deal with a sudden increase in usage as everyone turns on their lights again. To me, this simply shows that the people who dream up these fantasies have no idea how electricity actually works. Not to mention is a terribly inefficient way to run power plants, which increases emissions.

On the other hand, if these events were marketed as a way to show businesses how they can save money on their electricity bill, that would be a far different case and easier to sell, in my opinion. By simply not consuming, that customer is going to be saving money from their electricity consumption. If turning off some lights reduces that company's consumption, that is an economic benefit to the customer- and is good. We should be encouraging energy efficiency, not threatening or forcing energy efficiency upon customers- this simply leads to opposition, foot dragging and, worse of all, increased costs to customers to comply.

Instead, the folks above don't care that you save money, they want to bash you over the head, call you names, and threaten you with fines if you don't agree to their environmental mandate of reducing emissions from power plants. It is a huge irony of environmental and energy policies in this state that we a) don't want to argue that doing simple things like turning off the lights can save people money, b) don't want new sources of cheap and clean power like hydro or nuclear to meet the expected load growth in the state, but, instead, wants to c) fine you, threaten you and harass you into not consuming because of environmental concerns and d) instead wants to build exceedingly expensive power projects like solar, wind, and tidal energy.

In other words, California policy is to increase the costs of electricity then force businesses to reduce for environmental reasons. But not residential customers. The legislature refuses to remove a rate cap that has been in effect since 2001 upon residential customers; thereby removing an economic incentive for residential customers to reduce their consumption. That is, since half of all residential customers in this state do not consume above a certain amount to trigger higher rates, they still see 2001 rates, and only have a reason to not go above their baseline. If the rate cap were lifted, then residential customers would be able to see a more accurate cost of electricity, and have an economic incentive to reduce and/or change their usage patterns. Ironically, it's the state's electricity goal to push consumption to off-peak hours where power is cheaper and potentially cleaner (nights and early mornings), yet we end up with stupid ideas based on environmental policy to show how much we care about the environment by turning off power at night. This stuff just boggles my mind.

Points for honesty

2009-03-13T15:52:00.000-07:00

The California Legislative Analyst's Office has released some updated budget numbers for California, and it's not good:

"[t]he state’s economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate. Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion."

$8 billion!!!

But the state just passed a budget that dealt with these shortfalls, right?

"[t]he Legislature and Governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009–10 budget back into balance. Moreover, a number of the adopted solutions—revenue increases and spending reductions—are of a short–term duration. Thus, without corrective actions, the state’s huge operating shortfalls will reappear in future years—growing from $12.6 billion in 2010–11 to $26 billion in 2013–14."

D'oh!

Also, let's not forget that the budget that was passed is contingent on a May special election where the voters will vote on several of the budgetary tricks used by the legislature to balance the budget; namely through creative borrowing from various programs. If those propositions fail (and I think at least one of them might), then it's back to the drawing board for the legislature and the Governor. However, the LAO did offer some advice- "While seeking to offset 2009–10 General Fund costs is the most immediate concern for the use of federal funds, the Legislature should also seek to preserve as many federal dollars as possible to help balance the budget in future years—as opposed to committing them now for augmentations."

What's that you say? We should use federal "stimulus" funds to balance the budget and not spend them on specific programs as demanded of us by the Federal government? Why shouldn't a state be able to, say, use the stimulus money to help balance their own budget? South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is preparing to ask the Administration that South Carolina be allowed to spend some of the stimulus money in other ways than as directed by the Federal government. The states most definitely should be allowed lee-way in spending this money in ways it sees fit, I mean, I am of the belief that the Federal government should just have given states a lump-sum of money based on population and let them spend it as they saw fit. Plus, states aren't allowed to run deficits, unlike the Federal government, so if they are forced to expand certain government programs in order to receive Federal funds, once the Federal funds are gone, their gone, and the states are left to fill the missing obligation.

There's an amusing story out of L.A. in regards to transportation-related stimulus funding. Apparently, the L.A. County transit authority is to receive $215 million in transportation funds and was going to split it up amongst the 88 cities in the county. However, many of the cities otherwise don't qualify for receiving funds for transportation because they are either too small or don't have qualifying transportation projects. So, some cities would be getting money to spend on transportation projects that aren't being built in their city; instead, the agency initially recommended that they swap transportation funds with other cities and use that money on other projects, according to that city's needs. As the City Manager of Irwindale, which does not have eligible transportation projects, put it, "we probably would have used it to avoid people getting laid off." But the transit agency clarified their position and said that all money must be used for transportation purposes. What's a city going to do with money for transportation projects when they don't have any qualifying transportation projects to begin with? I suppose they could just create a new project out of the blue solely for the purpose of not losing this funding- I don't think that's how government is supposed to operate.

Back to the LAO. Additionally, the LAO says-

"Our current economic forecast projects a recovery beginning in the first quarter of 2010. Over the next five years, however, our forecast projects relatively slow growth compared to past recoveries. In our view, weakness in the finance, housing, and export markets are likely to keep the national economy from expanding at rates that typically occur after a recession. While our forecast is similar to the economic outlook shared by many economists, some see recovery taking even more time."

Why you don't say. Recovery won't start until next year and will likely be slow? Furthermore, the LAO says that employment won't likely begin to increase again until 2011. Wait, 2011. . .Hey, that's when Obama's tax increases are supposed to take effect, along with a whole slew of other new government spending programs and regulatory regimes, like cap and trade. And that's supposed to be his second year of 4.5% growth in the economy. Raising taxes, increasing government burden upon businesses and individuals- hey, that's just what a recovering economy needs, more hurdles. And a barely recovering economy at that.

Yes, I realize that there's an abundance of sarcasm, but sometimes, it just has to come out.

Oh, I forgot to include a link to this story about how an increasing number of banks are looking at returning funds it received from the government due to the number of restrictions and requirements placed upon those banks in order to receive the funds. Specifically, there are requirements upon these banks to further certain social and economic goals of this Administration, like allowing people to re-negotiate their mortgages, put those banks into weaker positions- that is, the bank renegotiates a mortgage based on a lower value when the owner has already lost their equity. These policies simply force a bank to replace one bad mortgage with a worse one, from their extent; but since they continue to receive federal funds, they are able to remain in operation. As one of the people interviewed for that story put it, "keeping insolvent banks in operation does not benefit the system."

All of this is to say that there is finally a reaction to these policies put forth by the Administration to consolidate control at the federal level. The carrot of federal funding in return for increased federal oversight is becoming less and less appetizing.

Phony war

2009-03-12T13:07:00.000-07:00

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The government is talking about sacrifice and solutions, but it hasn't yet made the tough decisions that will put the economy back together. Economist David Smick had it right in The Post this week when he said the administration had a three-pronged strategy: delay, delay and delay. The administration announces a rescue package but doesn't deliver details; it promises budget discipline but saves the hard decisions for later.

One reason this season feels so political is that Obama has stacked his administration with politicians and former government officials. You might think that with the greatest financial crisis of his lifetime, the president would want a few business leaders with experience managing large organizations in crisis. But no.

Ignatius wonders why the Administration is so reliant on government officials instead of business, but stops short of the obvious answer: the Administration doesn't want to hear from business because it wants to impose more government onto business. This is an Administration that claims the cause of this current crisis is too much deregulation, ergo, the solution is to bring back more government regulation. The Administration doesn't care about the market, not that the previous administration did all that much for the market either. The administration's answer to nearly every question so far is that only government can solve these problems; that's why his administration is filled with career government officials.

Course, it doesn't help that he keeps having potential appointees withdrawing- today it's H. Rodgin Cohen, who was going to be nominated as Deputy Treasury Secretary. This is getting ridiculous.

By the way, this is awesome:

There is nobody there...

2009-03-11T14:41:00.000-07:00

A lower British cabinet official succinctly summed up the actions of this Administration on the economy:

"There is nobody there. You cannot believe how difficult it is." (Or, as Camille Paglia puts it: the "dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.")

This quote was made in response to a meeting that is being planned for next month for countries to get together and figure out a way to fight the current economic situation. The British official quoted above expressed his frustration at being unable to find anyone at the U.S. Treasury to talk to about attending. This meeting is also important because this Administration is adamant that running up huge deficits and allowing government to run rampant over state governments and individuals is the only way to successfully combat this situation. In typical European technocrat speak, this suggestion was rejected: “The 16 euro-area ministers agreed that recent American appeals insisting that the Europeans make an additional budgetary effort to combat the effects of the crisis was not to our liking.” In other words, we don't need you to tell us how to spend our money. Mind you, there would be nothing more to my liking than having the Euro fail; but the gall of this administration to declare itself sole arbiter of all knowledge on how to respond is beyond belief.

In echoing a statement made in Obama's message to Congress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said: "We want to bring together a new consensus globally on how to strengthen this financial system, so that a crisis like this never happens again."

Two things- 1) Is this Administration saying that it can stop recessions from happening ever again? 2) I thought this Administration was also supposed to have a better and friendlier foreign policy. When 50 days into your Administration, you're already telling other countries how to handle their economy, I don't think you're likely to get a very positive response. Furthermore, when one of the balancing partners in moving a worldwide economy is the EU, running up deficits on purpose is not necessarily in their best interests. According to the Financial Times, "France, Germany and Italy, the eurozone’s three biggest countries, are anxious that the 16 countries sharing the euro should not run up ever-bigger budget deficits and public debt, potentially threatening the stability of the single currency area." I suppose it goes without saying that those countries also have center-right parties in power right now.

Additionally, these countries are increasingly concerned about this Administration's commitment to free trade and open markets. I don't know about them, but when the President wants to make sure that "this never happens again," that for sure means an increase in regulation. What is clear is that this Administration clearly believes that it is right in its response to this situation and is willing to openly criticize other countries for failing to respond to his directive. While Obama rightly observes that globalization has tied worldwide economies together, he fails to reckon that other countries might not want to (or are simply unable to) cobble together as large a "stimulus" package as passed by Congress to address the current economic situation. Certainly it's possible that other countries may not want to cripple future productivity and earnings with disastrous large-scale government run programs, or burden future budgets with large amounts of debt. That wasn't a leading statement at all.

My question is: why do we think we're doing it right? The stimulus package that was passed had very little to do with stimulating the economy, and was more about directing new money towards more government programs that won't encourage the economic response that's needed. If a county decides, hey, you know what- let's just see how our own response works, that is entirely within their rights as a sovereign country. I'm pretty sure this "you're with us or against us" mantra was ridiculed when George W. Bush was saying it in regards to fighting terrorism. Why shouldn't we ridicule it now when talking about a U.S. directive to other countries on economics?

More on that terrible SEIU contract

2009-03-10T15:47:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I've already gone over the terrible job SEIU did on behalf of its members who are not covered under the Governor's furlough executive order, such as me. The proposed contract now subjects me to one day a month furlough to which that I was not otherwise subject. It has now come to our attention that not only are we now subject to the furlough, but it's retro-active to February 1, which means that since we weren't subject to the furlough, but for SEIU's crack negotiating strategy, we will have to give back 4.6% of our pay to cover those months where we were exempted. Please, please, please, someone explain to me how on earth SEIU adequately represented our issues?

SEIU blames the Department of Personnel Administration, who negotiates on behalf of the Governor's office. DPA says SEIU didn't bring it up- SEIU said that DPA was going to take care of it. What it boils down to is that SEIU, along with DPA, included a batch of employees that should have remained exempt from these provisions on the furlough- that SEIU failed to strongly advocate for a part of its membership is unsurprising. SEIU routinely fails to be a strong advocate for us in negotiating sessions with the Governor's office.

So, to sum up- the Governor ordered 2 days a month furloughs and layoffs for state employees at agencies under his direct control, but was forced to exempt state employees at certain agencies that were not under his direct control, i.e., those agencies that are created via the State Constitution (which is where I work). The Governor also ordered that layoffs would take place, with the same exemptions. The budget as passed by the legislature did not include layoffs or furloughs. SEIU reached an agreement with the Governor's office that would reduce furloughs to 1 day a month and not call for layoffs. This agreement, however, failed to maintain the exemption as included in the Governor's executive order. So, unless a complaint is lodged somewhere, we have had our exemption negotiated away by SEIU, without so much as a whisper as to our concerns, and will be forced to pay the state back for days we already worked. Yeah, that's some good negotiatin'.

Oh how I long for the day where state employees are not required to be represented by a union.

Who is running this thing?

2009-03-10T11:56:00.000-07:00

Warren Buffet on CNBC (courtesy of Mickey Kaus):

But how fast we get there depends enormously on not only the wisdom of government policy, but the degree in which it's communicated properly. People--when you have a Pearl Harbor, you have to know the nation is going to be united on December 8th to take care of whatever comes up. And we have little squabbles, otherwise we put them aside and everybody goes to work on defense plans, we start building planes, we start building ships, even though they're not going to be ready tomorrow, people join. The Army doesn't blame the Navy because there were too many ships in Pearl Harbor, and it shouldn't have happened. The Army doesn't say, `Well, it was your fault, so we're not going to send our troops.' None of that sort of thing. We got united, and we really need that now.
...
if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects,' and you didn't have congress people putting on 8,000 earmarks onto the declaration of war in 1941.
...
[y]ou can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would--I would--I would--no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward.
...
It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things."

Jim Cramer:

President Obama's team, unlike Bush's team, demonstrates a thinness of skin that shocks me. When I somewhat obviously and empirically judged that the populist Obama administration is exacerbating the crisis with its budget and policies, as evidenced by the incredible decline in the averages since his inauguration, I was met immediately with condescension and ridicule rather than constructive debate or even just benign dismissal. I said to myself, "What the heck? Are they really that blind to the Great Wealth Destruction they are causing with their decisions to demonize the bankers, raise taxes for the wealthy, advocate draconian cap-and-trade policies and upend the health care system? Do they really believe that only the rich own stocks? What do they think we have our retirement accounts in, CDs? Where did they think that the money saved for college went, our mattresses? Do they think the great middle class banks at the First National Bank of Sealy and only the wealthiest traffic in the Standard & Poor's 500?
....
I am always glad to have any allies and defenders, but I do favor almost all of Obama's agenda, right down to having the rich pay more of their freight in this great country. It's just not the right time. We need to declare a war on unemployment and solve it before we let it get out of hand. We need to stop house-price depreciation. Neither the pork-laden stimulus plan nor the confusing mortgage proposal put forward by Obama will defeat either enemy. When Obama trounces both unemployment and house-price depreciation, he will have the power to enact anything he wants. But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction -- good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever -- and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation's table. The markets thought he could stop it; hence the giant relief rally when he was elected. But in fewer than 50 days of his ascendancy, the markets' hopes were totally dashed and the averages are now forecasting the worst decline since the Great Depression. As someone who listens to what the averages are screaming, I think they are accurately predicting the future.

Jonah Goldberg, who gets at the heart of the matter:

Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as ideological evidence that Obama's budget priorities are a great bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he's focusing on selling his long-standing liberal agenda on healthcare, energy and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some -- particularly on Wall Street -- would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
...
Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting -- boasting! -- that they want to exploit a national emergency for their preexisting agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering.
...
In other realms of life, exploiting a crisis for your own purposes is an outrage. If a business uses a hurricane warning, for example, to price-gouge on vital supplies, it is a crime. When a liberal administration does it, it's taking advantage of a historic opportunity.

Obama's defenders respond to this argument that Obama's motives are decent, noble and pure. He wants to help the uninsured and the poorly educated. He wants to make good on his vow to halt those rising oceans.

But this is just a rationalization. Every president thinks his agenda is what's best for the country; every politician believes his motives are noble. The point is that scaring people about X in order to achieve Y is fundamentally undemocratic.

This was transparently obvious to Bush's harshest critics, who alleged that 9/11 was merely a convenient crisis for devious neocons who wanted to topple Hussein all along. But it's now clear that many of these critics simply objected to the agenda, not the alleged tactics. Now that it's their turn, they see nothing wrong with doing what they so recently condemned.

That's a lot to digest. . .I will only point out that when Warren Buffet is taking you to task for mis-handling this recession, then I think you better listen.

The British press take on Obama over something else:

British diplomats insist the visit was a success, with officials getting the chance to develop closer links with Mr Obama's aides. .... But they concede that the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state."

Further on, the article notes:

"[An] American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything." ....
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly."

Yes, what's the big deal about only our strongest ally for the past 150 years or so. I mean, really, we're already in the process of selling out Poland and the Czech Republic to Russia, so why not dump England along the way.

Yes, this post is quote heavy, and I apologize for that- but I think it far more important to use the actual words from the people above, instead of me summarizing and condensing their points. But, what is interesting is what all of the quotes above are talking about- Obama wants to move fast on a lot of issues. However, he does not seem to really want to take a lead on the financial situation in this country. I mean, he left the stimulus bill up to Congress to write, he's blaming the current stop-gap budget on the previous Administration and is letting Congress get away with runaway spending and earmarks, and he's blaming the previous Administration for what's happening in the markets since he's been elected. The market doesn't just react to numbers, they react to words just as much, and when the President, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about, the market reacts. When the Secretary of Treasury offers more of the same solutions to new problems, the market reacts. He can say that this all 8 years in the making, but this sell-off over the past 2 months is all his. When his new budget gets roundly derided by both Democrats and Republicans, and offers no real concrete solutions to moving forward, other than taxing "rich" people, how does that help anything? When his budget says we're going to have 4%+ growth in 2010 and 2011, but when talking about current economic conditions, he's warning of depressions, how can anyone take what he says on this topic seriously? And that is without talking about cap and trade and the negative effects it will likely have on this economy- especially one that will have just come out of a recession.

Anyway. . .more on that topic for another post.

Update on Obama budget proposal

2009-03-03T16:20:00.000-08:00

Two things-

1) This article from ABC News notes something that I noted in my previous post; that people are going to try to reduce their income to under $250,000 by reducing their productivity. As a dentist from Boulder, Colorado put it- "The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make. But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing." Remember, Obama's plan to cut the deficit is to increase taxes on those who make above $250,000 a year, or the "rich" people in Obama's lexicon, coupled with an absurd projection of 4%+ growth over the next two years. When the economy doesn't recover in two years, plus the damage that will be wrought on the economy from the stimulus bill, there will be only one way for Obama to meet his goal of reducing the deficit- dropping the floor on the tax increases. That means he will have to raise taxes on more than just the top 2%.

2) One way that people try to reduce their taxable income is by giving to charity, especially those who make more than $250,000. One aspect of the Obama budget is that he proposes to begin limiting the ability of people to deduct charitable donations on their taxes. The purpose of this is to reduce the amount of charitable donations from individuals so that the government will have a bigger pile of money to tax from to use it to pay for the Administration's goal of a government-run health care system. So, let me get this straight- we are in a recession, which means charitable giving is already down, the Administration proposes tax increases on those who make more than $250,000 a year, and who often give more to charity, and the Administration is proposing to limit the amount of money that people who make more than $250,000 a year can give to charities which would raise nearly $180 billion over the next 10 years (even though it wouldn't take effect until 2011). How does this help charities already struggling? It doesn't- it just makes the govenment a charitable organization.

Of course, this is just one of many terrible proposals by this Administration in the budget. Charities are important institutions in the United States, and this proposal by the Administration to cut off important individual donations simply so the government can take a larger slice of it is wrought with peril. What is clear in this proposal is that the Administration 1) could care less about the good work that charities do across this country (especially religious-based charities), and 2) whatever good work those charities do, the government should do instead. As OMB Director Peter Orszag noted, the government will make up the difference in giving. Why should the government be reimbursing charities for money it took away? How does that make any sense? Other than increasing the number of people and groups that will becoming increasingly reliant on the government. I don't seem to think that that is a good thing.

Anyway. . .I suppose this is my own little page where I can rant and rave all I want. Not that it does much good, which I can live with. Yes, I'd much rather write about bunnies and flowers, but I do need an outlet for my thoughts on this mess. And it is a mess.....I can't say that I have any confidence in this administration at this time. His economic proposals are a recipe for disaster- increasing taxes to pay for more government spending at a time when we are in a recession. And that's without mentioning the stimulus bill which will do almost nothing of the sort in the time-frame it's expected; instead, all it will do is take money from future growth and use it to pay down the deficit created by this incredible mis-use of government spending.

I'm borrowing this chart from Instapundit which shows how the market has responded since the passage of the stimulus bill:

That doesn't look good. At least baseball season is approaching, and I look forward to this summer when I get to take my newborn little girl to a day game.

Obama to "rich" people: Go to hell.

2009-02-27T16:00:00.000-08:00

Obama has released his budget proposal which is basically a soak the rich budget. He is requesting nearly $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years, with 2/3 of that coming from individuals making over $250,000 a year. I must have missed that day in economics class where they discussed the benefits of raising taxes during recessions. Plus, it seems plain that there is no way that simply raising taxes on only those individuals who make more than $250,000 a year will be able to pay for all of this.

Oh ho, you say, those tax increases only start in 2011, giving us 2 years before taxes impact taxpayers. Two points- 1) the stimulus bill is supposed to allow the american worker and investor do what it's supposed to do, create jobs and products. Now, what sort of incentive do you have if you know that in 2 years if you make more than $250,000 a year, your taxes are going to go up? Wouldn't you, instead, just do enough so that you don't break that barrier? And wouldn't that slow down any potential growth that the administration expects over the next two years? Why would someone make a much needed investment today when in two years they may see their taxes go up if the investment is successful?

To that point, 2) the Administration's budget expects growth to occur over the next two years so that they can raise taxes, increase government spending, and cut the deficit. As the AP acknowledges, "if recovery doesn't materialize as quickly as the White House has forecast, Obama will be unable to make good on meeting his spending targets while also keeping a pledge to try to significantly reduce the annual deficit — expected to be a staggering $1.75 trillion for 2009 — to $533 billion by the end of his term." The administration can blame the Bush years all they want- at some point the Administration is going to have to own up to their own misguided attempts on the economy and its so-far disastrous effects.

In total, the administration's budget runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion for FY 2009, with a $1.17 trillion deficit for 2010. This all comes on the heels of Congress passing a $789 billion porkulus bill. Nevertheless, Obama claims that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, thanks to all of that mis-guided spending. Wouldn't a good starting point have been to not pass a bill that simply adds more debt to the future? Not to mention all of his new spending proposals for mortgage holders and his ill advised march to universal health care? I don't know. It seems to me that if your goal is to cut the deficit, wouldn't not increasing spending in the first place be the logical first step? All this trickeration comes to is that the administration is stealing revenue and growth from the future to pay for their big government spending programs now.

If the american consumer and their spending is the main driver behind the economy, isn't it a good idea to let the consumer keep more of their money, instead of the government taking it away? Why should we think that the government is any more capable at solving this than the people? As John Maynard Keynes once said: "It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians." And the batch of politicians that currently make up the Democratic majorities in Congress more than prove Keynes' point.

In fact, Congressional Democrats don't seem at all inclined to live up to their rhetoric- case in point, "Leading Democrats on Wednesday appeared to brush aside President Obama’s suggestion that they sacrifice earmarks in the federal budget, arguing Congress knows better than “faceless bureaucrats” how to spend taxpayer money." Yes, it would have just been easier to say Roland Burris, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Murtha, to name a few.

Finally- while I'm loathe to generally link to him, Dick Morris makes some very good points in this column in The Hill:

Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

....

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.

For someone who was elected under a banner of hope and change, he's sure has been doom and gloom ever since he was elected. As Robert Samuelson noted: "Politics cannot be removed from the political process. But here, partisan politics ran roughshod over pragmatic economic policy. Token concessions (including the AMT provision) to some Republicans weakened the package. Obama is gambling that his flawed stimulus will seem to work well enough that he'll receive credit for restarting the economy -- and not be blamed for engineering a colossal waste." There is nothing new or hope-worthy about partisan politics, other than a new politician is moving their lips.

Quick Update

2009-02-20T23:04:00.001-08:00

1) State Sen. Abel Maldonado provided the third Republican vote to finally pass the budget, one day after my posting about the budget. As part of the agreement he reached with the Governor and legislative Democrats, there will be a vote on having an open primary system, where the top 2 vote getters face off in the general election, got the elimination of the $.12 increase in the gas tax, which will be offset by an increase in income tax, cutting spending and presumed money coming to the state from the stimulus bill signed earlier this week, amongst other items. Good for him, regardless of whether any of his proposals pass.

2) Wanted to add something that I forgot in my previous post on the union contract. What I forgot to include is that budget did not call for furloughs or layoffs. The only person calling for layoffs was the Governor, who claimed he had authority to force layoffs and furloughs. However, as noted in his Executive Order, where I work is exempted from layoffs and furloughs. In sum, my agency would otherwise not be subject to the Governor's furlough and layoff orders, and the budget did not call for furloughs or layoffs, yet the union negotiated for furloughs, including where I work, which is exempt from Governor-ordered furloughs and layoffs. So, but for this union negotiated contract, I wouldn't have my pay cut by 4.6% (that's the equivalent of having 1 day of pay cut from my salary). How the union expects this contract to be approved by workers is beyond me.

Speaking of dissatisfaction

2009-02-18T16:47:00.000-08:00

Today I received the following email from a co-worker:

Subject line- CONTRACT VICTORY! Agreement reached - no furlough this Friday - URGENT: Please read and forward!

Dear Local 1000 members:
Your bargaining team has delivered a major victory, and winning a much better deal than expected. After nine months of hard work a marathon two-day bargaining session, agreement was reached on a new contract which reduces the furlough by half and defeating most of the governors other takeaways.

For the latest update, go to channel 1000 news at:
http://www.channel1000.org/.
More details will be posted soon on the SEIU local 1000
website.

It goes on to explain the various "benefits" from the labor agreement reached between the Governor and the state employee union (SEIU). The Governor had sent out layoff notices and required mandatory furloughing of state government employees. However, where I work is exempted from the Governor's various orders because we are created in the state Constitution. In other words, because we are a creation of the Constitution and not the legislature, and are not funded by the state general fund, we employees are not subject to the Governor's furlough and layoff notices. Indeed, if you read the Governor's executive orders he notes "IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED that other entities of State government not under my direct executive authority ... assist in the implementation of this Order and implement similar mitigation measures that will help to preserve the State's cash supply during this budget impasse." Where I work is one of those "other entities."

So, where I work is specifically exempted from the Governor's order, HOWEVER, since we are represented by the union, we are now subject to the agreement reached by the union. So, even though I am not subject to the Governor's orders on furloughs, the union has, on my behalf, made me subject to those orders.

Which means that, if ratified, I will now be furloughed one day a month, have my pay be reduced by that amount (~4.6% a month), but will be able to use them at a later date as sick leave, whereas before I wasn't being furloughed and I wasn't having my pay cut (I could do it voluntarily, however, as part of a program instituted in response to the Governor's executive order). Great, the union has negotiated away a benefit that people who work at my agency enjoyed.

I accept that for probably over 90% of the people represented by the union, this is better than what the Governor was going to do, no matter that I personally agree with him that the size of government has gotten too big and could use some trimming. But it appears that the union is saying for the other 10%, "Eh, tough luck; Solidarity!" That doesn't help me at all knowing that you've negotiated away a protection that we enjoyed through the state Constitution.

And if you want to know why I think whatever tax increases this state agrees to should be in the form of sales tax and not income tax, well, the union has now negotiated a pay cut that, if the budget is passed as written, will be met with an increase in my income tax. So, my paycheck won't just reflect that 4.6% pay cut, it will also reflect that income tax increase as well. At least I have an extra
$13 to look forward to from the just signed pork/stimulus bill.

All Hoped Up

2009-02-18T16:38:00.000-08:00

John Kass lays it out:

But who is responsible for Illinois being represented by a lying weasel in the U.S. Senate?

Though Blagojevich appointed Burris, that was just the beginning of our descent into madness. Like I said, there are two others who deserve credit.

Obama could have demanded a special election to fill his own vacated Senate seat, the one that Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell to the highest bidder. Obama also pressured Senate leaders to seat Burris, in the hopes of ending the fiasco before his inauguration.

And, after Burris tried to fix the lie he told to Durkin in the impeachment hearing—that he had no contact about fundraising with Blagojevich people other than one aide named Lon Monk—Burris sent an affidavit to a Madigan flunky, state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Madigan), dated Feb. 4.

Currie held that affidavit in her desk, conveniently, until after Burris voted last week for the near trillion-dollar Obama pork/stimulus package. Now Madigan is demanding an investigation of possible perjury and has sent the documents to a Springfield prosecutor.

Yet the deed has been done. Obama's porkulus was passed. Obama got Burris' vote, and Madigan has an excuse to attack Burris because he doesn't want Burris leading the 2010 Illinois Democratic ticket when Madigan's daughter runs for governor.

See how it works? They get what they want. And we get Tombstone Burris.

They talk about transcending politics, but all we can hear are the flies.

I don't know what else to say about this. . .I mean, what else could possibly come out to make Illinois look like an even bigger joke? A governor that's been impeached and removed from office, an appointee to the U.S. Senate that has apparently lied about his contacts with the impeached Governor, a member for the Illinois legislature conveniently holding onto an affidavit that revises previous remarks regarding those contacts and the former holder of that Senate seat benefiting from all of the above? How convenient is too convenient? Or, as someone once said, "I don't like coincidences."

On the other hand, there's this article:

"President Barack Obama is seeking to assure Canada, the largest U.S. trading partner, that he has no interest in disturbing the two countries' economic relationship. That message, for now, trumps any push by the U.S. to renegotiate a North American trade pact, as Obama has suggested."

It would be a huge mistake, even in the best of times, to force open talks to re-negotiate NAFTA. As much as Congress and Obama may think they have a reason to re-negotiate over the environment and labor, Canada and Mexico a) don't want to re-negotiate (the Canadian PM Stephen Harper is no fan of either the environment or labor to begin with), and b) if they were forced, the U.S. would come out in a far weaker position due to what Canada and Mexico would want taken out of NAFTA (i.e., allowing the U.S. to be the first buyer of their oil). While progressives would probably view that as a success- force other countries to accept our socially "good" programs and take less of that nasty oil- the effect on our economy would be disastrous. By putting these new and expensive requirements on products made in Canada and Mexico would obviously increase the costs of the product itself, making companies less likely to want to sell those products to the U.S. market (since they would be bound by the NAFTA requirements, instead they could ignore NAFTA and just sell them somewhere else). And by not allowing the U.S. to be first buyer of oil, we would be subject to more market fluctuations in the oil market and also be potentially subject to purchasing our oil from less friendly countries.

Finally, I want to say to California legislative Republicans- Quit.

The shenanigans that are going on in the State Senate are ridiculous and are making this party look like a joke. Ousting former Minority Leader Dave Cogdill in the middle of the night is childish and stupid. At some point the party is going to have wrench itself from the grips of the stalwart conservatives and come back to some sort of reasonableness. Do I think that increasing taxes in a state that already has the second highest sales tax in the nation and one of, if not, the highest income tax in the nation during a recession is a good idea? Of course not. And do I think that legislative Democrats are themselves being stubborn in the face of much needed spending cuts- again, of course they are. However, that doesn't change the fact that simply holding up the budgetary process to satisfy the conservative base may be good for talk radio, but is not good for us, the citizens.

I understand that Republicans are against taxes, but that battle is not one that should be fought today. That is a much larger battle that can be set aside for this budget solution. Am I happy with the budget solution, no. Honestly, I think I'd rather see it all show up in sales taxes rather than be split up between sales and income taxes, as long as this is all temporary. (Nevermind a larger belief that once you increase taxes, it becomes harder to bring them back down, however "temporary" they are, especially when the party in charge of the legislature likes nothing more than to spend money frivolously.) Hell, there's a lot of things in this state that I'm not happy with, starting with the state's desire to destroy what manufacturing and agriculture industry we have left in this state under the guise of the environment.

New Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth said today that he wants to reopen budget talks with no new taxes. While I generally sympathize with the belief that no new taxes are needed, the fact is some amount of taxes are going to have to be raised- this is what happens when you have balanced budget requirements and can't simply run a deficit, not that I would endorse running a deficit, but it's understandable. Sen. Cogdill believes that he's made the best deal possible considering the Democrats' own intransigence on cutting spending. All this showboating and chest-thumping of Republicans on no new taxes makes the party look foolish and increasingly marginalized. Get over it. Pass the budget and take your case to the voters this summer. Senators Cox and Maldonado- show some backbone and show that you won't be bullied: vote for the budget.

One more for the day

2009-02-05T13:25:00.000-08:00

Last night in the car listening to Lou Dobbs (wife likes to listen to CNN on XM) and was amused by my reactions to three consecutive discussions he had-

1) Was talking about all the waste and non-stimulus spending in the stimulus bill, and completely agreed with him on it.

2) Criticized Obama for supposedly caving into foreign companies, Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the "Buy American" provision in the stimulus bill. Completely disagreed with him.

3) Had a report on the SCHIP bill, and the report noted two groups that opposed it- Republicans fearing that it would allow for illegal immigrants to receive medical attention (Democrats had rejected an amendment that would have required identification to receive health care) and a group representing lower income people opposing the $.62 cents increase in cigarette taxes. Of course, I agree with both of those groups.

Weird. Not that I plan to make Lou Dobbs a regular part of my listening habits though.

Thought of the day....

2009-02-05T11:53:00.000-08:00

What to do when your a libertarian and you're being subjected to false attacks:

If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

I haven't posted much recently because it feels worthless to go on and on against something that so many people think is needed. . .At my job I have been responsible for providing analysis and recommendations on the Smart Grid language in the stimulus bill and I have found it incredibly difficult to hide my utter disdain for the entire bill and process. We are simply replacing a debt-ridden consumer driving the economy with a debt-ridden government driving the economy- tell me how that's better?

Or, as Tom Coburn pointed out- "As a nation, we got into this mess by spending and investing money that didn't exist. We won't get out of it by doing more of the same. Yet this is precisely what this bill proposes we do. .... The bill's selling point is that three million jobs will be created or saved by this package. What's alarming is that each job will cost $286,000 to create or save. Moreover, one in five will be a government job."

Of course, it's no surprise that, according to Rasmussen, 26% of government employees think the stimulus bill will make things worse. I'm surprised the number is that high.

Maybe I'll start writing about this again. . .

In the meantime, apparently state employees that are being furloughed are eligible for partial unemployment benefits. I'm gonna guess the Governor's office didn't think of that. . .so, shouldn't pay just be cut across the board? Isn't that a more effective and efficient means of reducing government employee spending, instead of forcing 2 days a month furlough, which can then be recovered by the employee through unemployment benefits? Oh wait, silly me. . .the unions run this stuff, and unions don't care about the long-term health of any organization, except themselves.

Hall of Fame

2009-01-16T15:22:00.000-08:00

I want to congratulate Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice on their election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Henderson was named on 94.8% of the ballots- somehow 28 voters thought that Rickey Henderson was undeserving of their vote. Rice made it on his final ballot- players can only be on the ballot for 15 years, after that their case moves to the Veteran's Committee, which has come under fire since its controversial election of Bill Mazeroski in 2001; the Veteran's Committee has not elected a player since, despite the widespread public support for Ron Santo's induction.

Anyway, congratulations to both of them. I have been holding a sneaky suspicion that players from the 80s would be overlooked, other than the obvious ones, because of the rise in player statistics since 1993 expansion. So, while I tend to agree with those against electing Rice to the Hall of Fame, it's also nice to see that we aren't necessarily ignoring players' accomplishments as they were perceived at the time.

The next two highest vote totals belong to Andre Dawson (67%) and Bert Blyleven (62.7%). I would fully expect both of them to requisite 75% in the next few years. For Blyleven, induction is far overdue. Amongst the notable statistics in favor of Blyleven:

- At the time of retirement, Blyleven was 3rd all time with 3,701; he's been surpassed since by Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens. All other pitchers in the Top 20 are either in the Hall of Fame, will be in the Hall of Fame, or have a good argument to be in the Hall of Fame, except for one- Mickey Lolich.

- He has 242 complete games over 22 seasons. With the retirement of Greg Maddux, the active leader is Randy Johnson with 100.

- He has 60 shutouts, which ranks 9th all time; 9th!!!!!! The only other pitcher in the top 20 that's not in the Hall of Fame is Luis Tiant, and he had 49. The active leader is Randy Johnson with 37.

All of this is to say that how Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame is a mystery.

Anyway, with the election of Henderson and Rice, I can't help but look to see how's up for election next time. Of importance in the 2010 election are: Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez and, my favorite baseball player, Fred McGriff.

I realize that McGriff is probably a borderline, at best, Hall of Fame candidate. He didn't hit 500 home runs, and he isn't normally considered as one of the "dominant" first basemen of his time, often overshadowed by the likes of Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Jim Thome. His adjusted OPS+ is the same as Al Kaline and higher than Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, not to mention Rafael Palmeiro. He's top 50 in extra base hits and has more of them than Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Orlando Cepeda; he's only 11 behind Bagwell. He finished 6 times in the top 10 MVP voting, with 1 top 5 finish. For perspective, Jim Thome has 4 top 10 and only 1 top 5, Palmeiro has 3 top 10 and 0 top 5 and McGwire had 5 top 10 and 1 top 5. McGriff is in the top 40 of RBI's, 5 behind McCovey, ahead of Stargell, Bagwell, Thome, Rice, McGwire, and Cepeda. Basically, if McGriff had been playing in the 70's, he'd be almost automatic. However, he played in the 90s at the time of the explosion in offensive numbers.

What he didn't do? He didn't win an MVP, he never had a 40 HR season (he likely would have had that, along with his 500 career home runs had the 1994 season not been cut short due to the strike), but he did have a fairly lengthy and productive run. He hit 30 or more home runs in 7 straight seasons and 10 seasons total; he hit 20 or more in 15 of 16 straight seasons; the one blip- he hit 19 in 1998, but he followed that up 4 seasons of more than 27 home runs and over 100 RBI's. He was in All-Star in 5 seasons, winning the All Star Game MVP in 1994.

I will root for him to make the Hall of Fame, but while I think he'll hang around for his 15 years, I fear that he will ultimately fall short. That will be a shame- he quietly put up numbers, year after year, worthy of the Hall of Fame, only to be overshadowed by brighter names and numbers that may or may not have been aided by various substances. Not only that, but discussion of his merits for the Hall will likely continue to be overshadowed by a discussion as to the merits of Alomar and Larkin amongst those who write about this stuff. Even in retirement, he can't catch a break.

But none of that should diminish his contributions to baseball- after all, let's not forget that it was his trade to Atlanta in 1993 that galvanized the Braves forward into the playoffs as they beat the Giants by 1 game in what's called the last pennant race; or that Atlanta's one World Series title in the 90s came with him on the roster. And that's all without mentioning his fantastic nickname- the Crimedog, or his appearance endorsing the Tom Emanski videos.

So, here's to you Fred. Should you be lucky enough to join the Hall, I'll be there in Cooperstown, cheering you on. . .

Your Fan.

The next bailout?

2009-01-14T15:43:00.000-08:00

Apparently, it's the inauguration.

According to the article, President Bush has declared a State of Emergency in the District of Columbia so that the federal government can appropriate additional "emergency" funds to cover the skyrocketing costs of next week's inauguration. The extra money is to come out of FEMA's budget for this year. The Washington Post notes: "Officials said that the move reflected a post-Hurricane Katrina reform that allows the White House to predesignate areas that could become disasters, such as cities in the path of a hurricane."

I don't know which is funnier- having to bailout the inauguration or waiting this long before declaring D.C. a disaster area. What's more troubling is that the purported reason for bailing out the inauguration is that there's a belief that with so many people coming, D.C. will be unable to adequately protect its citizens. The White House noted that federal money will be available so that D.C. can institute protective measures "undertaken to save lives and protect public health and safety." I wonder how many cities, counties, and states will use that defense in asking for federal money to bail them out.

Downward spiral

2009-01-09T14:43:00.001-08:00

Here's a question:

As a state worker, at what point should I just stop caring?

Headline from the Sacramento Bee:

"State to shut down first and third Fridays each month"

Awesome.

Now, I work for the state, but my agency is not under the direct control of the Governor, so we are ostensibly exempt from the Governor's various orders on state employees. However, there are other areas where we are not, and if the legislature steps in and passes a law that says we are included, well then, I'll get a 3 day, unpaid weekend twice a month.

So, again I ask, at what point do I stop caring? And I don't mean to insinuate that my desire to do my job, or the fervor with which I care about the issues I work on suffer, just my desire to show up and be productive. About the only productive thing I'll be doing is updating my resume. That being said, I'll certainly take a reduction in pay if it means that I'll keep my job, and this furlough order is basically losing a month of pay over the year; I doubt that the union that supposedly represents my interests agrees with me though.

I won't go into a big, long post about the problems between the Democrats, Republicans and the Governor in Sacramento, there's been enough about that. What I will say is that we can't meet this deficit simply by raising taxes, all that will do is depress spending and production even more; of course, we can't meet this by cutting spending, government does play some role and have a purpose after all. Someone needs to be willing to find that middle ground. That's about all I really feel like talking about on this- it's a mess.

A mess of things

2009-01-07T10:45:00.000-08:00

In the course of yesterday's workday, two articles were brought to my attention, and I think it worthwhile to highlight them here.

The first is an article written by Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) for Slate. In it he argues that the proposed Obama stimulus package is flawed by focusing on transportation infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Rather, he argues that the money should be spent on "transformative" projects, and that roads and bridges are "not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically."

Spitzer believes that government spending would be better "spent on new investments that may not be quite as ready to go but are surely more important to our long-term economic viability." He then argues for government to spend money on installing smart electricity meters, coupled with additional smart grid investments (I'll get to this later), building new service stations that will be able to sell alternative fuels for automobiles, upgrade medical record-keeping, upgrade the internet "backbone", and fund "robotic teams" for schools. He concludes noting that "investing in the necessary public goods to support a post-hydrocarbon, information-based economy is a much better choice than using the stimulus to patch up the old economy."

There are two points I want to make about this article. One, he uses an analogy to the New Deal and says something surprising- "The New Deal probably didn't pull us out of the Depression; World War II did that. What the New Deal did was redefine the social contract—perhaps just as important an outcome." This is surprising because a) there is an admission that the New Deal may not have done what people still think it did and b) recognizes that the importance of the New Deal was not about the economy, but a government-run social engineering program. It is this social engineering aspect of the New Deal that Spitzer hopes Obama will emulate, and Spitzer argues that building new roads and bridges won't accomplish that. Needless to say, I think that government-sponsored social engineering is wrong and should be opposed at every turn. People should be given every chance to suceed and make the best of their lives, undoubtedly there are going to be people who choose not to use that chance and there are going to be people who find ways to better their odds; government should try to make a level playing field, but it is ultimately up to the individual to make their own choices, the government should not be stepping in and dragging the person along.

Second, in the section about smart meters he makes an unsurprising statement (but surprising for its breadth): "The problem with installation of smart meters has been both the cost and, often, state-by-state regulatory hurdles. Now is the moment to sweep both aside and transform our entire electricity market into a smart market." I agree that the problem of getting new meters installed are costs and state regulatory problems; but, we have a federalist system that gives a lot of power to the state. The second sentence is the breathtaking one- that the federal government should both pay for the meters and run roughshod over state sovereignty to accomplish this would be an extreme mis-use of federal authority. As someone who works on that issue, having the federal government step in and take control over this would be a huge mistake. I want smart meters in peoples' homes, but I want that decision and control to be left to the states. The federal government can incentivize this all they want, and they have been, but the ultimate decision should remain with the states.

I have been skeptical of each "stimulus" package that has been proposed, including the bailout packages approved last year. I remain wary of the long-term damage being done to the economy in order to focus on a short-term fix. Just today, the Congressional Budget Office released an estimate that the deficit for 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, with a T, and that does not include the spending in the proposed Obama stimulus package, which will reach nearly $800 billion. According to the article, "Democratic leaders in Congress described today's deficit announcement as stunning and warned of exploding debt in the future. But they said Congress must nevertheless pass a stimulus package quickly." In other words, yes, all this spending will likely cause untold damage in the future, but, in typical congressional fashion (that applies to both Republicans and Democrats), we'll deal with that later. The article estimates that if the Obama stimulus package is passed, the deficit will likely soar to $1.6 trillion, if not more. Astounding. I have little faith that the federal government will spending whatever batch of money that gets approved in the next stimulus package wisely or efficiently, despite having a "watch dog." That simply isn't what governments do.

The second article that warranted my attention was an amusing list of "Bad design trends we hope die in 2009" that was posted on the L.A. Times' web page. Number six is this statement:

CFLs: "To be green, you do not need to suffer with compact fluorescent bulbs, a light source that does not render color or texture and only turns on and off. Instead, do the planet a favor by using a combination of a halogen bulb, which does not use mercury or rare earth phosphors, and a dimmer. If you dim a halogen bulb to 50%, you will save over 40% energy and your light bulb can last more than 10 years."

The quote is attributed to a guy named Sean O'Connor from O'Connor Lighting. I find this fascinating that a) this somehow made it in the L.A. Times and b) why hasn't anyone made this argument before? All we get bombarded with is "Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs" and "Save money, Buy CFLs." When we moved into our new apartment in 2006, we filled the house with expensive CFLs that were supposed to pay itself back and last many years. Almost 3 years later, we've now had 4 CFL's burn out on us, and they can't simply be thrown into the trash because of their mercury content. And I really don't think that they have saved us as much money as promised. Of course, CFLs don't work with dimmers either. I can only wonder at what other energy efficiency tales the public has been sold on where other options are just as viable, but aren't as interesting. How much money has been wasted by consumers on products that ostensibly save money and reduce energy but are no better than what we already have. How much money and time has the government spent on devising rules when the market is already moving in that direction?

On that topic, I note the recent movement by the California Energy Commission to set up energy efficiency standards for televisions. In the article, the CEC already admits that 87% of television models (current and proposed) will meet the standards by 2011- so what's the point in making the standards to begin with? If the industry is already making them, and if consumers actively seek them out, then the remaining 13% will either not be sold, will be remade to meet market demands or will be bought by people who are willing to pay more on their energy bill. All three of them are valid market responses.

It is this type of government heavy-handedness that I fear will become more commonplace as we move into the next administration. The ability of the consumer to decide what they want will be pushed aside in favor of what the government says you should buy, all in the name of energy efficiency and the environment, regardless of the ultimate economics of it all.

Update- not 10 minutes after I posted this, I received an email from my friend Vansmack with a link to this article: "VIZIO Offers Complete Line of Energy Efficient LCD HDTVs." The important part of the article: "Currently, all VIZIO LCD HDTVs meet Energy Star 3.0 requirements for lower energy consumption. These seven new EcoHD(TM) models, however, exceed those standards by as much as 25%, which is good news for both the environment and value-conscious consumers."

Again, this simply points out that industry, tv makers and the market are already moving in the direction of making more energy efficient televisions.

Children flying=fun times!

2008-12-24T10:18:00.000-08:00

Got up bright and early this morning for my flight to Chicago- but, instead of having a nice and direct flight to Chicago, I have to go to LAX first, then onto Chicago. 3 fun events with children occurred on a 50 minute flight from SFO to LAX.

1) Row behind me, son threw up on himself, and mother had to get new pants. This was the same kid that the minute we took off, he said he had to go to the bathroom. I guess something was gonna come out one way or another.

2) Two rows in front of me, daughter threw up on herself and needed a new shirt. After we landed, she yelled back towards her mother and brother and said "I throwed up on myself!" She was very proud of it.

3) As we were beginning on descent into LAX, we had just passed over the L.A. Coliseum, a boy a few rows back (could have been #2's brother) started yelling "I can't hear!!!" He seemed very upset about it.

Predictably, my connection from LAX to Chicago is delayed due to weather, both here in L.A. (although it's currently only overcast) and in Chicago. Basically, the plane we are supposed to be on isn't here yet because of delays somewhere else. Even better, my flight is delayed 2 hours, but other flights to Chicago are only delayed 35 minutes; in fact, my flight will leave 1 hour after a flight that was originally scheduled for an hour after mine. Wrap that around your head for a second.

But, I'm not here to complain about the airlines.....children throwing up is much more interesting.

Merry Christmas

2008-12-23T12:48:00.000-08:00

I know, it's a few days early, but I'm leaving for Chicago tomorrow morning, provided the weather doesn't wreak havoc with those plans. Just wanted to tell everyone that I hope they have a very Merry Christmas.

I'll leave it to Linus to explain.....

Peterson out

2008-12-16T13:05:00.000-08:00

Finally. Carl Peterson is finally out as General Manager of the Kansas City Chiefs. I think that Peterson earned the 20 years as GM of the Chiefs, but these past 3-4 years have not been good- almost to the point that it appeared that the game had moved past him. While there were no Super Bowl appearances in that time, what Peterson (and owner Lamar Hunt) did during these 20 years of re-building the franchise was a task to which he should be satisfied and quite proud of.

For my wife's sake, I can only hope that Jerry Angelo is next- I mean, he took a lucky 13-3 season from Dick Jauron and turned it into a contract that he didn't deserve. Then fired Jauron the next season, brought in Lovie Smith, and still hasn't drafted a quality quarterback, a position that everyone in Chicago knows they need. Instead, he insisted that QB's like Jonathan Quinn, Cade McNown and Rex Grossman were sufficient. A trip to the Super Bowl, on the back of the defense, seemed to only blind him further. Finally, the best of what the Bears have, Kyle Orton, was allowed to start. And I haven't even gotten into the failures of their wide receivers. So, the Bears have a middling quarterback and no wide receivers.

Yet, the Bears are 8-6 and the Chiefs are 2-12. I should note that it is entirely plausible that the Chiefs could be 5-9, and be 5-1 in its division. Since Divison records don't count, except for tie-breaking purposes, how amazing would that have been to have a team only lose one division game, but not win any of their other games.

Laughing all the way

2008-12-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

From gas2.org:

Meanwhile, Michael Barone has an excellent article about how the U.S auto industry and unions have a failing relationship based on an out-dated labor relationship.

"Look at General Motors," Mickey Kaus writes, "and tell me that strong unions are good for the economy." But the Democratic Party is determined to shell out money to maintain Wagnerism in the U.S. auto companies and is committed to promoting Wagnerism by passing the card check bill, which will abolish secret-ballot unionization elections. They want to impose adversarial labor-management relations in large swathes of the private-sector economy that are, currently, in healthier condition than the Detroit Three. Does that sound like a good idea?

Look what I missed

2008-12-09T12:05:00.001-08:00

A flamethrower in my neighborhood:

Man wielding homemade flamethrower arrested
By Will Reisman
Examiner Staff Writer 12/9/08

SAN FRANCISCO – An amateur pyrotechnician was arrested by police last weekend after staging an impromptu fire show in the Sunset District during the early morning hours.
At 3 a.m. on Saturday at the 800 block of Judah Street, police found a 31-year-old man standing on the top of a pickup truck while wielding a homemade flamethrower that was shooting balls of fire four feet into the air, according to Capt. Paul Chignell of the Taraval Police Station.

The man had obtained a couple of cylindrical tanks, possibly containing propane, and connected them with hoses to a metal outlet that directed the flames, Chignell said. Each time the man pulled the device’s trigger, a spout of fire would erupt.

“This guy had a yellow fireman’s jacket on and was just randomly shooting flames into the air,” Chignell said.

Neighbors frightened by the display called the police, who arrested the man on counts of wielding an explosive device on a public street and possessing a flammable device with intent to maliciously use it, Chignell said.

The man offered up no explanation for what he was doing, said Chignell. No one was injured in the incident, but Chignell said the suspect’s bizarre behavior put a lot of nearby residents at risk.

“Obviously, the potential for damage is pretty incredible with a rigging like this,” said Chignell. “Sometimes you just have to wonder what some people are thinking.”

Wish I could have seen that. . .

And speaking of you have to wonder what some people are thinking, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested today for, amongst other things, trying to sell the Senate seat that belonged to Barack Obama and trying to get various members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board fired in exchange for access to state money in the sale of Wrigley Field (the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field). One can only hope that Charlie Rangel is next.

And finally, apparently three minors that were convicted of a home invasion and beating an elderly woman will be attending Obama's inaguration. So, three minors found guilty of beating an old lady and entering her home and were sent to a youth rehabilitation camp are now being fitted for tuxedo's and will be flown to D.C. to attend the inaguration. That's a great use of tax payer funds, not to mention an excellent opportunity to showcase that California does not really care about punishing criminals, instead, they send them off to D.C. to party. That'll learn 'em!

Philly

2008-12-08T15:35:00.001-08:00

Had an overall enjoyable time in Philly. And was greeted with snow on Saturday. One day on the East Coast, one day with snow, which was nice.

The old gang, plus spouses (except for me, mine stayed back home since she's about the embark on a month-long tour of duty in Illinois- the plus for her is that she gets to stay with her family the entire time) got together for dinner at Marrakesh, in an alley just off of South Street. The food was really good. . .It's a 7 course meal and you use your hands to eat. We were running a bit late, so we started getting two courses at a time, which was a treat for me- lamb and cumin-spiced chicken? Yes please!

After dinner, we then headed for the Trocadero to see Dean and Britta and Mercury Rev. We got there just as Dean and Britta were setting up and had our pick of the floor, since the place was pretty empty. They played 7 songs, including Galaxie 500's "Snowstorm" and a cover of New Order's "Ceremony." Alas, it was only 7 songs. I've listened to their cd's, and they sound very little like Luna, but live, it sounded alot like Luna. They got really going after a song or two. I asked Dean afterwards when they would be coming back to San Francisco, and he said sometime in February. We missed them when they came through earlier this year, and I don't intend to miss them this next time for a full set.

Mercury Rev came on next. I've seen them twice before, but I don't recall the shows being so loud. And I mean loud. My left ear is still suffering the effects of it. Jonathan, the lead singer, came out with a dazed look on his face, from which I can only assume is the product of some under-the-counter medication, as we called it in high school. What struck me was that the live version of the songs really were nothing like the cd version, for at least the new stuff. The new cd's are very trancy and electronic, but live they were all loud and bombastic. The songs off of Deserters' Songs, however, retained the original feel- less bombast, more drone and very pretty. Unfortunately, they did not play anything off the first album; I was secretly hoping for "Car Wash Hair" with Dean playing guitar (Dean's credited with guitar on the album liner).

I won't say it was a bad show. . .it just wasn't what I had been expecting. And if I had seen that show 6 years ago, I would have loved it. To me, however, it seemed like Mercury Rev realized that they somehow missed the Flaming Lips/Radiohead love fest. They are that band in between the two- building noise soundscapes, but just missing something that would have put them alongside the other two. I love Deserter's Songs, and think it can sit comfortably next to "The Soft Bulletin," yet somehow, The Soft Bulletin got everyone's attention. Deserter's Songs ranked 76 in Pitchfork's Top 100 albums of the 1990s, where OK Computer was 1, The Soft Bulletin was 3, and Spiritualized's "Ladies and Gentleman We Are Floating in Space" was 55.

Anyway. . .the next day went to cheesesteak central, and decided to go with Geno's. It was good. . .got it "wit Whiz", which means with onions and cheese whiz. Yeah, cheese whiz. That's definitely the way to go. My wife will no doubtedly note that avoided the whiz option a number of occasions, but once I went whiz, I couldn't go back. Geno's is across the street from Pat's, and they have a friendly rivalry. Geno's is also famous for having signs asking people to order in english. And their don't see french fries, they still came them Freedom Fries. Anyway, the steak was delicious- the whiz gives it just enough salty goodness to match the onions and fattiness from the steak. As I told my friend, "This is a perfect hang-over meal."

We next headed to the Reading Terminal Market which is an indoor farmer's market/public market that's been around since 1892. Being a Sunday, not every counter and stall was open (I particularly missed not being able to check out the Pennsylvania Dutch section), but we got a good enough sampling of the products to know that if I lived in Philly, I would be there alot. There are several cheese counters, meat counters, fish counters, a beer garden, cook book stalls and dessert counters. After that, my friend dropped me off at the airport, and I waited for my flight back home.

All in all, even though we only got 40 minutes of Dean and Britta, it was definitely worth the effort to fly out and see old friends. Moving to San Francisco now requires an effort for us to see old friends who are still back on the East Coast, and know that we have real friends when that effort is reciprocated. Maybe I was a bit too nostaligic with my earlier post, but it really did have that feel, coupled with an acceptance that we have all moved on with our lives. It wasn't sad by any means, just a knowing that we all have a bond, and even though we are progressing with our lives, we still have the bond and those memories.

I started and finished Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" on the flight, and I plan to have a posting about it soon.

Backlash

2008-12-08T12:18:00.000-08:00

No Mob Veto

This is an interfaith organization put together by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that "defend[s] the right of religious people and organizations to speak out on the issue—whatever their viewpoint—without fear of intimidation or violent retribution."

The First

2008-12-05T21:57:00.000-08:00

I'm in Philadelphia this weekend, hanging out with some old D.C. friends going to see what's left of a band we used to see at least 3 times a year back then: Dean and Britta. Dean and Britta were the guitarist and bassist for the band Luna- well, Britta was the second bassist. The first bassist, Justin, left after Pup Tent came out because he wanted to move back to his native New Zealand. Anyway, Luna broke up several years ago, but Dean and Britta, now married, have continued on as duo. They are opening up for Mercury Rev here on the East Coast. So, a group of us are meeting this weekend in Philly to go to the show. I would have been alright but for on the flight from Dallas to Philly, we flew right over D.C. There in the night, I could see D.C. all lit up- I could trace the outline of Haines Point, follow the Potomac up and see where the Anacostia splits, and I could make out the Mall. At that point, something stirred in me- something I was hoping to keep down: nostalgia.

Nostalgia is a cruel feeling. It's a feeling of knowing how something used to be, and, no matter how good things are going now, feeling that if you hadn't made a certain choice, it would be better. In my case, my wife and I left D.C. for San Francisco. We left our friends, our jobs, and our old lives. I lived in D.C. for 8 1/2 years, from 22 through 30- and I had a great time. But, I'm always the first to leave. In college, I was the first of my friends to finally leave Waco, and everyone knew it was going to be me. The first year in D.C., I knew, really, really knew, that I should have stayed in Waco. There was no real reason why I felt like that, it's just something that I did. That's nostalgia. The sepia toned memories of days gone past- sitting on the front porch with friends drinking; going to concerts every night, and knowing one of the bartenders who gives you free drinks; just living the day. It's always easier to live in the past; the present is full of so many things- money, jobs, real relationships. Nostalgia just glosses over those things, and focuses on the good times.

I got in my friends' car at the airport, and one of the first things I said was "Are we in the city yet"? It's a meaningless statement, but there's an association to it. Was in Philly many years ago, with most of the same people this weekend, and one of the running jokes was this line- Are we in the city yet. It was funny the first time it was said, but we just kept saying it. Now, I just say it both to annoy and to be funny. It's just what we say. But none of us are where we used to be. We are all older, married, and either pregnant or soon to be pregnant. We can't go back. Instead, we try to relive the good times- driving to Philly for a Luna show (or Flaming Lips or Guided by Voices), say the same funny lines, and do the same stupid stuff. We are supposed to be wiser, yet, we do our best to recreate those times.

Living in California these past almost 3 years, and coming back to the east coast in December, we had to pull out the pea coat, and dig around for the hat and gloves. Landed and it was 30 degrees- a far cry from the 62 in San Francisco. I miss the cold. I always liked the cold, and winter cold is different than San Francisco cold. Winter cold is dry and hits you deep- you take a breath, and you can feel it in your lungs, and it shivers you from within. San Francisco cold is a humid, wet and windy cold- like walking into a 60 degree sauna, then someone turning on the fan. The moisture on your skin is cold, then it hits you with a wind that moves through you and seeps through your clothes. When I lived in D.C., I would live for the cold mornings, walking from my apartment to the Metro station. Pea coat, gloves, hat and scarf; I walk outside, take a deep breath and slowly exhale. I always knew that I was never meant to stay in D.C., I always knew that I should enjoy and live each moment in D.C. I'd walk to Union Station and run my fingers along the walls, hoping that I would be able to remember the rough texture of the walls and columns. I would walk and always try to see the Capitol, even though we had a view of the Capitol from our apartment. Heck, sometimes in our apartment, I'd just stare out the window, amazed that I had a view of the Capitol, amazed that I could just look out the window and see it; see something that millions of people everyday visit, there it was, right out my window.

I live with nostalgia. Every so often, I ride the 21 bus from the Richmond to work, and it goes right past Alamo Square. It's a tremendous view of the city. When I ride the 5, there's an ever so quick glimpse of the city with Marin in the background. Sometimes, and I can do this because I have a monthly Muni pass, I just ride the cable cars because I can; I listen to the ringing of the bell, the shuddering up or down a hill, the creaking of the wood, and the views of the city.

We all associate things, people, places and events with our past. Once it's gone, we try to relive it. I know that I live with this, and I plan for nostalgia before it even happens. When I left Waco for D.C., I had been planning what song to play as I drove out of town (REM- Nightswimming). I was already nostalgic for leaving a place I hadn't left yet. I did that with college and I did that with D.C. And I'm doing that with San Francisco, even though I grew up in the Bay Area.

So, this weekend will be full of nostalgia. Seeing concert going friends, going to a concert for a members of band we would travel far and wide to go see (and we did), and moving on. Nostalgia is a funny thing. It tricks you, but you don't want to leave it. It brings on memories of supreme contentment and joy. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe it's just me.

Maybe I need to watch Noah Baumbach's Kicking and Screaming again. Max, played by Christopher Eigeman has a line- "I'm nostalgic for conversations I had yesterday. I've begun reminiscing events before they even occur." I think my college friends always associated me with another character in that movie, but for some reason, I've always associated myself with Max. Maybe I'm just nostalgic about watching that movie, and how it just fit perfectly with my friends and our "what do we do when we graduate" feelings. Whatever it was, it's still with me. It's the same way how certain songs we associate with certain people, events or times in our lives. I'm comfortable with my nostalgia. . .I want to remember events and places, but I do not let it define me.

Nostalgia. . .here I come. I must keep my nostalgia before it turns into a simple remembrance.

Random sighting from Black Friday

2008-12-03T17:03:00.000-08:00

My mom, sister and niece were in town for Thanksgiving, but my sister and niece were with my dad in San Jose from Thursday night through Saturday morning, leaving me, wife and my mom to go out shopping on Black Friday. I won't regale you with what we bought, but just wanted to share one random and thoroughly inexplicable price we saw.

We stopped at Babies R Us on Friday to show my mom what we had registered for our baby. As we were walking around, we came across the high chairs. There was one high chair with a red clearance sign on the price. The clearance price was $299.98; the regular price was $299.99. The clearance price was only 1 cent less than the regular price. I don't think that price is what many people would consider a clearance price.

Otherwise, shopping on Friday was fine. The only problem was with Best Buy who re-arranged their store in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to navigate around. Came out of the day with a few purchases that basically served as our Christmas presents. As the Target lady would say: SUCCESS!

Milk

2008-12-03T14:56:00.000-08:00

In one of my previous postings, I went on and on about government stepping in and doing things about food and schools. Last Sunday, the Chicago Tribune had an article about what schools are doing in regards to milk. Yeah, milk. Basically, various schools throughout the Chicagoland area are doing different things to milk- some are adding flavors that contain nutrients, others are banning those same enhancers. The concern surrounding these two views boil down to obesity. Adding flavor enhancers, such as chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, come with a certain amount of increased fat and sugar, compared with non-flavored low-fat or skim milk otherwise being offered. So, the question becomes- to what extent do we want children to drink milk?

"We would prefer children drink unflavored milk, but it's better for them to drink flavored milk than no milk at all," said spokeswoman Jean Daniel of the federal Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services agency."

The second part of the article is also interesting, but for different reasons. I just finished reading Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" and in it he makes two points about milk:

1) To make low fat dairy products, producers remove the fat, but then add powdered milk to bring back the texture of milk. However, powdered milk contains oxidized cholesterol, possibly worse than regular cholesterol.

2) "Removing the fat in milk makes it that much harder for your body to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins that are one of the reasons to drink milk in the first place."

The Chicago Tribune article notes that schools are moving towards only selling skim milk, again, the idea being the fat in whole milk may lead to increased obesity rates, just like having chocolate milk or other flavored milks. It notes that the Chicago Public Schools "stopped offering whole milk out of concern for the added calories and fat." The other reasoning behind moving to skim, according to the article, is that skim costs less than whole. So, even though skim milk has less fat content than whole milk, thereby "fighting obesity," children lose valuable other naturally-occurring vitamins and nutrients that instead must be added in at a later point, at a potential higher-risk then if you had just left the milk alone in the first place. This does not really seem to me to be a positive step forward in improving school nutrition.

The fat argument, which Pollan devotes some significant attention to, is very interesting, and shows just how far the belief that fat is a negative for the body, despite recent evidence to the contrary. Pollan quotes from a 2001 Harvard School of Public Health study that concludes:

"It is now increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences."

Strong stuff, no? But I bet most people have never heard of these findings. Pollan goes on to point out that due to the limitations in scientific research, we are unable to pin-point the exact chemical processes that our body does when digesting food. Science wants to know the effect of one nutrient at the time and is unable to take the whole into account, so, we end up with low-fat statements that aren't based on any scientific reasoning, not to mention that our body does need fat. Do we need an 18 oz porterhouse steak worth of it, maybe not, although it does taste good.

Anyway, I have an idea for schools to combat obesity. . .recess. Let children run around and play, fall down, scratch their knees, play games, have winners and losers; in other words, let them be children. In the Fifth Grade, my elementary school prohibited running during recess for fear that one child would knock down another one. If you were seen running, you were marked down and would not be allowed the one extra recess period a month; instead, you had to stay in class and be quiet. That doesn't seem very wise, especially for that age group.

I have no doubt that I will be an annoyance at PTA meetings and parent/teacher conferences. I'll be the parent that sends my child to school with cupcakes and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and a box of whole milk to wash it all down with.

South Park

2008-12-03T10:59:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking a lot about South Park recently, specifically, their most recent election episode. In it, the people of South Park have split between Obama supporters and McCain supporters, and when Obama wins, the Obama supporters go wild, turning over police cars, drinking heavily in the streets, and simply riot throughout the town. The McCain supporters, on the other hand, stay in their houses and bring out their guns to defend themselves. As the episode progresses, McCain supporters flee for their "Arc"
which is cave in the mountain where they can wait out the night. One of the Obama supporters is Stan's dad, Randy. Overcome with joy about Obama winning, he goes on a bender yelling "woooo, change!" He gets so drunk, he confronts his boss, also an Obama supporter, and yells profanities at him and other abusive comments, all the while interspersing, "wooo, change!"

The next morning, the McCain supporters come out of their hiding place and find the world is still there, and nothing much has changed. They then wonder, hmmm, the world is still here, maybe it won't be so bad after all. Randy wakes up the next morning with no pants. His wife hands him the phone and tells him his boss is on the line- his boss fires him. Randy doesn't understand because Obama was supposed to bring change. So he goes crazy because he got fired (wooo, change!!!) and can't find his pants. He then says "I should have voted for McCain."

I bring this up because the residents' reaction is almost exactly what's happened since November 4. Republicans have found that Obama's selections are exceedingly reasonable. In her Chronicle column today, Debra Saunders compares Obama's picks to the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, with Obama being Capt. Picard. On the war issue, Saunders notes that "Obama understands that if Iraq collapses after U.S. troops are withdrawn, then it won't matter who started the war. America loses, and he loses." The one nominee that is bugging the right is Eric Holder, primarily because of his role in the Marc Rich pardon.

Even moreso is today's Michael Gerson column in the Washington Post. While Gerson does play down these appointments: "It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant." As well as the threat of Congress flexing its muscles and trying to pull Obama to the far left. But what I want to point out about the Gerson column is the following:

Obama's appointments reveal something important about current Bush policies. Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy -- Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach.

This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies -- without getting much bipartisan support. The transition between Bush and Obama is smoother than some expected, not merely because Obama has moderate instincts but because Bush does as well. Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.

The candidate of "change" is discovering what many presidents before him have found: On numerous issues, the range of responsible policy options is narrow. And the closer you come to the Oval Office, the wiser your predecessors appear.

Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content.

His transition has seen the return of a pack of Clintonistas -- Lawrence Summers, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel -- prompting talk of Bill Clinton's third term. Some of this is unavoidable. Governing experience generally gathers in the stagnant pools of past administrations.

But the resurrection of Clintonism is more pronounced because Obamaism is so wispy and indistinct. Obama brings no cadre of passionate reformers with him to Washington -- no ideological vision cultivated in think tanks for decades. Instead, he has turned to experience and competence in his appointments -- which often means returning to the Clinton era. Experience is vital, especially in avoiding rookie mistakes.

So, while those in the middle and to the right get to breathe a sigh of relief, so far, with Obama's cabinet picks, although I'm not a Tom Daschle fan, the left gets its apologists. Gerson points out that Obama cannot simply wave a wand and undo what Clinton and Bush have done with foreign policy, taxes and trade. In order to lead like he claims he wants to, from the middle, Obama had to find those people, and they are old Clinton hands. He had to realize that he simply couldn't put progressives into high ranking places, or else risk having a Republican revolt in Congress, especially now that Democrats can't reach 60 in the Senate to cut off a filibuster. So, we get Obama the moderate, and progressives must put their faith in Congress leaders like Harry Reid, who is thankful for the new Capitol Visitors Center so that he will no longer have to smell them coming his way.

In a column yesterday, David Sirota wrote to calm down progressives who don't see much if any progressives in Obama's picks. Sirota notes that

"[Obama] figured out that because many "progressive" institutions are merely Democratic Party appendages and not ideological movement forces, he could build his own movement. He succeeded in that endeavor thanks to the nation's Bush-inspired desire for change, his own skills and a celebrity-obsessed culture.

Though many Obama supporters feel strongly about particular issues, and though polling shows the country moving left, the Obama movement undeniably revolves around the president-elect's individual stardom — and specifically, the faith that he will make good decisions, whatever those decisions are."

He then concludes with "Sure, we should be thankful when Dear Leader's whims serve the people — but also unsurprised when they don't."

That is all to say, "Hey, our man is in the White House, and of course you shouldn't expect change from day one." Or, as Glenn Greenwald put it- "So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered."

I have been very relieved by who Obama has put around his, especially on spending, trade and taxes (although, this report about Rep. Xavier Becerra being offered the job of U.S. Trade Representative does offer some initial concerns). Obama increasingly appears to understand that increasing taxes during difficult economic times is a bad idea. For example, today comes word that his transition web page no longer calls for a windfall tax on oil profits, despite his pledge during the campaign to institute one; my how things change so quickly. So, he's already sliding back on removing troops from Iraq, he's removed the mandatory volunteer program, he's keeping both Petraeus and Gates, and now he's removed instituting a windfall taxon oil profits. As my co-worker noted: And people thought they were voting against a third Bush term.

Food police

2008-11-21T15:08:00.000-08:00

My one long-time reader will no doubt note my opposition to government interference in just about all things. . .in light of that, I'd direct ones attention to this article from Wednesday's New York Times. The article tackles the question of food nutrition guidelines issued by states, such as California, and the various results resulting from these bans.

The old-fashioned school bake sale, once as American as apple pie, is fast becoming obsolete in California, a result of strict new state nutrition standards for public schools that regulate the types of food that can be sold to students. The guidelines were passed by lawmakers in 2005 and took effect in July 2007. They require that snacks sold during the school day contain no more than 35 percent sugar by weight and derive no more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and no more than 10 percent of their calories from saturated fat.

My larger problem with these guidelines is that they often address the wrong aspect of eating- it's not the nutrient, it's the portion. What that means is that, instead of having a bake sale, where teams can sell cupcakes, cookies and other tasty items, all made at home, kids are left with "healthy" alternatives, such as Snackwells and other sweets that satisfy these ridiculous rules, but don't address the underlying problem. If you eat a ton of Snackwells, you're still gonna get fat.

I understand the desire of policy makers to want to have "healthy" alternatives to sugary foods, the problem is that either the alternatives are actually worse for you, or they simply do away with it altogether. That is comprised in this wacky statement- “I don’t think all celebrations need to be around food,” said Ann Cooper, the director of nutrition services for the Berkeley school district. “We need to get past the mentality of food used for punishment or praise.”

Without getting all anthropological here, food is often a large part of celebrations- we are about the celebrate one of the biggest food-based celebrations of the year with Thanksgiving. The second point also needs to be addressed. For years now, parents, teachers and administrators have been operating in a state of fear- that is, they are afraid to show failure. That's why you have sporting events where scores aren't kept, there are no losers and everyone gets a prize. That's also why you have rules that say teachers can't use red ink to correct student papers because of the stigma supposedly attached to red ink in schools. This is all ridiculous.

Furthermore, for anyone who has read Rousseau's "Emile," food is the center of one of Rousseau's classic examples of motivating a student- in order to get his student to exercise, Rousseau instead makes the whole event about the food instead of the exercise. Emile has to run to get the cake- to Emile, it's all about the cake, to Rousseau, it's about the exercise.

In any event, this study comes to a conclusion that bans on sugary drinks shows little effect on consumption. The study followed students in high schools in Maine. The conclusion reached by the study is "Researchers found that over one school year, students in both groups of schools cut down on their average daily intake of sugary drinks -- but there was no evidence that the school soda bans led to greater reductions." In other words, over the 9 month school year, students across the board reduced their consumption of sugary drinks, regardless of whether those drinks were available in their school. The study does posit one possible reason as to why the study came to its result: "According to Blum, keeping such drinks out of teenagers' reach during school hours may not be enough. School appears to be just one source of sugar-sweetened beverages for youth," she said, "and it may be that an educational component...is needed to have an effect on consumption from sources other than school."

It is obvious that the researcher is referring to the home. And that is a dangerous step. This study draws a line between tv advertising and childhood obesity. It advocates for a ban on food-related commercials- nevermind a blatant constitutional free speech problem. How a commercial causes a child to get obese is beyond me- the child is not responsible for feeding themselves, rather, it's parents that take the child there. In other words, both studies rightly implicate the role of parents in providing for their children, yet both stop short of the logical conclusion from both of their studies- that only through government involvement can children be rightly protected from the supposed failings of their parents to feed them "correctly."

The problem with that is, of course, that the government knows what it's doing, which is questionable. Consumers are inundated with information, per government direction, about food quality and what nutrients are best, and the government simply muddles all of that through a variety of ways, including through farm subsidies (wanna know why corn syrup is in everything we eat, thank corn subsidies, a long-running program that debuted during the New Deal). We have lost our connection to our food, and well-meaning programs, like bans based on nutrients, only pushes us further away from that connection. Instead of using some common-sense approach to food, such as realizing the benefits of home-made food, using food as a celebration or even encouraging moderation, we are instead propagating beliefs that nutrients matter, and not the food itself. That as long as something has been genetically engineered to be fat-free, sugar-free, trans-fat free, low-fat, low-carb or whatever, we are to be secure in the knowledge that it's "healthy," at least as defined by the government.

This is a 1998 article from Newsweek that is about Olestra, a fat-free alternative that is used in the production of potato chips. It was declared safe by the FDA, yet the article notes:

As it moves through the gut, it attracts fat-soluble nutrients and carries them out of the body. Those nutrients include vitamins A, D, E and K and some carotenoids, which are substances found in fruits and vegetables that help protect against heart disease and many cancers. Olestra chips are fortified with the four vitamins to make up for the depletion--but the lost carotenoids are not replaced. ....

Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that if consumption of olestra snacks becomes widespread, Americans may experience up to 50,000 more cases of cancer and heart disease every year. P&G calls the estimates ""ridiculous'' and says that olestra affects carotenoids only when olestra is eaten with fruits and vegetables.

So, olestra was approved a safe, and is being used as a fat-free way to produce potato chips, yet it extracts various vitamins from the body (but the product has been engineered to replace those lost vitamins), but the maker says that will only happen if they eat it with fruit and vegetables. Incredible! Oh, and another side effect is that some people can't digest olestra properly causing diarrhea (that would be me- the same thing happens if I have too much soy, depending on how it's refined). But, it's fat free, and that's all that really matters.

The Newsweek article continues with this illuminating paragraph:

Despite its drawbacks, olestra will surely appeal to the millions of Americans who are dieting, or wish they were. But nothing in the history of American eating habits backs up the assumption that reduced-calorie foods guarantee weight loss. Artificial sweeteners have long been a household staple, while consumption of sugar soars. Similarly, we're eating more reduced-fat foods than ever these days, yet our total consumption of fat has barely changed since 1991. Meanwhile, more than half of all American adults are overweight or obese. Many factors contribute to the national girth, including an all-food-all-the-time lifestyle and an aversion to exercise, but what's indisputable is that SnackWells are not making us skinny.

Finally, the article concludes with a startlingly prescient statement- "Products like olestra chips feed a different hunger than the one for food. Will they do any harm if you eat just a handful now and then? Nope. And neither will regular chips."

There it is, advice from 1998 that seemingly is still falling on deaf ears, even though Michael Pollan, for one, is doing a lot to change that- it's not about the nutrients, it's about the portion. I will say that while I do believe that banning artificial trans-fat is a worthwhile cause, both because of the dangers inherent in artificial trans-fat and because who really wants to eat something that was created in a lab and can engineer in and out whatever you like (this is why I don't use margarine), the larger issue isn't the trans-fat themselves, but how much one eats. If combating obesity truly is the goal of all these programs, then encouraging the government to go nutrient-by-nutrient, what Pollan calls nutritionism, is the wrong way. We should be educating children about whole foods, about our role in the food chain, a better respect for our food, and making our food. Banning certain nutrients because some government pol says it's bad is short-sighted, and, as the NY Times article explains, takes us away from our role in making food. Banning cupcakes from schools for childrens' birthdays is a useless exercise that does nothing but unnecessarily punish the child for being a child- let them have their home-made cupcake. Let there be food-based fund-raisers. Let there be multi-cultural food fairs to raise money. Quite simply- let there be food.

A Response

2008-11-20T14:16:00.000-08:00

In the comments to my last post, my friend at Pave The Whales took me to task for insinuating that Democrats are mindless idiots. My post was simply to point out that despite all the rhetoric that Dear Leader read from on high during the campaign was just that- rhetoric. Yet, the public ate it up like manna from heaven, believing in Obama, to the point of this woman claiming that Obama will pay her rent and put gas in her car.

My criticism of Obama's rhetoric is that either he's simply feeding lines to the public to get them to vote for him and has no intention of following through on it; or he does mean what he says, and how could the public knowingly vote for someone who is positioned to repeat the same failed policies from the 30s. Instead, it appears that all the american public digested was hope and change, hope and change, hope and change. I argued that hope is not a strategy and his change is something we cannot afford. Based on these initial picks, plus the belief that Secretary of Defense Gates is likely to stay through this first several months, the only change that's apparent is that Obama is looking to rewind the clocks to 1992. I will retain the hope that Obama does not attempt to recreate a New New Deal and the disaster that accompanied those policies (As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said- "A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years."); instead, he will realize that increasing taxes in a panic or recession is bad policy.

Do I think the public made the wrong choice- that's pretty apparent by my defense of John McCain. I also do think that the public fell in love with a voice and an image- I mean, this country gave Paris Hilton 3 years of The Simple Life, plus another show where she is looking for a new best friend. We have short attention spans and are wowed by shiny objects. So, my posts aren't necessarily directed at Democrats, per se; there are plenty of policy arguments where both sides have reasonable positions. My posts, rather, are directed at the folly of Obama supporters who believed in his rhetoric; Obama is nothing more than a politician, an extremely calculating politician who knew what to say to get elected, and appears to realize that he can't govern from his prior positions. Further, my posts should be a relief to Obama supporters. While I may characterize the supporters one way, I am beginning to come around to the belief, shared by both Instapundit and Knowledge Problem, that is best summed up by The Who line- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Instead, my biggest concern continues to lay with Congressional Democrats, and I will make my concerns and opposition known.

Anyway, I will make no apologies for the tenor of my posts- the right has every bit the ability and right to take on the left and make pointed remarks. This ability is not the sole domain of Huffington Post or DailyKos or TPM.

I can't help it.

2008-11-20T10:25:00.000-08:00

From today's L.A. Times comes this quote:

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

And what is this person so concerned about?

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

You mean, gasp, Obama might not actually pull troops out of Iraq at the rate he promised during the campaign? You mean that Obama might not have actually meant what he said during the campaign? Noooo.......You mean, that. . .Obama might just be . . . a politician? NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

In other news comes word that, "President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts." I do find it amusing that Eric Holder (U.S. Attorney for D.C. under President Clinton), Rahm Emanuel (Senior Advisor to President Clinton), and Hillary Clinton are three early names to come out in an Obama Cabinet. It's like the missing third Clinton term Democrats have been waiting for. I will say that if we do get a third Clinton term, I hope its the foreign policy/economic version (the era of big government is over and all that) and not the social policy side- although, I guess the pick of Tom Daschle as HHS tempers my hope about that. According to the above article, Daschle's criticism of Clinton's attempt at health care reform in his first term is that it went into too much detail. Yes, that's exactly what we don't need- details.

Change you can believe in.

Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the elevation of Rep. Henry Waxman to the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, dethroning John Dingell, who had been the top Democrat on that Committee for 28 years. Basically, this is all about energy and the environment and how Congressional Democrats have thrown themselves down in front of the altar of Environment. With Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey in positions of leadership on climate change, and Sen. Boxer chairing the Senate Environment Committee, the next two years will be sure to feature prostrate Democrats chanting the mantra "Green, Green, Green" at the expense of the american public. Obama has already promised the raised electricity bills, by shutting down coal plants and requiring increases in expensive renewable projects- all at government say-so, without looking into whether or not it makes economic sense to do so. A co-worker of mine has a rote statement- Why quibble with -insert issue- when you can save the planet. For example, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. issued a report that noted “We are concerned that, when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system.” In other words, since renewable energy, like wind and solar, are intermittent, they cannot be relied upon to provide a reliable energy service; and if the U.S. starts requiring a certain percentage of power to come from these unreliable sources, we're likely to see failures across the energy grid. Basically, we are exchanging cheap, reliable, baseload power for expensive, unreliable, intermittent power. . .what a victory for American ratepayers.

I can only imagine the mischief that is to result over the next 2 years with energy and environmental issues being handled by High Priests of Environment.

Bush's last stand

2008-11-12T10:52:00.000-08:00

Obama met with President Bush a few days ago to talk about bailing out the auto industry. According to the article,

Bush has drawn his line at the automakers' doors, having already been forced to shelve the free-market principles of his Republican Party to bail out the financial industry over the past two months. But Republicans say he would acquiesce in aid to automakers in return for Congress's ratification of the Colombia pact and pending trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.

I hope that Bush gets away with this. . .If there really is one group that should not receive government assistance, other than the airlines, it's the auto industry. As much as the Democrats think they can call Bush's bluff and that he won't let GM fail, how much are the Democrats willing to let GM fail instead of passing the Colombia, Panama and South Korea free trade agreements. Democrats are simply serving the desire of two of their largest constituents: labor and environmentalists. Instead of serving the, you know, American public, they are already letting special interests dictate policy.

It would be far better for the American auto industry to cut jobs, cut production and stand up to the unions and negotiate wage cuts. Instead, they're plowing through cash, keeping their middle management, not working with the unions, not cutting production, but they are asking for more money to keep operating. And that includes increasing spending on the Volt, despite its own precarious economic position.

Let GM fail. Detroit has been unable or unwilling to move ahead in designing the cars or building more fuel efficient cars, in the face of increased demand for fuel efficient cars. GM is asking for $50 billion in federal aid.

How much longer will the American people be forced to bail out another industry, another company, that failed to do their job. Haven't we all learned enough? First, we had the housing industry, propped up on mortgages that shouldn't have been issued to people that had no business owning a home; then we moved on to the banks that bought up these mortgages, on promises of continued and future increases in property values; then we have AIG, I can't even explain what caused us to bail out AIG, which has now increased from an initial $85 billion to $150 billion. Lehman was allowed to fail, and the government facilitated a number of other takeovers. Now the automakers want a piece of the bank bailout pie. Let them fail.

President Bush should hold out. He should not cave into the demands of Congressional Democrats, union leaders or the auto industry. The auto industry fought long and hard against various fuel efficiency measures, had a protector in Rep. John Dingell, not to mention the various Democrats who are beholden to unions, which also opposed the fuel efficiency measures, and are now left holding the bag because they built cars that the american public doesn't want, and can't buy. I don't begrudge them for trying to fight the fuel efficiency measures, I begrudge them because they failed to heed the market demand for such cars. They wanted to play by their rules, and when their rules turned on them, they come begging for a handout so they can do what they should have done 3 years ago. At some point, the government is going to have to say no more- we will not be saving businesses that failed to change with the market; you made your decisions, and we will not help you.

As Thomas Friedman noted today, not all auto companies are having a hard time- Honda recently opened a new production facility in Canada. Yet, it's the American auto industry that's having a hard time. The auto industry wants money to keep it afloat, it wants money to help it move to more fuel efficient cars, it wants money to help pay its terrible union contracts, and it wants money to keep paying the salaries of all its middle management.

Congressional Democrats and Pres-elect Obama are simply shilling for the unions, under the guise of unemployment and "too big to fail" arguments. President Bush should hold out. The auto industry, and GM in particular, should be subject to the laws of supply and demand and the cruel hand of the market, just like everyone else.

To the No on 8 crowd

2008-11-06T11:20:00.001-08:00

I have some advice for you- stop running to the courts.

Now, I don't say that to mean give up and stop trying; far from it. Rather, I would advise y'all to get out and educate and put up a positive ballot measure that would grant marriages. On election night, I was watching the local news and they interviewed one of the Yes on 8 campaign directors and he noted that not once have pro-gay marriage supporters gone out and sought approval from voters for that position. Instead, they've reacted to anti-gay marriage propositions and hauled them to court, and allowed the court to decide when the legislature and the people should decide. The legislature already set-up domestic partnership laws, laws that the people of this state appeared to support. Prop 8 passed by 400,000 votes- I can imagine that a substantial part of that margin was made up of people who don't care one way or another, but simply were upset that the court forced this upon the public. The citizens of this state have now voted twice against gay marriage. . .Get before the public a pro-gay marriage amendment, and stop relying on the courts to force this down peoples' throats. The court was wrong on this decision- the court cannot usurp the vote of the people (or the legislature) and make new exceptions where none are evident. Only the people can and should make these decisions- and the pro-gay marriage advocates need to get them, and stop relying on the courts.

On the other hand...I am not at all surprised by these findings- "While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed."

This same situation played itself out in Florida: "Barack Obama's candidacy likely played a role in the gay-marriage ban passing in Florida. Black voters turned out in droves and, according to exit polls, supported the amendment by the greatest margin -- 71 percent to 29 percent -- when compared to whites and Hispanics."

None of this should be at all surprising to Democrats and gay marriage advocates and foes. How so? In 2004, the voters of Ohio passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that marriage shall be only between a man and woman. The vote total was 62% in favor and 38% opposed; yet, Bush won Ohio by 2%, or 120,000 votes. It should also be noted that Bush got a higher percentage of the black vote in Ohio, 16%, up from 9% in 2000, than he got nationwide, 10%. So, not only did Bush get a sizable percentage of the black vote in Ohio, enough to possibly have pushed him over the top, the black vote also accounted for the large support in Ohio for declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. In other words, even though only winning the state by 2%, a proposition denying same-sex marriages passed by 24%. It seems obvious that that discrepancy was made up by black voters.

As I began this posting above- those in favor of same-sex marriages need to come out and make a positive ballot proposition, and stop running to the courts to stop "the people." Give the people something positive to respond to on this matter, and they will come around. The courts should not be used to effect social change; that responsibility is up to the people. I know that some people look back longingly to the excesses of the Warren Court, but those days are long gone. Move on.

Who didn't see this coming?

2008-11-05T19:43:00.000-08:00

Stocks have worst day after election day ever, surpassing the dreadful day after FDR's first win.

The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.

As this place has noted previously, FDR's economic policies made the country worse, and any attempts by Obama and the Congress do emulate those same policies must be opposed, especially any growth in aggressive unionization (card check). If Wall Street supposedly had already internalized an Obama victory, this shows a rather shocking doubt about the state of the economy and Obama's plan- another stimulus package with government mucking around in the economy is the last thing we need.

As if a 5+% loss in one day wasn't expected, Iraq says they are confident Obama won't pull out troops too quickly, with a current strategy shooting for 2011. I can only help but wonder if this is one of the many, many things Obama must have been referring to in his election night speech about how some things may take some time, and may not be done by the end of his first term. Of course, this had made some news before the election in an article in the NY Post, of course, Obama supporters attacked the author. Not surprisingly, the media continued to peddle the Obama narrative on Iraq, and not one day later, Iraq comes out and says 2011. Obviously, I can only wonder what else has the press covered up until the election.

Finally, various Asian countries voice their concerns over Obama's potential trade policies, especially towards the East. "He appears to be a protectionist," said Chea Mony, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in Cambodia, which has an export-driven textile industry." Further, "[i]n an Oct. 24 letter to the U.S. National Council of Textile Organizations, Obama pledged "strong enforcement" of trade remedy laws, which can include added tariffs on imports that are deemed to hurt American businesses. Obama said he would include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements — a measure that many in Asia view as a possible pretext to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition."

Obama has a huge task ahead of him. . .based on his history, I have great concerns about where he will govern, coupled with little belief that he'll be able to stand up to Congress.

Anyway. . .I may write something more about California and the City proposition; but, two quick things. 1) I opposed the passage of Prop 2, but it passed with flying colors- I simply have no explanation for it, especially in light of the failure of Prop 8. Apparently people hold a higher opinion of chickens, pigs and baby cows than of their fellow citizens- I'd be willing to entertain any other opinions. 2) Mayor Newsom and the San Francisco Chronicle have nearly zero effect on voting in this city, at least when it comes to Board candidates- any board for that matter, be Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or City College Board. I suppose it's amusing to think that in San Francisco, Newsom is considered an unacceptable moderate in some circles, yet once you leave the Bay Area, he's a raging bleeding heart. I'm not looking forward to the next Mayoral campaign.

Finally, today starts the battle for 2010. I'm quickly going to note that the three-way race for the Democratic nominee for Governor- S.F. Mayor Newsom, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Attorney General Jerry Brown could be in for some company in the form of Senator Dianne Feinstein. With Arnold's term expiring in 2010, there continues to be rumors of what he will do next- I posit that if Feinstein decides to run for Governor, Sen. Boxer, who's term expires at the end of 2010 will decide to not run, and let the Mayors battle it out for the nomination, and Arnold will run for her seat on the Republican side. I will say that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential nominees for the Republican nominee for governor- currently, former Rep. Tom Campbell (who was my Rep. growing up in San Jose and almost went to work for in D.C.) has announced, and I expect Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Ebay executive Meg Whitman to all run. We shall see.

Congratulations

2008-11-04T19:50:00.001-08:00

The sheeple have spoken and they have chosen wrongly. The piper will come for his payment, and it will not be good for the this country. Universal health care=bad idea; tax increases=bad idea; protectionist policies=bad idea; union card check=bad idea; fairness doctrine=bad idea. Once again, I am simply dumbfounded how anyone in their right mind on these issues could possibly vote for Obama and his empty rhetoric. Empty campaign promises, poorly explained policies and a simple ignorance of practical economics is not a view of America that I want to see; the people of this country have made a terrible choice, a choice that they will regret come this next year after Pelosi and Harry Reid, two of the worst Congressional leaders in some time, push extremely liberal positions upon the people of this country. Barack Obama will be a weak and ineffective leader and will be unable to stop Congress; he is Jimmy Carter re-incarnated.

Yes I'm bitter; I'm bitter that people of this country are willing to elect a person of such inexperience and someone who is extremely unqualified to lead us. I'm bitter that this country has such a short memory that 20+ years of unqualified success in free trade and free markets will let that be shot by a charlatan.

So, congratulations USA. . .you have made a decision to go backwards.

Tuesday Morn

2008-11-04T10:41:00.000-08:00

Last night, wife and I went over the ballot and made our cheat sheet. Yes, I know, I've failed again as I failed to fully complete my voter guide. . .sorry, but when there's 30+ propositions to go over and summarize, it's a little difficult.

Anyway, so, this morning we head down to our local polling place which is in a Starbucks. There's a line that stretches about halfway down the street- I attribute this to a combination of increased voter turnout and the aforementioned 30+ ballot propositions we have to go through, which takes time. As we approach, it becomes clear to me that that is no pretense of a secret ballot. The polling officials only set up 8 "private" booths, but there are far too many people for those 8 booths, so people just set up shop at the various tables scattered throughout the Starbucks, two people to a table, whether or not they know the person. Wife and I end up doing our ballot on a ledge in front of the holiday ground coffee bags for sale, and she asks me questions about the ballot because she couldn't remember what we agreed on. I motor through the ballot- all 30+ propositions, 4 school board positions, 4 city college positions, president, U.S. Rep, State Assembly, Board of Supervisors, City Judge and BART. As I put my ballot through the scanner, the woman says, "Don't forget, free coffee today at Starbucks!" Great, I hate coffee. As we walk out, there are a few people doing their ballots on tables outside, in front of everyone waiting in line. And no one apparently minds.

About the free coffee. Apparently, giving free stuff to people who voted isn't necessarily legal. Businesses from Starbucks, to Ben and Jerrys, Krispy Kreme and even possibly Chick fil A all were planning on giving free stuff to people who voted. . .unfortunately, giving a reward to only people who voted is illegal. So, instead, anyone who asks for a free cup of coffee, or scoop of ice cream or a doughnut will get it; no need to prove you actually did anything. I find this final line from the WAPO ad amusingly prescient as we presumably move into an Obama administration: "So today's lesson is: Vote or don't vote -- either way you get free food." Wow, an excellent summary of exactly what Obama is promising.

Local races

2008-11-03T15:53:00.000-08:00

Putting these up the day before the election probably won't mean very much, but at least I put them up- maybe someone out there will find them beneficial.

First up, S.F. School Board.

The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:

Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns

I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.

Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:

Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez

For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.

For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,

City progressives---that rather elastic term includes Greens and the left wing of the Democratic Party---live inside an ideological box that prevents their seeing homelessness and other issues clearly. Instead of seeing it as an ongoing emergency---with 100-200 homeless people a year dying on our streets---progressives acted as if the homeless were another oppressed minority, like blacks and gays, whose rights and lifestyle had to be defended. As a result, progressives ended up in effect defending a tragic status quo instead of launching serious political initiatives to address homelessness.

Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.

For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.

Quick fire-

BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.

District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.

District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.

San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.

More econ.

2008-11-03T14:20:00.000-08:00

From the WSJ, letters to the editor:

I think the answer to Alan Reynolds's excellent question and article ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?," op-ed, Oct. 24) is that Barack Obama is not going to raise $4.3 trillion, and he is not going to perform on his rhetoric. He excels as a rhetorician -- common to both the great and the least of past presidents -- but performance cannot run on that fuel. Inevitably, I think his luster will fade even with his most ardent supporters as that reality sets in. We also have seen luster fade time after time with Republican presidents. The rhetoric of a smaller and less invasive government always leads to king-size performance disappointments. This weakness is as central to the reality of our political economy as are its strengths. With all its foibles, its strengths become transparent when you compare it, not with our various idealizations, but with the litter of human experiments in political economy that have delivered far more suffering and murder than human betterment to the citizens of those economies.

Of course it is entirely likely that Mr. Obama will succeed in going for higher business, capital gains and income taxes, but it is an economic illusion to think for a minute that this will benefit the poor. All our wars on poverty have been lost by failing to help the poor help themselves. Higher business taxes, which ultimately can only be paid by individuals anyway, will simply export more economic activity to the world economy. Higher capital gains and income taxes will primarily reduce savings and investment at the expense of greater future productivity, which is at the heart of cross-generational reductions in poverty. A dozen countries, including the third largest economy, already have zero taxes on capital gains, and eight of them score high on the Economic Freedom Index and high in gross domestic product per capita.

As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.

As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.

I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.

San Francisco propositions

2008-10-31T15:55:00.000-07:00

To give you an idea of the ridiculousness of the initiative process in this city, the voters guide is 272 pages for 22 propositions, of which the legal text takes up 40 of those pages; the Controllers Statement, pros and cons and Digest take up 160 or so pages.

Proposition A

Proposition A would issue $887.4 million in bonds that will be used to rebuild or retrofit San Francisco General Hospital in order to improve the hospital's earthquake safety. Construction is set to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2015. State law requires hospitals to be able to withstand large earthquakes through retrofitting or rebuilding by 2013, or risk being shut-down. This proposition would also allow landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase to tenants. In this instance, the City is deciding to rebuild the General- treatment would continue through the construction.

Again, I have various concerns about increasing government debt, and will oppose such imprudent government spending. However, rebuilding a hospital to meet state law to meet earthquake safety standards in a completely different thing. I am in no position to doubt the veracity or completeness of whatever the design study for the new hospital. This bond measure certainly appears to be worthwhile.

Vote yes on Proposition A.

Proposition B

Proposition B will amend the city charter requiring a new specific funding set aside for a new affordable housing fund. This set aside would guarantee a revenue stream from the city's general fund, so new revenue sources would have to be found to replace the lost funding. The Affordable Housing Fund would be used to purchase, build, rehabilitate or maintain housing for households that earn not more than 80% of the median income of Ess Eff; support programs to help first-time buyers; provide rent subsidies and other services to tenants; and help with urgent repairs of public housing properties owned by the Ess Eff Housing Authority. Money can also be used for housing with dependents, seniors, people with disabilities, people who are HIV positive, and people who were recently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. There are other specific requirements for spending funds from this fund. This fund is set to expire in 2024. In the first year, the program will take away $36 million out of the 2008-2009 budget, afterwards, it will cost $88 million a year, for a total of nearly $3 billion over the length of the program.

This proposition is simply put a 15 year earmark that takes money out of the city's general fund without replacing the lost funds. This is an attempt by Chris Daly to hijack the city's spending priorities and funnel money to groups aligned with him. Despite claims to the alternative, this fund will not help middle class families stay in San Francisco. Not to mention that losing this money will take away money that would be better used at, say, fixing roads, maintaining police and fire departments, helping out MUNI, maintaining parks or helping out schools. While the city infrastructure begins to fall apart, the city repeatedly is forced to make funding judgments on social policies. This measure will not help the people who live in this city.

Vote No on Prop. B.

Proposition C

This is a proposition that will prohibit city employees from serving on most City Charter created boards and commissions. Some commissions require the city employees are part of the commission, and some commissions require city officials as part of the board. This proposition would not apply citizen advisory committees, the Law Library Board of Trustees, the Arts Commission, the Asian Art Commission, the Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, the governing board of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, the Retirement Board and the Health Service Board.

I honestly do not know what the purpose of this proposition is supposed to accomplish. The argument in favor say that this proposition will reduce conflicts and undue influence by city employees. This proposition seems needlessly excessive and unnecessary. The threat imagined by the Board of Supervisors that put this on the ballot seems to be really off the mark. My general feeling when dealing with city propositions is that if I have any doubts, vote no. I don't know what the real purpose or design is for this proposition and it seems really unnecessary. So, vote No on Prop. C.

Proposition D

This proposition will provide funds to develop Pier 70 based on new city hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development of Pier 70, provided that the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70. In other words, this would allow the Port of San Francisco and/or the city's General Fund to expend funds to pay for the development of new buildings and commercial buildings, and would allow the Port and/or the city to recover those expenditures through an increase in hotel and payroll expense taxes on property built and businesses operating in the Pier 70 waterfront development. This will allow for redevelopment of a historical area badly in need of redevelopment and repair, at little to no cost to citizens. This proposition is supported by the entire Board of Supervisors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce and both the S.F. Republican Party and the S.F. Democratic Party.

This is a good deal for the residents of this city. Vote Yes on Prop. D.

Proposition E

This proposition will change the number of signatures required for petitions to recall city officials to match state law for a recall of an official. Currently, the number of signatures required for a petition to recall city officials is 10% of the registered voters in the supervisor's district. This proposition would change that to 20% of the supervisor's district. What is telling about the purpose of this proposition is the rebuttal by supporters of this proposition, there the supporters come out and say they want this to stop recall attempts "based on one or two policy disagreements." They claim this 10% level is "ripe for abuse"; in other words, they don't want to make it easy for residents to recall them. Over the past 2 years, 2 separate recall attempts have been tried against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and Board President Aaron Peskin, conveniently, both of them are termed out this year. Both attempts failed. There is nothing wrong with the current 10% requirement, and has not be abused. This is simply to make it harder for residents to move to recall their supervisor.

Vote No on E.

Proposition F

This proposition would declare that all city elections, except special elections, be held only in even-numbered years beginning after the 2011 elections. Currently, elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years for 4 year terms. If approved, those positions elected in either 2009, when City Attorney and Treasurer are up, or 2011, when Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney are up, would serve 5 year terms; thereafter, terms would return to 4 years. Supporters argue that turn-out tends to be higher in even numbered years, especially in Presidential election years, additionally, holding elections every year increases voter fatigue. Opponents argue that by aligning local races with federal races will decrease attention paid to local races.

I will simply note that this is the largest voter guide since I've lived in San Francisco; I'm sure it's no coincidence that the size of this voter guide coincides with a Presidential election. As a voter do I want 20+ city wide ballot propositions every 2 years, or have them spread out over 2 or more elections. I say the latter. Also, it's important to note that the language still allows the city to call a special election whenever it wants. So, even though it attempts to say elections will only be held every 2 years, it's still possible, and likely, that we'll have elections at least every year or something.

Vote No on Proposition F.

Proposition G

This proposition would allow city employees who took unpaid parental leave before July 1, 2003 to purchase retirement system credit for those lost days. In 2003, city voters approved paid parental leave for city employees, up to 16 weeks paid leave. Employees would be eligible to buy back this lost credit if they returned to work with the City and stayed for at least 6 months. Employees would be able to buy back this credit in 2 month blocks, up to 4 months, for each period of unpaid leave. Employees must purchase this credit before they retire. All costs to purchase this credit will be borne by the employee and not the City.

This seems an entirely reasonable solution to working mothers and fathers who were city employees before 2003 and took unpaid parental leave. If the city employees subject to this proposition want to be able to buy back their service credit for those unpaid periods, they should be able to. This is a fair result to what turned out to be an inequitable situation.

Vote Yes of G.

I'm going to skip Prop. H, and save that for another post.

Proposition I

This proposition will create an Office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate. Basically, this will be an independent office that will provide advice on behalf of ratepayers before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC sets rates to be paid by citizen residents on water and sewer services, as well as operating the Hetch Hetchy Dam, Hetchy Hetchy water canal, and any power created from Hetch Hetchy Dam. The SF PUC is essentially a municipal utility that is responsible for water and sewer service to San Francisco residents. The ratepayer advocate would provide advice, comments and make recommendations on PUC rates from the ratepayer perspective; review PUC revenues; hold public meetings on PUC rates; accept inquiries from PUC customers; provide explanations of PUC rates; and conduct customer outreach activities. The ratepayer advocate would be paid for by ratepayers, as such, the PUC would be allowed to raise rates to recover the costs of funding the Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Administrator would appoint or remove the Advocate. Currently, the PUC contracts for an independent analysis of the fairness of their rates and the soundness of their business plan and revenues.

I know this sounds like a good idea, having someone specifically designated to review PUC rates and revenues, but, really, isn't that the job of the Board of Supervisors? The PUC is a municipal agency, as such, it's rates are designed to cover its operating costs. Now, might the PUC decide to go off on some random policy road that ultimately end up costing ratepayers more; sure. But again, that's the job of the Board of Supervisors to deal with. If this city wants to make the PUC more accountable to the people, they would put the PUC board up for a vote. As it is, the PUC board is now subject to Board of Supervisor scrutiny. If the Board of Supervisors don't like what the PUC is doing, they can haul the PUC board into a meeting. At this point, pending revelations of wild PUC spending or unwise policy pronouncements (ok, changing water rate structures may not have been ideal, but they are trying to force conservation, a measure I doubt the Office of Ratepayer Advocate would oppose), I see no reason to support this increase in annual PUC expenditures. It will cost an estimated $125K a year to staff this office. Plus, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors don't want to do their job of oversight of the PUC; hence, they delegate their responsibility to an unelected official, that serves that the pleasure of the City Administrator, which is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.

So, I do not see this office as needed, nor do I see a need to increase PUC spending (and S.F. ratepayers rates). Therefore, vote No on I.

Proposition J

This proposition will create a Historic Preservation Commission that will consist of 7 members. The Historic Preservation Commission will replace the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The differences between the two agencies are: 1) the Landmarks Board only provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department, which can accept or reject the Landmarks Board's recommendation and 2) the Historic Preservation Commission would become a separate City agency, taking over the duties of the Landmarks Board, as well as certain duties from the Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Historic Planning Commission will have authority to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on designation of landmarks, historic buildings, historic districts and conservation districts; approve permits or certificates for demolition of or alteration to designated landmarks and historic buildings; and make recommendations about proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation. Decisions from the Commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Despite all that, the Historic Planning Commission will not have its own staff, but will rely on budgets and staff from the Planning Department.

Ok, so what does all this mean? It means that this new commission is replacing an old commission and giving the new commission some additional authority over historical building issues. Generally, I don't mind historical preservation commissions or boards; I think they do a decent job at trying to keep the historical nature of a building or neighborhood intact. Coupled with the fact that there was already a board required to deal with this issue, I don't really see a major problem with approving this proposition. However, in San Francisco, these things are never so easy. With this new authority, the Commission could go out of its way to deny much needed new construction in areas that are deemed historical. Of course, the way this city works, any number of boards or commissions, or the Board of Supervisors themselves, can kill a worthwhile project- historical or not. Not that I want to be seen as advocating for more regulation, I do admit the need to have some oversight over historical buildings and structures. I recommend this proposition in the hopes that there is some common sense, and buildings aren't declared historical just because.

I recommend Yes on Prop. J.

Proposition K

This proposition would stop enforcing laws against prostitution and direct the City to stop funding anti-prostitution programs. It would keep laws relating to coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes on the books and allow police to enforce those laws whether or not the victim is a "sex worker."

Without getting into the hysterics that supporters and opponents whip themselves into on this measure, I will admit there is at least some reasoning behind decriminalizing prostitution. That being said, a modicum of regulation normally steps in to ensure the safety of those workers so that the prostitutes themselves aren't here illegally or against their will, and that they are not engaging in other criminal activity. This proposition provides none of the safeguards that one would expect upon decriminalizing certain behavior. It is an open question as to whether or not human trafficking would be subject to the decriminalizing aspect of this proposition. This proposition is simply poorly constructed, poorly conceived, and poorly thought-out. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion on decriminalizing prostitution, but this measure it not the way to begin this debate.

Vote No on Proposition K.

Ok, that's all I have the patience to deal with for now. I'll get cracking on the remaining 10 propositions later on. I hope this makes sense; my head hurts. If I have any egregious errors, someone let me know.

Why I'm voting for John McCain

2008-10-30T17:45:00.000-07:00

It's really pretty simple- I am voting for McCain, both because I wholeheartedly disagree with a lot of what Obama says, I disagree with a lot of what he stands for, and I disagree with a lot of what he wants to do and will do; I am also pro-McCain, as I agree with McCain on a large number of issues.

First off, a personal decision is to be made, and I'll let Volokh's Todd Zywicki explain a large reason why I should vote for McCain, as opposed to voting for Obama (I being a libertarian leaning Republican):

Perhaps most fundamentally, given the history of the world over the past 25 years I think I just had assumed that no serious politician or thinker would in this day and age hold the sorts of views that Obama seems to hold. Raising taxes in a recession, protectionism, abolition of the secret ballot for union elections, big spending increases, nationalized health care, and most appallingly (to my mind) the potential reimposition of the "Fairness Doctrine"--I mean this is pretty serious stuff. And when combined with a Democratic Congress, I think we may be talking about (to use Thomas Sowell's recent phrase) a "point of no return." I guess I just assumed that Obama would be sort of Bill Clintonish--"the era of big government is over" and all that stuff. That he would have absorbed the basic insights of recent decades on taxes, trade, regulation, etc. ...

But as I've looked at the actual policy positions of the two more closely, it seems to me that Obama really seems to be pretty far out there. He is no Bill Clinton. And from what I can tell none of those libertarians or conservatives who are Obama supporters are attracted to because of his positions (other than those who care strongly about the Iraq war and foreign policy), but rather because of who he is. Obama is a compelling personality. But in reading these encomiums to him, I haven't seen any explanation as to how Obama's policies on tax, trade, spending, or regulatory would be friendlier to individual liberty than what is likely to be McCain's (as weak as those will be). As someone observed somewhere recently, this is about the first time in history that you have endorsements from people who endorse Obama on the hope that he won't do what he says he'll do rather than because of what he says he'll do.

Obama promises more of the failed economic policies of Democrats from years gone by, free markets, despite recent events, have more than shown and proved their value and worth; most people rightly criticize knee-jerk reactions against something because they are based on fear and rigid ideology, and not on any proof of failure. Obama's economic policies, coupled with a Democratic control of Congress, are not what's needed today- instead, by using populism, they will suck out the life of free-market capitalism, in favor of populist, government sponsored and controlled markets. We should not be turning our back on 20+ years of positive growth, positive freedoms, and positive experience- let the markets do their thing.

Obama proposes none of that- he proposes government interfering in the marketplace; he proposes government interfering in the free exchange of ideas; he proposes getting rid of secret ballots for union formation; he proposes a huge tax increase on the very same people that should be relied on to invest capital into the market. In a time of undercapitalization in the market, how government taking that money and giving it away makes sense is beyond me- that capital would be better used to be re-invested in the market.

Obama's reasoning behind raising taxes is simply to pay for this social redistribution of wealth spending plans, but, as even CBS has noted, "If he closes every loophole as promised, saves every dime from Iraq, raises taxes on the rich and trims the federal budget as he's promised to do "line by line," he still doesn't pay for his list. If he's elected, the first fact hitting his desk will be the figure projecting how much less of a budget he has to work with - thanks to the recession." If taxes on the rich don't cut it, and, I might add he's now dropped the floor from $250K to $200K, a realization that he needs a bigger pool to steal from, then where else is he going to come up with this money? The answer- either he will continue to drop the floor on who will be subject to a tax hike, or he will have to cut his spending; guess which one I think he'll do. He'll raise more people's taxes.

All in all. . .Obama's economic plans are a recipe for disaster. In a time of recession, which Congressional Democrats have been waiting for, raising taxes and increasing spending does not work. John McCain knows that, that's why he advocates for cutting taxes and cutting government waste. He doesn't want government taking money away from the people who are best able to inject capital into the economy; he doesn't want the government to raise taxes to simply hand them out to someone else. He wants people to use their own money to make their own choices; he wants people to invest in America. He knows that the government is not a domestic charity organization.

After taxing and spending, my next near and dear topic is free trade. It is patently clear that Obama, egged on by a, to use a term from the Economist, "muddle-headed" Congress, will raise (or not lower) tariffs, will make it more difficult to enter into free trade agreements with foreign countries and will make protectionism their mantra for foreign trade. Again, history has shown us that throwing up protectionist barriers on free trade dramatically hurts American businesses and American consumers by making prices go up across the board. This is true during times of recession and panic, and it's true during times of economic prosperity. Obama has promised to renegotiate NAFTA, something that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is daring him to do. Why? Well, there's something in there that forces Canada to sell a majority of their oil to the U.S.; you can be sure that if NAFTA is renegotiated, Canada, and Mexico, will want that taken out. The result, well, a less secure and more volatile reliance on foreign oil. Instead of having a steady supply of Canadian and Mexican oil, they will put it up on the market, thereby necessitating that we potentially increase on imports of oil from less friendly countries. Obama claims that he will be better able to repair our image abroad, yeah, by making us less competitive, we'll be seen as an economic patsy, a country that is not worth the effort to trade with.

John McCain is a real free trader. He knows that in order to facilitate the on-going competitiveness of the American workforce and keep prices down, free trade is necessary. He will stand up to the unions, unlike Obama, who will sign a union card check law that will no longer provide for a secret ballot to create a union. Everything that Obama said he will do economically, John McCain won't- McCain won't raise tariffs, he wants to lower them, he won't support throwing up protectionist walls on our market, all of which hurt American business and customers. He will advocate for free trade agreements that are mutually beneficial- for free trade is one of the greatest sources of showcasing not only American technology and ingenuity, but also our core beliefs on freedom for all people without the threat of government interference.

So, yes, I'm not voting for Barack Obama. I am not voting for a return to a New New Deal, an economic program that will hurt America and its citizens more than help; I am not voting for one of the most inexperienced and unqualified nominees this country has seen in some time; I am not voting from one of the biggest frauds to run for president since Pat Paulson. Obama's minimal legislative experience is not one of envy- he is simply a yes man. In his years in the Illinois legislature, he voted as he was told, and was rewarded; in his years in the U.S. Senate, he has voted as he was told, and was rewarded. As President, I have no doubt that will sign what he is told. This is no time to vote Present. This is no time to elect someone who has shown little to no ability to think for himself- his sole ability is his ability to read lines off a teleprompter in a pleasant voice. This is no time for a yes man; this is a time to elect John McCain.

John McCain is no yes man. John McCain is his own man. John McCain has a history of putting aside partisanship and to do what's best for the country, even at his own political peril. He fought for and got signed a campaign finance law (a law that Obama is flouting by not disclosing all of his donors, especially in light of the numerous instances of fraud); he has fought for a cap and trade bill on the environment; he has fought for immigration reform; he criticized the Bush administration on the handling of Iraq; he has shown a willingness to put aside what's best for him, and do what's best for the country. Barack Obama does not and will not do what's best for the country; John McCain will.

I do not trust Barack Obama; I trust John McCain. I do not trust Obama's sense of judgment, this is evidenced by his unapologetic alliances with Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN, amongst who knows how many others that the press has conveniently not bothered to investigate, instead, he simply brushes them aside and explains them away, like a one-night stand in college. He fails to see that his judgment to associate with these people, and not be offended at any point from then on out is important. John McCain has shown humility and a recognition of doing wrong. After his association with Charles Keating, he admitted it was a mistake to meet with him; Obama has made no such apology about any of the people above, nor has even admitted it was a mistake to begin with. John McCain has gone out of his way to make amends for that mistake; Obama has not once made any attempt to make amends, or even show remorse. He does not care, and has shown no inclination to apologize. Hiding behind mis-information, half-truths, thuggish attempts to silence non-believers and critics, and straight-up obfuscation is not the sign of a leader. Barack Obama is not a leader, he's a follower, and will only move America backwards. John McCain is the leader we need. He will lead America forward, and will do it for America, not for himself. That is why I'm voting for John McCain.

I will conclude with what former Democratic speech-writer Wendy Button wrote in a recent article:

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.” ....

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
....
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges. .... Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”

Vote John McCain.

A mess of state-wide California Propositions

2008-10-30T16:26:00.000-07:00

Normally I will go over and get in-depth on the whole slate of propositions, both state-wide and before the City of San Francisco. However, I'm running late on these, and there are 12 state-wide props and 20+ city-wide propositions. So, I'm not going to go in-depth into the majority of these, but I will go into a few of these propositions where I think it appropriate.

First up is Proposition 2.

Prop. 2 proposes to set standards for the confinement of farm animals, specifically, pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. Beginning in 2015, the proposed standards would require that those animals be confined in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Penalties are not to exceed $1000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

Believe me when I say that I want to support this measure, but I cannot. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this proposition, but, honestly, I do not believe that using the power of the government is the right way to go about this. Plus, there is already a burgeoning market in California, and elsewhere, for these free-range and cage free products; God knows that I pay a premium for them. Which goes to my next point; in order to accommodate these new rules, the costs to farmers to implement and maintain animals under these standards are going to, first of all, increase the production and maintenance costs, which will result in increased prices to customers. Second, it will likely result in many companies leaving California to other states, and Mexico, that do not have these restrictions. Which, of course, means that these products will need to be shipped in from a longer distance than today- and longer truck drives means more CO2 emission. Finally, this will also reduce the number of animals a business would be able to raise, as complying with these new standards would necessitate an increase in the total area for raising these animals, increasing costs due to potential shortages in supply, or increasing costs due to the need to purchase more land to raise these animals.

Like I said above, I completely agree with what this proposition wants to accomplish, but I disagree with enshrining it into state law. The market already provides incentives to businesses to raise animals in this style, but not every Californian can afford cage free eggs, free range pigs and veal. We currently buy cage free eggs, because we can afford it and know that the product is of better quality; we buy free range and cage free chicken when we can, but a lot of people in this state can currently barely afford to pay for eggs as they are. This proposition will only increase these costs and prices beyond what some people are able to pay. While the limitation on the production of foie gras only affects those who can afford foie gras, eggs, on the other hand, are a necessary component in many families lives. Increasing the costs to produce eggs will have profound negative impacts on the ability of millions of families in this state to purchase eggs.

So, I recommend No on Prop. 2.

Proposition 3

Prop 3 proposes to issue nearly $1 billion in bonds to fund construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals across the state. There are 5 children's hospitals specifically mentioned in the text (UC Children's Hospitals, which will get at least 20% of the proceeds), and the voters guide identifies an additional 8 other hospital's that fit the requirements of the proposed law. So, what would be the potential issues I have with this proposition? Obviously, the first problem I have is that it increases the state's debt. The guide estimates that to pay off the bonds plus interest, 5% over 30 years, it would cost the state about $2 billion, with an average yearly payment of $64 million- this would all be paid out of the General Fund. Secondly, in 2004 the state passed Prop. 61, which authorized the sale of $750 million in bonds for this same purpose, of which $403 million has been awarded. In other words, there are still nearly $350 million worth of bond money currently unappropriated, and this proposition asks for another $980 million on top of that.

However. . .I'm really not a heart-less person. I do believe that there are worthwhile bond projects, and, let's not forget, think of the children. Plus, the proposition (along with Prop. 12, which I'll get to below) have the great advantage of being on the same ballot as Prop. 1A. Compared to Prop. 1A, these two propositions amount to peanuts. Where does that leave me? Well, even though this is proposition will increase the state's debt, during a time of serious economic constraints, these funds appear to be needed to upgrade the various children's hospitals across the state. Plus, if I recommended no, a doctor that I know would kill me.

So, I recommend Yes on Prop. 3.

Proposition 4.

Proposition 4 is another attempt to get an abortion parental notification law through the voters. The last attempt 2 years ago with Prop. 85 failed 46-54. This proposition provides for a 48 hour notification period before an abortion can be completed on an "unempancipated minor" under the age of 18. This time the authors of this Proposition have added several new exceptions, notably, notification is not needed in the case of an emergency (defined as a condition that threatens the minors life; a waiver of notification signed by a parent or guardian; and, if the minor is fearful of abuse from a parent, notification may be sent to an adult family member, identified as a grandparent, step-parent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling or first cousin, provided they are at least 21 years old. In such a circumstance, the doctor performing the procedure would be required to file a notice of suspected child abuse with local law enforcement and/or local child protection services. Additionally, a minor can petition the juvenile court for a waiver, which the court may grant if it decides the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to make their own decisions.

In 2006, I supported Proposition 85. As I argued then, I find it odd that a minor needs a parent to get a tattoo, get a piercing, get a driver's permit and even go to an R rated movie; yet, state law and policy is fine with allowing a minor to have an abortion without parental notification. This is entirely inconsistent with the motives and rationale for keeping those other parental requirements on the books. Having an abortion is one of the most important decisions a minor can make, yet, state policy is of the belief that parents or some other adult family member shouldn't even be notified. Opponents of Proposition 85 presented the threat of parental abuse as reasons why notification laws are bad; as I argued in 2006, those activities are illegal, and Prop. 85 provided for a waiver of parental notification in those circumstances. Proposition 4 strengthens these protections from abuse by allowing a minor to notify another family member, and requires the doctor to report abuse.

I still see no reason to oppose this proposition. As noted above, Prop. 4 provides for new exceptions to parental notification, which should allay fears for parental abuse due to parental notification. I still see an illogical divide in the treatment of minors in state law and policy. As such, I have no reason to change my recommendation from 2006 on parental notification of abortions.

I recommend Yes on Proposition 4.

Propositions 5, 6 and 9 all deal with various aspects of law enforcement. For the life of me, I can't understand what any of those three do, so I am going to pass on those for the time being.

Proposition 8

I am not at all looking forward to talking about this proposition. I must admit, I thought about deleting this section and giving a terse "I have no opinion" statement, but I came to the conclusion that using that would be a cop-out. So, I left the text intact- I realize that it is probably not at all satisfactory, but I'm fine with that. I have tried to be honest with myself and the reader on my this topic; you may disagree, but I hope you do not think I came to this conclusion rashly.

Proposition 8 re-writes into the California Constitution that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, and that only those marriages be recognized by the State of California. This proposition is in response to a California Supreme Court decision earlier this year that ruled that Proposition 22, that was passed by California voters in 2000, and subsequent legislative activities on domestic partnerships, violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Now, I disagreed with the California Supreme Court decision because it overturned a valid vote by the people of the state. I also disagreed with the ruling because it overturned a series of legislative actions by the state that granted same sex couples the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples, except that it wasn't called marriage. I believed that the Court had no power or authority to overturn either of those decisions; instead, that decision should be left with the people.

So, here is a proposition to get the vote of the people on this topic. My internal struggle on this question is profound- my political philosophy is that government shouldn't care what individuals do or decide on their own, as long as there is no detrimental effects on society. In other words, according to my political philosophy, the government shouldn't care about the decisions of individuals to marry. However, my personal view, based on my own personal morals and ethics come to a different conclusion. So, where does that leave me.

From a legal perspective, I disagreed with the Court's equal protection argument on gay marriage- I believed that the Court created a new law, a law that I do not believe is correct, outside of current statutes in overturning Prop 22, as such, they violated the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe in an equal protection argument for the justification of gay marriage. I do not believe that domestic partnership laws, as in effect at the time of the court's ruling, violated the equal protection laws of the California Constitution. Nevertheless, that does not answer the question presented in this proposition.

Frankly, I do not believe that I can make a recommendation on this proposition. I believe that how one votes on this decision is incumbent on one's own interpretation and beliefs; my own struggles between divergent philosophy's provide just one example. Since I do not buy an equal protection argument, primarily because domestic partnership laws provided for the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriages, I'm left with determining which philosophy is important to me. As such, I am left with the conclusion that this is fundamentally a personal decision- and I still am uncertain as to how I will vote.

The final proposition that I will discuss on this posting is Proposition 12.

Proposition 12 would approve the issuance of $900 million worth of bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Money from the sale of these bonds are used by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to help our veterans, and voters have been approving bonds like this since 1921. The total cost of paying off these bonds and interest (5% over 30 years) would total around $1.8 billion, at an annual cost of $59 million a year. However, as supporters of Prop. 12 note, all costs of the program and repayment of the bonds that have been issued to support Veterans have been repaid through the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, and have not relied on the General Fund. In other words, this program has historically been entirely self-sufficient, being paid off by the borrowers, only relying on the state so that it can take advantage of the state's superior credit rating. The Home Loan Program purchases homes using the proceeds from the bonds, then re-sells the houses to veterans, thereby recovering all costs from the mortgages of the borrowers to pay off the bonds. The state would only be required to cover the costs in the event that the program came up short, primarily if a foreclosure occurred.

All of that is to say that this is a good program- bonds are issued to help veterans purchase homes, then the mortgages themselves pay off the bonds, with little risk to California voters.

So, I recommend Yes on 12.

I'll finish off the rest of the state-wide ballots soon. There will really only be one San Francisco initiative that I think I'll have to get in depth on, so I hope to get the San Francisco post out in due time as well.

A look into the future

2008-10-28T17:19:00.001-07:00

Pete duPont lays out the future:

So where is the new Obama administration likely to take us? Seven things seem certain:

The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.

Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.

Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."

Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).

Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.

The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.

Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.

These policy changes will be the beginning of the Europeanization of America. There will be many more public policy changes with similar goals—nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending.

More important, all but the clean car credit would be "refundable," meaning people will get a check for them if they owe no taxes, which is simply a transfer of income from the government to individuals. In reality this is the beginning of a new series of entitlements for middle-class families, the longer-term effect of which will be to make those families more dependant on (and so more supportive of) larger government. The Tax Policy Center estimates that these refundable tax credits would cost the government $648 billion over 10 years.

Needless to say, in my opinion, each of those 7 things are bad, and will substantially degrade the relative freedoms in our society. Where are the Clinton Democrats and the DLC; have they all been run over by the progressives? Where are the free traders in the Democratic Party. For a party that at one time bemoaned how much Bush wasted the success of the Clinton years, they sure don't seem to want to repeat the success from the Clinton years either. How increasing taxes, throwing up trade barriers, increasing the power of unions, and increasing regulation is expected to breed success is beyond me; it's a recipe for doing nothing, but enjoying your government hand-out.

As Jonah Goldberg noted today, Obama is not simply rehashing the failed policies of FDR, but is also harkening back many of Woodrow Wilson's failures.

Blowing away the dust and cobwebs from ancient wares doesn't make them new. Save for his skin color, Obama doesn't represent anything novel. Rather, he symbolizes a return to an older vision of the United States that was seen as the "wave of the future" eight decades ago.

It sure seems like we've progressed since then; it's that progress that so-called progressives want to stop. Change we can believe in?? -for the sake of this country, I certainly hope not.

A series of interesting links

2008-10-27T11:51:00.000-07:00

Sometime this week I will post about why I'm not voting for Dear Leader (ooops, there goes one full paragraph) and a breakdown of the California state-wide ballot initiatives and the San Francisco ballot initiatives. But this posting, I just want to link to a number of articles.

From Michael Malone at ABC News:

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall.The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist. .....

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

This article from the Wall Street Journal:

What a difference an election makes. "The choice you'll have," Mr. Obama warned of the McCain plan during one of the debates, "is having your employer no longer provide you health care." Sounds terrible. But wait, let's consult another one of Mr. Obama's advisers. David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard, put it this way: "Health insurance is not something that is made better by tying it to employment. As a result, essentially all economists believe that universal coverage should be done outside of employment."

Indeed. . .the article above notes that the fundamentals of John McCain's health care proposal is essentially the same as two of Obama's health care advisors' from before joining the Obama campaign. As the WSJ puts it, "These advisers know that Mr. Obama's claim that Mr. McCain will tax health benefits "for the first time in history" is particularly disingenuous."

Another one from the WSJ (at this point, I expect a comment about relying on right-wing newspapers, well, I bet they're getting this stuff out now before Congress passes laws to silence them), this one by Robert Carroll, who I've referenced previously: "[T]he McCain tax credit for the purchase of health insurance exceeds the value of the current exclusion for all income levels shown. Indeed, it generally provides more resources to purchase health insurance than the existing exclusion."

Since fraud has been an ongoing theme this month, there's this article on the differences on on-line campaign donations between the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign.

To test the campaigns' practices, this author bought two pre-paid American Express gift cards worth $25 each to donate to the Obama and McCain campaigns online. As required by law, the campaigns' Web sites asked for, and National Journal provided, the donor's correct name, location and employment. The cards were purchased with cash at a Washington, D.C., drugstore, and the campaigns' Web sites were accessed through a public computer at a library in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Obama campaign's Web site accepted the $25 donation, but the McCain campaign's Web site rejected it.

Then, there's this article from the New York Post:

All of which prompted an enterprising citizen to test the controls put in place to enforce compliance with federal campaign law by the Obama and McCain campaigns. Last Thursday, he decided to conduct an experiment.

He went to the Obama campaign Web site and made a donation under the name "John Galt" (the hero of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged"). He provided the equally fictitious address "1957 Ayn Rand Lane, Galts Gulch, CO 99999."

He checked the box next to $15 and entered his actual credit-card number and expiration date. He was then taken to the next page and notified that his donation had been processed.

He then tried the same experiment on the McCain site, which rejected the transaction. He returned to the Obama site and made three more donations using the names Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses but the same credit card. The transactions all went through. By Saturday, he'd reported that the transactions had all posted to his credit-card account.

Finally, to prove that I do read other sources of information, there's this from the New York Times:

Economists believe the cost of health benefits is ultimately shifted to employees through lower wages. When wages cannot be lowered, layoffs may result. Katherine Baicker of Harvard and Helen G. Levy of the University of Michigan have projected that play-or-pay might push 224,000 workers into that category.

This article compares Obama's health care penalty to what is going on Massachusetts, and how businesses there have borne the brunt of the state's filling in of a deficit though these health care penalties. As the Times notes-

But the penalty in Massachusetts is picayune compared with what some health experts believe Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, might impose as part of his plan to provide affordable coverage for the uninsured. Though Mr. Obama has not released details, economists believe he might require large and medium companies to contribute as much as 6 percent of their payrolls.
.....
That, Mr. Ratner said, would be catastrophic to a low-margin business like his, which has 90 employees, 29 of them full-time workers who are offered health benefits.

“To all of a sudden whack 6 to 7 percent of payroll costs, forget it,” he said. “If they do that, prices go up and employment goes down because nobody can absorb that.”

Yet, somehow, despite all but declaring ala Walter Mondale that you're taxes going up, he's somehow winning. I guess, despite what Dear Leader has said, words in fact don't matter.

Excellence

2008-10-22T12:16:00.000-07:00

From today's Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

After my last posting, I began to think about this exact same question, but in regards to the social security tax that Obama is proposing- the one that won't start for 10 years, but has Obama already including revenues from that tax today. Anyway, 10 years is a long time. Let's say there's an Obama supporter that is 23 years old, recent college graduate and single. Now, in 10 years, it's not outside the realms of reason to think that that person will be 33, married and have at least one child. I also don't think it's outside of reason to think that the combined income of that family is at least $150,000, if not more.

Now, as the WSJ opinion notes above, what's to keep progressives who believe in taxing the wealth from simply decreasing the floor as those above the floor are repeatedly squeezed for more and more money, to the point the government can't squeeze no more? At that point, the government must either 1) reduce taxes and cut spending or 2) lower the floor to get at those people who make just less than the floor. So, that person who today is supporting Obama may very well also be supporting his own tax increase in 4, 6 or 10 years (certainly as to Social Security); the same tax increase that today, as a new employee, making under $40,000, he or she is able to rationalize because he or she isn't rich and won't be affected; that same person who may be a beneficiary of Obama's tax credits today, but will see those credits disappear at some point in the future. It is easy to vote for a tax increase on the rich when, selfishly, you are the recipient of a government handout; the result of someone else's hard work.

In other words, the phenomenom that Obama's tax policy is, is predicated on squeezing and squeezing every last dime from those who make more than $250K in order to pay for these tax credits to everyone else, as well as his large federal spending increases. And when 40% of the people don't pay taxes, and another 11%, according to the article, will see their tax burden reduced to near zero due to tax credits, how can we expect this last 5% of rich earners to be the main funders of at least 50% of Americans and expect them to continue to create jobs and invest in this country? Those 5% will have an incentive to reduce their earnings until they fall below this floor, which means reductions in employment, reduction in investments, and reductions in production.

Or, as the WSJ article notes:

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

Obama's tax policy is nothing short of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, but ask for nothing in return; government creating a tax policy to punish people for being successful, then using that money to give away to the poor. We should not be using taxes to redistribute wealth and punish success; we should be lowering taxes to encourage people to succeed, and to not have the government step in and take away people's money and simply give it away to someone else. This not a recipe for success, this is a recipe for welfare. The Federal government is not a charity organization.

Exactly what we don't need

2008-10-21T10:10:00.001-07:00

So, was talking to my wife's sister the other day. She's a junior at Wisconsin and she asked if I've come around and changed who I plan to vote for, and I said, Why would I? After the usual line about Palin this and Palin that, and Biden brings all this experience, blah blah blah, I then said, well, if it's experience, why aren't you voting for McCain? She then went in to a spiel about this and that, then said, and I'm gonna paraphrase, "Obama is like FDR, and that's what we need. When FDR became president, he wasn't very well known, and, sure some of his policies didn't work, but he was willing to try lots of things to get people to work." I had to stop her there- First, FDR's policies didn't work because they were unconstitutional, amongst other things (see below). Second, FDR was the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 1920, a sitting governor of New York, former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and, finally, the cousin of a guy named Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt got elected because he was able to convey to the American public that he could and would do something; well, he did do something all right. He turned a regular old recession into The Great Depression. Let's just say that if we need another FDR and Obama is him, I say No thanks. We cannot afford another FDR.

When FDR took office, unemployment was around 25%, but during the period until 1940, unemployment averaged above 17%, and didn't fall to under 10% until 1941, when it hit 9.9%- 6 years AFTER FDR took office. There is increasing economic evidence that BUT FOR FDR's New Deal policies, unemployment would have been much lower and the Great Depression would have ended well before U.S. entered World War II. As Walter Lippmann wrote: "the essence of the New Deal is the reduction of private corporate control by collective bargaining and labor legislation, on the one side, and by restrictive, competitive and deterrent government action on the other side.” In other words, the New Deal was nothing short of the federal government's taking over and managing the economy without a care as to the ability of businesses to conduct their affairs. As the authors of the UCLA study conclude: "Our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened." Or, as historian David Kennedy wrote in "Freedom from Fear," “Whatever it was [the New Deal] was not a recovery program, or at any rate not an effective one.”

Now, was FDR able to communicate with the common guy, sure; was his leadership on handling the lead up to World War II and other international programs effective, sure; but on the domestic front, his policies were an absolute disaster. When a panic hit the U.S in 1938, there was a spike in unemployment from 14.3% back up to 19%. As the UCLA paper posits- the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, even though it was declared unconstitutional 2 years later, and FDR's keeping as close to that Act's goals as possible, still accounted for "60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943."

According to the UCLA analysts-

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

Instead, what we need is a program that, as President Kennedy once described in an address to the Economic Club of New York (December 14, 1962): "In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the Federal Government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures." Further, President Kennedy insisted there should be a tax cut on "personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital."

Obama's tax plan only gets half of it right- he's proposing to decrease taxes for "95%" of taxpayers (let's say lower and middle classes), nevermind that 30% of those taxpayers don't pay taxes anyway, which means they are not getting a tax cut, but are getting a government handout, in order to pay for those handouts, and other new programs, he also proposes to increase taxes on upper middle and upper class, plus proposes a huge increase in government spending, and, on top of all that, an additional increase in social security taxes on those who make more than $250,000; the same people who would be subject to the increase in personal income tax now get hit twice. (Note: Obama proposes that this increase in Social Security tax start in 10 years, but simply by saying that, he can start including revenues from the future to pay for current program costs- once again, the future is compromised to pay for the present.) All to pay for Obama's redistribution of wealth program. As Robert Carroll from the Tax Foundation says, "When Mr. Obama's full package of upper-income tax increases goes into effect, the top marginal tax rate would be nearly 50 percent, a incentive-destroying level we haven't seen since 1986." In a separate article, Carroll also notes that under Obama's tax plan, marginal tax rates go up, even on workers making as little as $30,000. As the article puts it: "Most low- and moderate-income couples would see their effective marginal tax rates rise, in some cases, significantly. Indeed, some low- and moderate-income taxpayers will see their marginal rates rise to more than 50 percent." These rates rise because "the combination of the phase-out of the [Earned Income Tax Credit], the "Making Work Pay" credit, and the child and dependent care credit pushes the effective marginal tax rate to as high as 51.7 percent. That is, the taxpayer who benefits from all these provisions at a lower income discovers that he gets to keep less than one half of every additional dollar of earnings in the roughly $30,000-to-$43,000 range." As a worker makes more money, he is entitled to less and less of his previous benefits, even if he only makes $40,000 a year. By the way, the Tax Foundation even notes that Obama's tax vision is to redistribute wealth.

So, where are we? We know that many of FDR's domestic policies "may not have worked," as my sister-in-law puts it, and there are very good reasons why they didn't work, but those that did work, hurt this country more than helped it. And that Obama, by using our present economic crisis to his political advantage, hopes to more fully realize those failed domestic policies of 80 years ago. Hope and change he may be, but hope is never a strategy and his view of change is something we cannot afford.

Only if the little man doesn't make that much money

2008-10-19T17:22:00.000-07:00

Ruben Navarette:

With just a few weeks until the election, Obama made a major boo-boo that could cost him the race. What are Democrats and their simpaticos in the media supposed to do? They can’t turn back time. So instead, they turn on Joe the Plumber.

Read more here.

Of course Obama doesn't apologize for saying that redistribution of wealth is a good thing- why should he, that's what's accepted and promoted in his elitist circles. Although, it's again worth noting that those same circles also give far less of their income to charity than other groups. . .that's how we end up with Sarah and Todd Palin giving 8 times as much money to charity than the Biden's, despite making half of what the Biden's make; government is their charity.

Btw, from Andrew Sullivan, we learn that Joe Biden is a tee-totaler. I'm guessing Biden isn't going into the bar with all the other plumbers after work to have their reward for a long day of work- an ice cold beer.

Finally, the media acknowledges their complicity is not researching or writing stories detrimental to Obama's ascendancy to his throne. An exchange between Mark Halperin and Howard Kurtz on CNN:

KURTZ: Mark Halperin, we learned this morning that Barack Obama in the month of September raised $150 million, the early estimates had been about $100 million. They always kind of leak a lower figure so they can exceed it.

If a Republican had not taken public financing and had raised all that money, and the Democrat was struggling financially, wouldn't we see a lot of stories about one candidate essentially trying to buy the election?

HALPERIN: We would. We'd also see a lot of stories about his going back on his word saying that he would accept the public money and would reach out to Senator McCain to try to work out a deal. So I think this is a case of a clear, unambiguous double standard, and any reporter who doesn't ask themselves, why is that, why would it be different if it's a Republican? I think is doing themselves and our profession and our democracy a disservice.

From Instapundit

I suspect most journalists don't care.

Indeed

2008-10-16T15:36:00.000-07:00

If only I was as smart or as good a writer as Peter Wallison. . .from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present.

But, let's not forget, one-time and future Obama advisor Austan Goolsbee defended these sub-prime mortgages in this editorial from 2007.

You can read his editorial at the link, but I want to quote his concluding line: "For be it ever so humble, there really is no place like home, even if it does come with a balloon payment mortgage."

The ubiquitous balloon payment. Seeing that line reminded me of the old Simpsons episode where they bought a Canyonero. In that episode, Homer wants to buy a large SUV, despite not being able to afford it. So, the car dealer comes up with a ludicous payment schedule: down payment, monthly payment, weekly payment, and the crippling balloon payment, or CBP. As Homer noted though, "But that's not for a while." What does this have to do with anything? The Simpsons were making fun of those people who go out and buy something despite being unable to afford them, instead, relying on these outlandish payment schedules, culminating in a CBP. Now, Austan Goolsbee defends these subprime mortgages as getting people who wouldn't ordinarily be able to afford a house, but for Homer-like payment schedules, also culminating in a CBP. At some point, it was accepted that owning a home was a dream, a life-time of saving; instead, it became something available to those who shouldn't own a home, for whatever reason. I mean, there's a reason why there is a rental market.

So, Obama and Biden can blame deregulation all they want (even though Biden voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley), but simply because you keep repeating it does not make it true.

By the way, I would be remiss if I didn't note that a certain organization that's been in the news recently waged a very vocal (and at times intimidating) campaign to loosen credit requirements for the secondary housing market to allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase and repackage these loans. For a history, you can read this Stanley Kurtz article. As he noted-

"Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment. ... ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the [Community Reinvestment Act] from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. By steamrolling the GOP that March [1995], it had crushed the last potential barrier to 'change.'"

Now, you could say that it's unfair to quote from a noted conservative writer. But from this 1992 NY Times article, it's clear that this organization had set its next target:

Yet at present, the three Philadelphia banks seem responsive. They have lobbied with Acorn in Washington to find ways to make it easier to package these mortgages and sell them in the secondary market. This would reduce the banks' risk and free up more money to lend.
The biggest buyer of mortgages is the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, which resells them to investors. But Fannie Mae has been reluctant to buy such unconventional mortgages. Acorn hopes that large commitments like that of Nationsbank will help bring pressure on Fannie Mae.

[Courtesy of No Quarter]

It's perhaps not at all surprising to know that through ACORN's intimidation tactics at silencing Republican attempts to reform the CRA, and Democrats unwillingness to step up against ACORN (see Obama, Barack; Frank, Barney), the very same people ACORN purports to represent are the very same people bearing the brunt of mortgage failures. And you and I get to bail them out.

Dear Leader for 8th graders

2008-10-14T22:39:00.000-07:00

Imagine if this was John McCain.....

Apparently a brand new literature book for 8th graders in Wisconsin comes with a 15 page section on Obama. It's a repeat of his 2004 Democratic convention speech. How convenient to have it come out just in time for the election. Once again, coincidence rears its ugly head. I mean, what other purpose would someone publish in its entirety, with pictures, Obama's speech than to get 8th graders ready for an Obama presidency. This is a really bold foray into indoctrination. You wonder why people are worried about Obama becoming president; children are now being taught the wonders and promise of Dear Leader Obama. I mean, he hasn't even been elected, and a textbook already contains 18 pages on Obama; considering the lead time in preparing and printing a text book, you think the person responsible for the book expects Obama to lose?

It's even worse than thought

2008-10-13T18:46:00.000-07:00

CNN reports that 5,000 voter registration forms gathered by ACORN in Lake County, Indiana are all under suspicion as the first 2,100 all turn out to be fake.

Transcript available here.

The Indiana Secretary of State is asking for an investigation of this massive attempt at voter fraud and flat out voter registration fraud.

Also, once again, ACORN blames "lazy" employees and election officials, in this case, they blame election officials for not prosecuting previous voter registration fraud so that ACORN "could tell our employees that no, this isn't just a firing offense, but this is an offense that could lead you to jail. Then we could then put that in the ready room where we train people." I can imagine the winking nods going on in ACORN training when going over the legality of voter registration fraud. Perhaps ACORN should be more focused on who it hires, I mean, we already know they've hired felons in Wisconsin, who's to say they haven't done that in other states.

Finally, I will simply point out that Lake County was the home of suspected shenanigans during the Democratic Primary, with the Mayor of Hammond, Indiana, a Hillary supporter, calling out the Mayor of Gary, an Obama supporter, on it.

On the topic of these angry republicans, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit notes:

So we've had nearly 8 years of lefty assassination fantasies about George W. Bush, and Bill Ayers' bombing campaign is explained away as a consequence of him having just felt so strongly about social justice, but a few people yell things at McCain rallies and suddenly it's a sign that anger is out of control in American politics?

And Michael Barone:

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

It looks to me that as much as Republican's are being portrayed by the media, color me shocked (the LA Times almost wistfully pats Republican bloggers on the head telling us, "Bless your hearts, the media is in on it and there's nothing you can do"), all of sudden as angry, it's the Democrats and Obama supporters who are doing the most damage and have shown their true colors: to get their candidate elected, no matter the cost. If Obama gets elected, I fully expect an emboldened left to go out "and get" those who disagree with them, and it won't take 40 pieces of silver to do it.

UPDATE on ACORN

2008-10-10T16:44:00.000-07:00

As noted previously, ACORN, a supposed get-out-the-vote group that pushes for liberal and progressive candidates, and who Barack Obama once represented, is now under investigation for voter fraud in at least 11 states. They are under investigation in:

Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Nevada, which included an FBI raid, Ohio, including apparent bribery, Connecticut, North Carolina, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan.

In fact, ACORN representatives in Ohio note that they couldn't stop it even if they tried. In fact, they blame the local elections board for not reviewing election cards; which is precisely their point. Groups like ACORN don't want local or state election authorities reviewing voter registration cards, that's why states like Ohio have registration laws that are ripe for voter fraud, and a Secretary of State that is patently encouraging it.

All of this is coupled with a lawsuit progressing in Louisiana over alleged corruption and embezzlement by ACORN leaders.

So, an organization that openly admits it can't stop voter fraud from happening, that engages in potential bribery and other shady activities (including hiring felons to engage in voter registration) and is an organization that not only endorsed Obama, but is organization that hired Obama as their lawyer in at least one lawsuit, invited Obama to help train activists, and, according to Obama himself, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work", run Project Vote, a get-out-the-vote organization that is affiliated with ACORN, and is using all its means to get one of their own elected president.

It's high time that Obama is made to answer for his association with radical, fringe groups and people, and not simply pooh-pooh them as some crazy ex-girlfriend(s) from his past.

Minnesota

2008-10-10T14:45:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago I got to spend a full weekend in the Twin Cities. I make note of this because it was my first ever trip to Minnesota; so, I only have 8 states left to visit (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, Vermont and Rhode Island). I went out to meet up with my wife who was there for business and her uncle and his family who live in St. Paul.

That first night there got to go to a Homecoming high school football game. Quick aside: the week before that we were in Redding for a wedding of one of her other cousins, and also went to a high school game. The differences between the two were interesting: the team in Redding had maybe 20-24 players, the team in Minnesota had easily more than 50; the two offenses in the Redding game were primarily run oriented, the teams in the Minnesota game were passing oriented. The weather was equally nice, although we arrived late for the Redding game.

On Saturday, her uncle, some of his children, my wife and I headed to the Old Mill section of Minneapolis to take a tour of the Old Mill. It focused on the history of Minneapolis and St. Paul as a mill town, turning the wheat from the Midwest into flour and shipping it around the world. Minneapolis was the home for companies like Pillsbury and Gold Medal Flour, both of which ended up being bought by General Mills, which is headquartered in Minneapolis. I also didn't really realize the role the Mississippi played in making Minneapolis a hub for milling by altering the flow of the Mississippi slightly at St. Anthony Falls to harness the hydropower potential of the Mississippi at that particular point of the river.

We then went our separate ways as wife and I headed for the Mall of America, or the MOA as the locals call it (ok, it was my wife's aunt who said it, but it still sounds good). It's huge, but, honestly, not as big as I was expecting. I mean, yeah, it's got 4 levels, and 3 rollercoasters (those turns and corkscrews are pretty tight), but we were able to walk around it, and all 4 levels in the space of a few hours. By the way, there's no sales tax on clothing in Minnesota. Needless to say, we ended up buying some clothes. Also, people are nice. Like really nice. My wife's cell phone has been slowly coming to its end (I mean, the battery lasts 5 minutes, the numbers 3, 6 and 9 didn't work, and if she was talking to someone during those 5 minutes her battery lasted, the phone would start randomly dialing other numbers). So, we go to the Verizon Wireless store in the MOA, and we're told just drop it off and we'll do a program update, be back in an hour. No problem, we walk around and get some lunch. Go back and hour later and they tell us that the update crashed the phone and they are replacing it with a new phone, but the same model. To think that at the Verizon Wireless store by my work, it takes a minimum of 2 hours to get anything done there, but at the MOA store, we were able to drop the phone off, come back and hour later and leave with a new phone. Plus, the person helping us gave us credit so that my wife could re-purchase the ringtones she downloaded as well as a few other free stuff. However, I completely forgot to look around for homeplate from the original Metropolitan Stadium which is where the Twins played when they moved from D.C. I've seen the homeplate and remaining outfield wall of Forbes Field when we went to Pittsburgh several years ago, so it would have been nice to add the Met to that. Maybe next time.

We finished the day with a lovely dinner out with her aunt and uncle in downtown St. Paul. Afterwards, her uncle drove us around and showed us the cathedral where they got married, the state capitol, the Governor's House (that was pointed out by relaying a story about an event during the time of Gov. Ventura), and other historical sites around St. Paul.

Sunday, however, was the main draw for me as we got to go to a Twins game at the Metrodome. The Metrodome is the 11th baseball stadium that my wife and I have visited. What more can be said about this place that hasn't already been said. Well, what isn't said is that the rows are like 30 seats long and there is no view of the field from the concession stands. Like the article notes, though, the seats don't face home plate, but, really, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Sure, I lost most balls that were hit in the air, but being indoors meant it wasn't going to be too cold or too hot, people were relatively pleasant, and being in the last row on the field level meant we were right below the first batch of club boxes and we could watch the football games going on at the same time. And, unlike with Shea or Yankee Stadium, we were able to hit this stadium before the Twins move to their new stadium in 2010. All in all, it wasn't terrible, but it wasn't PNC. Plus, it was the last game of the season and the Twins had a chance to clinch the American League Central division with a win and a White Sox loss; the Twins won, but so did the White Sox, who also won the next day to force a one-game playoff against the Twins, which was won by the White Sox. There's always next year Twins fans.

Overall, the weekend was great, the leaves were beginning to change, which is something that I always looked forward to when I lived in D.C., but don't really get living here in the Bay Area, and had a great time doing a bit of sight-seeing. There are two things that I want to see in Minnesota- the beginning of the Mississippi and the home of Sinclair Lewis. Sinclair Lewis is one of my favorite authors, that's why. However, neither of those sites are really that close to Minneapolis though, which means, I guess, we'll have to spend more than a weekend there.

An end of an era

2008-10-09T13:06:00.000-07:00

Mother's Cookies shut down today after 92 years in business. I remember Mother's Cookies very fondly, and, in fact, one of the very first things I bought when I moved back to California was a package of their taffy sandwich cookies and a bag of their variety cookies. In the 80s, Mother's Cookies was the sponsor of baseball card give-aways at both Giants and A's games. I still have several of those packages; although, while the set usually consisted for 15 players or so, each pack only had 10 (or something like that), so you couldn't get a full set from each pack. It wasn't until years later that I realized how rare those cards were.

In addition to Mother's, the company also owned Archway Cookies, a brand I was familiar with when living on the East Coast and in the South. I am going to guess that at some point, the brand name and logo will be sold and we'll get "Mother's Cookies" again, but they won't be the same.

Where there's smoke, there's fire

2008-10-09T00:48:00.000-07:00

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, got busted yet again for potential voter fraud, this time in Missouri. Let's not forget that ACORN is also under investigation for more voter fraud in Nevada. In Nevada, ACORN volunteers apparently signed up to vote various members of the Dallas Cowboys.

ACORN is one of the most outspoken groups supporting the nomination of Barack Obama; in fact, when a mere attorney in Chicago, Obama represented ACORN, at ACORN's request, as part of a motor voter drive. Stanley Kurtz has an article on Obama's ties to ACORN, with an update from today here. While coming to no firm conclusions, noting that more investigation is needed, he does list some several interesting ties between Obama and ACORN. What is interesting is that in his article, Kurtz links to a magazine called "Social Policy" and specifically to an article called "Case Study: Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign" dated October 2004. There are 24 articles listed in that edition, but there are 2 that are unavailable. One of them is the Case Study article, the second also deals with Chicago. This article is called "Towards A Chicago School of Youth Organizing." The full "Case Study" article can be found here. Why would Social Policy all of a sudden cut off access to these articles?

What is interesting about the second article is that it's written by a guy from the Woods Fund and how the Woods Funds held outreach meetings with various youth organizing groups. And where have I heard the Woods Fund from before? That's right, Barack Obama was on the Board of Directors, along with Bill Ayers. The Woods Fund, while Obama was on the Board, gave grant money to a number of organizations, including, ta da!, ACORN. Further research on Obama, the Woods Fund and ACORN can be found here in an article by Jennifer Rubin.

Let's also not forget about this Boston Globe article about Obama's ties to various failed housing projects in Chicago, including housing projects in his state Senate district that he advocated for and helped fund when on the Woods Fund (I find it odd that he was on the Board of Directors for the Woods Fund while he was in the Illinois state Senate). Obama instead, relies on his time-worn excuse: "Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that the deterioration of Rezmar's buildings never came to his attention. He said he would have distanced himself from Rezko if he had known," even though, as the article continues, a local alderman was aware of these problems. In a Chicago Sun-Times article, it notes that the Woods Fund, while Obama was on the Board, helped fund his ex-boss on constructing a housing project for low income and elderly residents, similar to those other failed housing projects. And while he was in the state Senate, Obama wrote letters to get funding for other residential housing units for his ex-boss and Tony Rezko. A group of residents in one of the failed housing developments began to protest against Obama in his 2004 Senate run, noting "How didn't he know [about the housing problems]? Of course he knew. He just didn't care." Once again, Obama shows a shocking lack of judgment with who he associates with, an apparent cavalier attitude about the goings on in his district, and again says that he didn't know.

Of course, none of these associations with various left-wing, anti-american groups matters to many Obama supporters. As David Bernstein notes,

the elite liberal academic culture I've been referencing, violence on behalf of "revolutionary" goals is not only not shocking to many, it's often affirmatively romanticized, as with the ubiquitous Che t-shirts, and the inexplicable love affair many in the academy have with Fidel Castro. Again, it's not that Obama himself romanticizes such violence, but that he is a product of a culture in which being disturbed by a lack of remorse over the "revolutionary" violent actions of the Weathermen 30+ years later is just not on the cognitive map.

I mean, not only is it romanticized, but it's a fashion statement (according to the LA Times, "it shouldn't be a surprise that L.A. artist Shepard Fairey, in his design for a Sen. Barack Obama poster, looked to Korda's Che. Fairey's Obama is not wearing a beret, and he's looking left instead of right, but his face tilts at the same angle as Che's.").

It's quite breathtaking the length to which Obama will continue to deny any and all association between himself, Bill Ayers and ACORN when the paper trail (and money trail) all converge. This all seems like more than mere coincidence. I still don't understand how Obama can write letters asking for government funds for friends to construct low income housing, then a few years later through his position on the Woods Fund, gives more money to the same people for more housing projects, but then not know the status of the living conditions in still other housing projects he supported. There are a lot of questions that Obama has not adequately answered, and probably won't be forced to answer. And for some people, that's perfectly fine.

San Francisco unleashes their new weapon against cars

2008-10-08T12:59:00.000-07:00

Noise pollution! Seriously.

According to the article, "Traffic is the No. 1 contributor to the ambient noise level in San Francisco." The other major forms of noise pollution listed in the article are sirens (from fire trucks), trains and exhaust fans. San Francisco senior environmental health specialist for the Department of Health, Tom Rivard, hopes to use this study on noise pollution from traffic as another input in future building codes, land-use ordinances and transportation policy. The article also notes that cars aren't the only major sources of noise pollution. What else is there? A ventilation and A/C unit in a library is causing problems for local residents.

A solution raised by Mr. Rivard is to have ordinances issued that would curtail operating hours for a bar or restaurant, in addition to other measures to limit noise. Yes, I can see it now: a noise curfew for certain hours of the day, ala quiet hours in dorms, where pesky RA's wander the dorm searching for people making too much noise. Perhaps these noise police can be the same people checking our trash and tire pressure on our cars. In other words, San Francisco is about to embark on another ambitious program to weed out those of us who live in the city and own a car under the guise of noise pollution. Environmentalism is indeed the new religion and mantra for all sorts of invasive government regulation and oversight.

Hey, you know what else would limit noise? New windows, and, as a bonus, they help make one's house or apartment more energy efficient, and create jobs. Let's, instead, help people pay for installation of new windows that will reduce noise inside a residence, and also help lower energy bills, instead of limiting the ability of business to operate or forcing people out of their car. Or getting the screaming-in-the-middle-of-the-night homeless people into shelters, instead of saying it's a lifestyle choice. I swear, each time I read one of these articles about pushing government into people's lives and their choices, I'm one step closer to moving to the suburbs, where I have a yard in the front, thereby keeping a distance from the road, a tree lined street, safe(r) neighborhoods and better schools.

In another article from today, this one on legislation limiting what types of businesses can open in North Beach, the President of the North Beach Merchants Association noted that "I'm a 25-year resident and I'm tired of having to get in my car and drive to Polk Street to buy a screwdriver."

So, at the same time San Francisco is trying to come up with creative ways to limit people driving, they have fashioned rules (including a potential carbon tax) that make it difficult for new businesses to take root in this city, thus, requiring residents of this city to drive somewhere else and buy what they need. In March of this year, Home Depot was forced to cancel plans to open a store in San Francisco due to zoning rules that were going to be passed by the Board of Supervisors, denying the opportunity to have a new source of revenue and jobs for an area of town that desperately needs new jobs. As Caille Millner noted in this February 2008 editorial:

Never mind that most city residents hop in their cars and offer their sales tax to Daly City when it's time to hit Home Depot: A small, vocal element of "neighborhood activists" insists that chain stores "ruin neighborhood character" and are "homogenizing" because the goods they offer are - gasp! - widely available.

I'd like to point out, too, that people who hold these views usually emphasize that it's only certain chain stores that they don't like: the déclassé ones like McDonald's, the ones that reek of lower-income customers and commonness. Trader Joe's is always just fine with these folks, it's Subway that's the problem.

Of course I do that, I have a car and Daly City offers the businesses that I shop at most, notably, Target and Home Depot. Also, I can still get plastic bags in Daly City, so that's another plus.

Course, the opposition to the building of a new Whole Foods in the Haight on the site of a former grocery store, further shows this dichotomy, albeit for slightly different, and far more stranger, reasons. But that's another topic, for another day.

It's been awhile

2008-10-06T21:15:00.000-07:00

Since I haven't done a 120 Minutes recap in awhile, thought I do one today. This one was from Sunday night, at 11:00 PM Pacific time.

Morrissey- Tomorrow: I remember when this album came out, or rather, I remember singing this song to a friend my senior year in high school who thought the lyrics were some of the most depressing she'd heard, nevermind the beat is rather upbeat. This video has Morrissey and his band walking around some narrow streets in a French town. . they ultimately walk in a circle, but no matter, it's Morrissey. Still a pretty classic mid-90s alternative song.

Wall of Voodoo- Mexican Radio: Ok, I've always liked this song and the video, but it's waaaay overplayed on this show. The video is pretty amusing, what with the band in various old timey pictures, including on band member missing his legs. And hey, who doesn't like barbecued iguana. And the final few shots are really random, from the very, very tall director to Stan Ridgeway in a pot of beans.

U2- Where the Streets Have No Name: A secret show from the top of a building in L.A. with L.A. cops pissed at it happening. There's a story that the cops told them to stop playing and the band said ok, but kept playing anyway until finally the cops got onto the roof and shut them down. The improv group Improv Everywhere even did a play on this during U2's Vertigo tour by staging a mock U2 concert from on top of an apartment complex in New York City, the night of the U2 show there. Anyway, I don't think I need to really say anymore about this song and video.

The Alarm- Spirit of '76: A mix of live shots and various shots of lead singer Mike Peters. Boring video, and, boring mid-80s anthem. Fast forward.

The Cure- Hot, Hot, Hot: One of the more shocking Cure videos since it shows Robert Smith with short hair. Pretty much from their only pure pop album, as they followed this album with Disintegration, blowing away a whole generation of music listeners, and closing the 80s to doom and gloom, along with Depeche Mode's "Violator." Anyway, the video is of the band playing the song on raised circular stages, but concludes with them a few feet shorter. I don't get it, but then, I don't get a lot of their videos.

Gin Blossoms- Found Out About You: Boy, the Gin Blossoms. They were everywhere in 1994, huh? Then they kicked out their one songwriter for alcohol abuse, and couldn't replicate the success of the singles he wrote from their first album. Anyway, the video, like most of these, are the band playing the song, with various scenes showing up behind them- green screen stuff. I'm gonna take this moment to note that Rock Band is missing out by skipping over a lot of these early to mid 90s alternative songs. While they may not necessarily be the hardest songs to play, they sure to bring those of us who lived through that time back to being in college or post-college; Hey Jealousy would be a great song for Rock Band.

XTC- Dear God: Ok, I love XTC, but I'm tired of seeing this video nearly every week. One day I'll post my dream episode of 120 minutes, but not today. One of the amusing things about this song is that I used to DJ at my college radio station, and on Sunday's, since I went to a school affiliated with a Christian denomination, someone would always play this song. I don't know why, I mean, I guess it's kind of an ironic song, but I don't think the people on Sunday's got that, or listened very carefully to the words. While I'm here as well, how is XTC not garnering support for induction into the Rock n'Roll Hall of Fame- I have another posting about the Hall, so I'll save my XTC argument for that, whenever I get around to it. Yeah, I know I didn't talk about the video, oh well.

Stone Temple Pilots- Plush: Their first big song. Just a staged video of them in a club, and Weiland has orange hair. While I thought they were a phony band, I also thought they were in on the joke. Like they knew there were completely derivative, but didn't care and took everyone's money, because, frankly, they wrote some very strong songs, of which Plush is one of many. What I don't like about this video, though, is Weiland copying Eddie Vedder's movements, almost done to a tee. Since this was their first big song, and they were following Pearl Jam and Soundgarden they had to look similar. Weiland got a lot better when he stopped copying Eddie Vedder and became his own on stage train wreck.

The Replacements- The Ledge: God their videos are lazy. Just them in chairs eating, smoking and doing nothing much else. If it's not "Alex Chilton," I'm fast forwarding.

The Fixx- Red Skies: Why they are playing this, I don't really know. I suppose at some point in the 80s, The Fixx was "alternative" or "modern." Honestly, I don't remember this version of the video, with the bass player wearing a long beard, cape and a wide brimmed hat. Really? A cape? Moving along.....

The Dead Milkmen- Punk Rock Girl: Ahhhh, still one of my favorite songs. Saw them in Dallas in 1993 or something- great show. One thing does annoy me about this song is that they get the wrong band; California Dreaming was the Mamas and Papas, not the Beach Boys. There is just so many things in this video that I can't explain, it's awesome.

The Charlatans- Weirdo: When I used to record the original 120 Minutes starting in 1992, this was a song played quite often. The video has a number of "weirdos" including an admittedly scary clown/jester with a fake large nose bouncing around with various lighting. You know, I didn't much care for this song back in 1992 either.

Love and Rockets- So Alive: Another classic from 1989. I remember this song being popular that summer. I can't help but watch every time a Love and Rockets video comes on, I don't know why, other than I like their songs. Oh, and they are 3/4's of Bauhaus. Not much to say about the video. . .

New Order- Blue Monday '89: For some reason has dogs balancing on top of various objects and the band dodging various objects. I guess that, much like how their songs are nearly unintelligible, the videos make even less sense. While I'm here, I want to point out to people this embarrassment:

This is the video for their song "Confusion" from 1983. I mean, nevermind about the song being mastered to a reel-to-reel, and the reel-to-reel being taken to the dance club, that happens to have a reel-to-reel player in the DJ booth, but this whole video is amazing; it's a testament to the early 80s, with the Richard Simmons' candy cane stripped shorts, men with mustaches dancing without shirts, Bernard Sumner wearing a polo shirt buttoned to the top, tucked in with shorts and white socks and boat shoes. I'm amazed by the goings on in that video. . .it astounds me that 3 pasty white guys and one pasty white girl from England could come up with that song and have it be popular. It's really something to behold. Also, another band (and it's previous incarnation as Joy Division) that should be in the Rock n'Roll Hall of Fame.

The Stone Roses- Fools Gold: Never a Stone Roses fan. This video is of them walking around hills and rocks, leading to an impromptu concert on top of one of aforementioned hills. Fast forward.

Fishbone- Modern Industry: All they are doing is reciting various radio station call letters. I have no idea what's going on in this video or with this song. I'm going to guess that it's making fun of major radio stations and how they are controlled by. . .someone or something. Course, there's even less diversity in radio and music today.

Soundgarden- Black Hole Sun: A really creepy video as it uses that technology that exaggerates facial expressions and a number of weird scenes (why is the woman taking a bath with a dog is the one I really don't get). It's a fun song to play drums to on Rock Band. Otherwise, I don't have anything to really say about this video, except I didn't like the song when it first came out, and I really don't care for it today.

The Waterboys- The Whole of the Moon: Ok, now this is a very enjoyable song and one that has really grown on me from watching the video. Just a simple video of the band playing the song, and it's a really good song. It's a song like this that makes one think that anyone can do that, but really, you can't.

Modern English- Melt With You: You know, there's one thing you can say about these cheesy and simple songs from the 80s- they're catchy and will be played forever. And the confluence of influences that resulted in these poppy new wave songs won't be repeated.

REM- Get Up: A confession- Green is one of my least favorite REM albums. There are a number of songs that I do like on that album, I just don't like it in its entirety. It seems way too preachy for me. I'm pretty ambivalent about this song. The video is boring with just a mismash of cut-outs coming together to form various images; it's like a huge collage project.

REM- Supernatural Superserious: God.. .seeing your idols grow old. Anyway, the video has the band driving around New York City, I think, and playing in-store performances in various stores. Didn't buy this album, which I think may be the first one I haven't bought, but the song is thoroughly enjoyable. Perhaps I should go out and find a copy of it.

Alice in Chains- Man in the Box: A song that I really liked growing up. It captured the angst and darkness that was missing in Pearl Jam and even Nirvana. Yes, I know, my music tastes in high school were all over the place, and I haven't even mentioned that one of my favorite bands in high school was Ministry. I suppose I'll have a lot to explain to my future shrink.

The Human League- Human: Another one that doesn't belong on this show. I'm not even gonna write anything more about it.

So, that's all. Not the best episode, but certainly not the worst. I must say that I am getting tired of the repeats.

Disgust

2008-10-03T16:42:00.000-07:00

Watch this:

This letter is a summary of how I feel and the way that Democrats have used "deregulation" as a code word for greed.

Did you know that the bailout bill passed by congress and signed by President Bush contains a number of other provisions that have zero relation to banks and mortgages? For example, Sec. 211 contains a section called "TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS." What this section does is that it provides a $20 tax credit or subsidy a month to people who ride bikes to work. That $20 can also be used towards a purchase of a bike or to pay for repairs of that bike, provided the bike is used to get to work. Section 503 is a "EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN." I can't even explain what this does. Apparently, there's a producer of these products in Oregon, and one of Oregon's representatives or Senators got this tax credit in the bill; but, only all wood arrows, if they are not completely made of wood, you're out of luck. Again, what does this have to do with the banking system? I won't even go into why the renewable energy credits and the plug-in hybrid credits are in this bill.

Yes, I'm mad and disgusted with what has transpired over this week in Congress. That by simply adding more tax credits and government spending programs that that will get Congressmen on board. As Joel Stein, who I might add has been on the button recently, noted:

If I were in Congress, I'd hold out. Every representative who voted no on the bailout got something totally sweet in the bill that passed the Senate. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) changed his mind once he got the health insurance for mental illness he's been fighting for. The Senate is trying to bribe Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) with tax breaks for Arizona solar companies. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who rides a bicycle, is supposed to be tempted by a tax deduction for bike commuters, as Democrats Adam Schiff of Burbank and Brad Sherman of Sherman Oaks are by tax breaks for movie producers. If they all vote no again, the next version of the bill will include a federally funded movie about a schizophrenic guy who rides his solar-powered bike to work. Which will win 8,000 Oscars.
....
Any representative who voted against the world's largest economic bailout last week but votes for this bigger, uglier, more dangerous version has been bought. Whether you think this bailout is good or not, the people who changed their minds on such a monumental matter for such flimsy, unrelated reasons do not deserve to be trusted with your vote this November. They deserve to have their office called over and over in increasingly less believable accents. If you can do a crazy guy who rides a solar-powered bike, I'd go with that.

Ok, I've said enough. . .While I thought that this little diatribe would help, it hasn't; my disgust is still there.

The start of my college football season

2008-09-05T12:42:00.000-07:00

Last weekend my wife and I flew to Alabama, which happened to coincide with the state of the college football season. My wife, a Mizzou alum, is all upbeat about this season and my sister is an Alabama fan, who put a beating on Clemson. Both games were on tv at the same time, so we did a picture-in-picture, and watched both teams win their opening games. The Thursday before that, I went to the Oregon State/Stanford game. A friend of ours is an Oregon State graduate and lives near Stanford now, so thought it would a fun time to hang out, drink and watch some Pac-10 football. Oregon State coughed up the ball at the end of the game allowing Stanford to win the first game of the season. Luckily for all of us, we were in the parking lot drinking when the running back fumbled the ball on the 3 yard line.

Why do I bring all of this up? Well, it's all I got. See, I went to Baylor. We don't have a good football team, and haven't been good for over 10 years now. Our last bowl game was the 1994 Alamo Bowl where we lost to Washington State 10-3. 1994 was also the second to last year of the Southwest Conference and we tied for the conference championship with 4 other teams (Texas Tech, Rice, Texas, and TCU) with a 4-3 conference record; Texas A&M was ineligble that year.

But, what truly got me to commiserate on this history of losing was a series of articles in today's Page 2 on espn.com. The first article lists the top 10 BCS teams that beat up on non-BCS teams, including Division 1-AA teams. Now, Baylor is not on that list, although, I guess they could, it's just that they don't win anyway, but we'll get to that later. No, what got me was the three references to Baylor in the article. Basically, these 10 teams schedule easy wins, primarily from non-BCS conferences, and the article is there to call them out on it. The article also notes that while these teams regularly schedule and beat the non-BCS teams, they also have a history of losing to BCS conference teams. And that's where Baylor comes in.

The first mention of Baylor comes in talking about the Minnesota program; Minnesota's forte has been to schedule easy games up front to make their goal of 6 wins for bowl eligibility get easier. Anyway, in the Minnesota discussion the article notes that Minnesota since 1997 played only two nonconference games against BCS teams, losing to Cal, but beating Baylor. Ok, that seems fine.

The second mention is in Oklahoma State. Here the article notes "From 1998 to 2007, only Baylor lost more games to non-BCS teams than the Cowboys among Big 12 teams." Great, not only do we schedule a fair amount of non-BCS games, but we lose a lot of them.

The third mention is in Oregon State. Here they note that one of Oregon State's three non-conference wins since 1997 came against "lowly Baylor." Hey, you know what? Baylor beat Oregon State in 1996, so there!

The next article that got me going was a discussion of the 10 most dangerous non-BCS teams. The article starts with a discussion of Fresno State football and how BCS teams don't like playing them, and will often cancel games at risk of losing to a non-BCS team. In the discussion with Fresno State head coach Pat Hill, he notes that "We don't usually get [programs such as] Indiana or Baylor" wanting to play them. Hey, you know what? Baylor beat Fresno State in 1997, and Baylor only had 2 wins that year.

The article goes on to list the top 10 giant killers in Division 1-A football, and number one is TCU. TCU used to be in the Southwest Conference with Baylor and Baylor still plays them. The first two lines in this section?

"We're still trying to figure out how Baylor got into the Big 12 while the Horned Frogs did not when the Southwest Conference disintegrated. We're going to go out on a limb and suggest that it had more to do with money and influential alumni than athletic performance."

So what if we had former Texas governor Ann Richards as an alumni. . .ok, that was what probably got Baylor into the Big 12. Fine. It then concludes with this slap: "Frankly, we expect an upper-tier team from the Mountain West or WAC to drop the hammer on Northwestern, Vanderbilt and Baylor." Sigh.

At the end of this article, they list 52 non-BCS conference teams and their various victories over BCS teams. Baylor has lost 8 times times to non-BCS opponents. Other than losing twice to TCU, Baylor has lost to UAB (twice), New Mexico, UNLV, North Texas and Army. What's even more astounding is that UAB is 4-22 against BCS teams, so Baylor has provided UAB 2 of their 4 wins; North Texas is 2-25 against BCS teams, so Baylor has provided North Texas with 1 of their 2 wins and Army is 1-19 against BCS teams, so Baylor has provided Army with their sole victory over BCS teams. Not so good.

Helpfully, ESPN also has put together a list of 61 BCS teams, including Norte Dame, on how they've fared against non-conference BCS opponents, non-BCS Divison 1-A opponents and Division 1-AA opponents. What we find is that the teams at the bottom of this is where the top 10 cupcake programs come from. And where's Baylor? Sitting at 49 out of 61; in other words, they schedule non-BCS teams almost 80% of the time, and are just out of the top 10 cupcake programs. But what this also shows is that Baylor has the third most losses against non-BCS teams, only behind Vanderbilt (5-9 against non-BCS) and Northwestern (13-10 against non-BCS). Baylor is 11-8 against non-BCS opponents. Baylor is also 1-6 against non-conference BCS opponents, which looks bad, but it could be worse since Kansas and Ole Miss haven't beat a non-conference BCS opponent. I was going to say that even crappy Minnesota has beat a non-conference BCS opponent, but then, as I noted above, they beat Baylor. On the good side, Baylor is 8-0 against 1-AA opponents, so that's something.

By the way, who was Baylor's one non-conference BCS win since 1998?? North Carolina State in 1998. Suck it N.C. State!

Anyway, Baylor didn't start the season off so well this year with a 41-13 beat down by Wake Forest on national television. This weekend looks to be brighter as we take on Division 1-AA Northwestern State. Then we've got Washington State and at UConn after that, both of which will be televised. Can't wait.

It's going to be a long season

2008-08-28T12:19:00.001-07:00

One area that I have been meaning to write about for sometime now is sports. Why? Well, I'm a sports fan and I have my favorites- unfortunately, most of them aren't very good, with only one bright spot this season (the Penguins who got to the Stanley Cup finals a year ahead of schedule). But the main reason for me writing this post is the absurdity that took place earlier this week at Chiefs training camp. For reasons only known to me, I am a Chiefs fan.

On Monday, the Chiefs signed veteran place kicker Jay Feely to a one year contract. Feeley has an 81% career accuracy mark, and went 21 for 23 in field goal attempts last year for the Dolphins. That same day, Head Coach Herm Edwards decided that the best way to figure out who the best kickers are is to have a "kickoff" where each kicker would have 30 kicks over two days and the best two move on.

So, Jay Feely, fresh off the plane and in a uniform is asked to start kicking with a new holder and snapper. The other two kickers involved in the kickoff were Nick Novak, a University of Maryland graduate who spent the 2007 season in the European football league and sports a 65% career accuracy rate in the NFL, and undrafted rookie Connor Barth from North Carolina. After 30 kicks, Barth missed 2, Novak missed 3 and Feely missed 7. What was the whole point of this exercise? Why sign a veteran kicker to a 1 year deal, then on the day he reports, put him through this fiasco and release him the next day? As Feely's agent said, "If they’re going to base it off two days of kicking, they probably shouldn’t have signed him. It makes no sense to make a decision about Jay without letting him kick in the preseason game. Had we known he wasn’t even going to get that chance, we never would have signed with the Chiefs.”

Now, it very well may be true that either Novak or Barth will turn up to be perfectly fine and acceptable kickers; I'm not making that point. I'm making the point that the Chiefs made a terrible decision on signing Feely and putting him and Novak and Barth through this mess. Feely has a name and a history, and surely deserves a bit more deference than 30 kicks over 2 days. Instead, this shows a serious lack of decision-making and leadership. Plus, this is the final week of the preseason and now they bring in a new placekicker to challenge Novak and Barth? And sign him to a 1 year contract? This is just a terrible decision by an increasingly inept front office and head coach. Bringing a veteran like Feely to the team to challenge for the position must mean the team hasn't decided on which kicker they like- they might not like either of them and this was a way to getting rid of them. Instead, Feely does a terrible job in practice, and gets cut. Practice, not a game, but practice. I will say this, at least the Chiefs apparently kept their word that the two best after the end of the kickoff would stay.

In closing, I'm just gonna quote what my friend Phil told me in response to this story:

For the sake of your psychological health, you should probably just tell yourself that the 2008-2009 football season was canceled because of a workers strike, natural disaster, etc. This year is simply not going to be pretty for you.

Yeah, I already knew that.

Weather

2008-08-27T14:34:00.001-07:00

Temperatures here in ol Ess Eff are in the mid 80s, and yesterday was the first day of the warming trend. Yesterday, I walk outside, turn my Ipod to Guided by Voices and get on the bus for work. On the bus I realized that I don't want to go to work today and should just skip it. After all, the boss is out of town, and the week before Labor Day is pretty uneventful. Thinking of this grand idea, still smiling on the bus listening to GBV, I try to gather accomplices for a round of golf. No luck; I get "sorry, have jury duty," and "sorry, first day of class." What a bunch of losers.

Anyway, I still decide to skip out early and head home where I decide to hit the backyard and do some yardwork. Yep. I left work early to do yardwork. I'm all set for the suburbs. Brought out my Ipod boombox and set it to shuffle all 500 GBV songs on my Ipod- I should add that there are probably 500 more GBV songs that I don't have, and that's not including Bob's solo albums.

Having accomplished my very grand task of yardwork, got a text from Vansmack to meet up at the Beach Chalet for $2 tacos and beer. Wife and I hop in our car and drive over and enjoy the rest of the afternoon. The Beach Chalet is located across the street from Ocean Beach, which, as the name implies, is the beach and who doesn't want to see the sunset while drinking beers and eating tacos by the beach? Although, the kids and hippies were distracting; the kids in a fun way, the hippies, well, they really aren't all that much fun anyway. One kid somehow spent the entire time we were there brandishing a golf club (maybe a kids 6 iron), whacking at trees, taking out weeds, and barely missing heads and arms of all the other kids running around. At one point, he opts out for a long stick and has a sword fight with another kid using a much shorter stick. Kids with sticks and parents with beer- good times had by all.

A variety of things

2008-08-19T11:16:00.000-07:00

I wanted to start off with an update to my previous post on NBC and the Olympics. In case you couldn't stay up until midnight last night, NBC decided to poke fun at its own viewers who have been complaining about staying up late watching the olympics. Bob Costas provides a number of tips to help ward off the effects of staying up late, including "Stay Hydrated" and "Skip Work." Hey, I have a great idea- how about broadcasting it live on the West Coast!

I also want to point out that the link above goes to a blog on the Seattle Times where the writer points out the glaring differences between the highly superior CBC broadcasts (live across all of Canada) and NBC, which is tape delaying lots of things, some events as long as 15 hours.

Moving on, I would be remiss if I didn't point out this excellent column from the Washington Post wondering that while we are looking at a repeat of the 70s economy (inflation is increasing), are we also failing to abide by 5 policy failures from the Great Depression. The 5 failures from the Great Depression are 1)Giving in to protectionism; 2) Blaming the messenger; 3) Increasing taxes in a downturn; 4) Assuming bigger government will bring back growth; and 5) Ignoring the cost of inconsistency. The article presents some interesting comparisons between the actions of Congress in the 1920s/1930s and proposed action today and how many of today's proposed policies simply repeat these same mistakes that pushed the country further into the Great Depression. I'm reminded of Ben Stein's economic lecture in Ferris Bueller's Day Off- "In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression."

Anyway, enough of the dismal science for today.

Finally, and on a lighter note, there is this editorial from the Wall Street Journal. The gist of the editorial is this: "But now the environmental movement has morphed into the most authoritarian philosophy in America." While I think the editorial is a bit to extreme, the general point is one I tend to agree with: the use of the "environment" is becoming a club to bludgeon commerce and individual choices, all resulting in higher costs and prices that will achieve little on a worldwide scale. Instead, the better use of the money being spent on coming up with new ways to intrude in people's lives would be to spend it on countries that truly need the technology to lower emissions. Does it make sense to spend the several millions of dollars that California will be spending to make our residents even more efficient and drive out commerce when for the same amount of money we could drastically do more good by using that money in growing third and second world countries that want to have our lifestyle and prosperity, but not the technology or means to achieve it? Wouldn't more savings be realized by installing more efficient power plants and automobiles or even building an infrastructure to allow for the efficient movement of goods and operation of industry and agriculture result in far more emission savings than encouraging already efficient Californian's to go out and buy new efficient this-or-that's.

But, god forbid anyone question the costs of doing all of this, isn't that right Pastor Jones? See, a few weeks ago, the California State Senate held a hearing on how to cut emissions across the state, and Pastor Jones had the gall to remind the legislators that the costs of doing this will negatively impact low-income communities dis-porportionately since they will be unable to make the necessary changes to mitigate the increased costs. In making these concerns heard before the legislators, he got interrupted by State Senator Pat Wiggins who told Pastor Jones, "Excuse me, but I think your arguments are bullshit." Really. You can watch it here. Not even the poor and minority groups can stop progressives' march toward protecting the earth from humans, as these patrician politicans dictate to everyone else what's best for us.

Thank you NBC

2008-08-15T18:10:00.000-07:00

For tape delaying your "primetime" coverage on the West Coast. Gwen Knapp is exactly right, there's no good reason for NBC to not be airing some of these important events live across the country. I mean, last night the women's all-around event didn't start until after 11:00 PM, what harm is there in broadcasting that live on the West Coast at 8:00 PM, which is smack-dab in the middle of prime time. The swimming events all start sometime between 10:00 and 11:00PM, again, why not just broadcast those live across the country, when it's actually primetime? How does keeping the entire country on the same time schedule make sense, especially when these main events don't start until after 11:00 PM? Apparently NBC has no plans to change that.

I simply do not understand why NBC would do this. It doesn't help that they keep the "LIVE" image on the screen or that the hosts constantly note that it's being broadcast "Live" and not always noting that that only applies to the East Coast or that they every so often flash the time, but only in Beijing and on the East Coast. If NBC wants to protect its primetime coverage, fine that can easily be done. As the main events start, such as swimming finals or last night's all-around exercise, let it go live to everyone and use tape-delayed events fill in the difference. The other night we were up until 1:15 in the morning watching swimming and men's gymnastics. If NBC's goal is have people go to bed before the main events, they've accomplished it.

Deadbeat

2008-08-15T11:11:00.001-07:00

How on earth is Laura Richardson still in Congress? Today, the L.A. Times reports that her house in Sacramento has been declared a public nuisance. According to the article, police were called to investigate the house after neighbors called about it being abandoned and potentially housing a squatter. Of course, this isn't the first time Rep. Richardson, a Democrat, has had to explain herself. In fact, she has defaulted on 3 different houses more than once over the past few years, including the Sacramento house, and had several thousand dollars worth of unpaid property taxes. In fact, the Sacramento house was foreclosed and sold, and was able to convince Washington Mutual to rescind the sale only after she, according to the L.A. Times, made a "stink."

Lest one think she's just caught up in the "housing mess," Rep. Richardson has also made a fool of herself by using taxpayer funded cars for her own pleasure. As this article explains, Rep. Richardson leases the most expensive car in Congress. Additionally, when she was a councilwoman in Long Beach, she proceeded to borrow a city-owned car and run up 30,000 miles- in one year! Oh, using a city-owned car for personal business is against city policy, but. . who cares, right? And why did she need to use a city-owned car for travel? Because she abandoned her wrecked BMW at a auto repair shop and claimed to be unable to afford the required work, so, the mechanic sold it for junk.

So, to sum up. . .Rep. Richardson has defaulted several times on 3 homes, one of which ended up in foreclosure, and was only returned to her under questionable circumstances, and which is now declared a public nuisance. In addition, she abandoned a wrecked car with a mechanic, claiming to not have enough money to pay for the repairs, and, as the article notes, had not paid a previous repair to the same mechanic, then borrowed a city-owned car and ran up 30,000 miles in one year as a part of the part-time city council in a city that takes up 50 square miles. And she won her primary and is running unopposed this fall, except for a write-in campaign.

I want to run for congress now, and buy up a ton of property that I have no way to pay for, then take loans out on those properties to fund my campaign, and when I can't pay for those loans, have a member for the congressional leadership hold a fundraiser for me to help pay them off, but then have a fit when the houses are foreclosed and sold, even though I still can't afford to pay for them. Yes We Can.

Falling over itself

2008-08-13T12:56:00.000-07:00

Oh, do I love seeing the green movement begin to eat itself. For today, we have two amusing stories. . .

First story comes from the Sacramento Bee. California Department of Transportation is planning on expanding U.S. Highway 50, which runs from Sacramento to Ocean City, Maryland, to combat traffic concerns by adding carpool and HOV lanes, you know, to encourage carpooling, buses and other hybrid vehicles. Carpooling, you would think, would be a good thing since it encourages people to share rides and not simply clog the highways with single person cars. However, a lawsuit was filed against the Caltrans because they failed to take into account additional emissions from the expansion of the highway. The gist of the complaint is that by adding new carpool lanes, people would be encouraged to drive more, and discouraged from taking public transportation. However, the telling quote in this article gets to the true purpose of this lawsuit:

"Do we want to build (big road) projects like we did in the 1950s, or do we really change our region?"

It appears that this lawsuit is basically an attempt to force the state and the cities impacted by this lawsuit to move beyond automobiles and highways, and that they intend to use AB32 as a blunt force to impose that view. Additionally, the court asks Caltrans to look into the increased use of buses or light rail- wouldn't buses need to use the highway to get people to work quicker than using side streets, and wouldn't it be easier if there were a dedicated lane or two for them?

So, in the meantime, people will still be sitting in traffic as their cars burn gasoline at a higher rate, instead of carpooling and moving down the highway at a more efficient rate.

Our second story today comes from an article from the Visalia Times-Delta. This one deals with the dangerous emissions that come from composting. Yep. Composting.

The San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District says that emissions from composting contributes up to 2% of all volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere, and wants to see a 15% reduction in emissions from composting. The restrictions would be placed on companies that compost 50,000 tons annually and would require those companies to install technology that would limit the amount of compounds released through composting. These companies in the Central Valley do the unenviable task of taking animal crap and other compostable waste (include compostable waste from the cities of Visalia and Tulare as part of their various environmental policies to limit garbage going to landfills). Then offering the compost as fertilizer to other companies. These companies project that the costs to install technology to capture these emissions would drive them out of business and result in, more garbage going to landfills (which of course gives off methane, amongst other things).

So, what we have here is dueling environmental goals- on the one hand, composting is good because it doesn't fill up landfills, helps replenish soils and does it naturally. On the other, organic waste naturally gives off some amount of emissions though the natural breakdown of the material. So, which one is it? Recycling, limiting landfill use and a natural fertilizer or trying to regulate a naturally occurring cycle that would be expensive and potentially result in less recycling, more landfill use and more use of "dirty" fertilizer?

What do these two items tell us. First, the green movement is taking over and coming to all sorts of non-sensical conclusions. And I haven't talked about environmentals opposed to renewable energy. Second, in order to satisfy the zealotry with which they demand, people cannot make their own decisions; the government must step in and force people to comply. At which point, you end up with situations where "we must limit the amount of emissions and volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere" meets "we must limit the amount of garbage we produce and compost." Where "no more coal" meets "no solar in the desert" or "no wind on the mountain, think of the __insert bird or endangered animal of your choice___" or "no wind 10 miles offshore my estate on Nantucket." Which leads us to the third point- there is no inconsistency in these views if you consider their ultimate goal, which is fundamentally, humans are bad for the environment. Simply by being here we are destroying the planet and any attempt to mitigate those are not good enough- composting, sorry, still giving off emissions. Renewables? Sorry, killing too many birds. New transmission lines? Sorry, cutting down too many trees. Rail? Upsetting too much of the ecological balance of nature (I made that one up because I'm sure that once rail starts becoming a viable option, they will pop up and throw up all sorts of environmental roadblocks to stop it). They would rather us all just live in communes, growing just enough food to feed yourself, not travel (but be accepting of other cultures, of course), live only off of rain water, and live an existence devoid of challenges, wonderment, curiosity, and just about any type of pleasure.

The City of San Francisco is a good example- municipal transportation systems are a mess (and underfunded), violent crime is on the rise (police, underfunded), the city, instead, spends its time on trying to force people to recycle and compost (!!!!), force menu's at fast food restaurants be labelled with calorie and other dietary information, and allow homeless to stay on the streets because that is a personal choice. Yes, being homeless is ok as a personal choice, but choosing to eat a cheeseburger at McDonalds is denigrated and looked down upon. Again, pick one.

Yes, if all I do is complain, then why do I live here. Well, I like my 10 minute commute to work. So, there's your cost-benefit analysis.

And he wants to be a judge?

2008-08-12T14:06:00.000-07:00

So, I've been sitting on this post for over a week now, trying to figure out if I should post it or not. I don't know why I sat on it, other than it was written pretty quickly and may not be entirely thought out. But then I thought, hey, only 5 people read this anyway, so why not. So, without further ado. . . . . .

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval wants to be a superior court judge. In the election in June, he failed to reach the 50% threshold that would have otherwise not allowed a run-off against the sitting Superior Court Judge Thomas Mellon. Judge Mellon's crime? He's a Republican. Supervisor Sandoval's motivation to become a Superior Court judge? "I am running for judge because we deserve a court with a balanced and diverse point of view that reflects San Francisco."

Not to enforce the law, or anything like that; no, he wants the court to reflect San Francisco, law be damned. His platform is based on three things: he's been in some post in the city government for 20 years, so that's good enough to continue in government service as a judge; number two starts with a statistic about how 80% of inmates released every year commits a crime within a year of being released, then he goes on about how he wants to search the world for other types of rehabilitation methods and get them introduced here in California. In other words, he wants to reduce the amount of repeat offenders by figuring out a way to not have criminals go to jail in the first place, but rather, give them a hug and a pat on the back and tell them someone loves and feels their pain.

Finally, "and most importantly," he wants to make this position as a judge political. He notes that 30% of the judges on the court are Republicans, and "too many come from large corporate law firms," nevermind he started at Skadden Arps, "one of the country’s premier law firms." Yes, god forbid there be any Republican's on the bench. Primarily, he wants to be a judge "because the current composition of the court does not reflect San Francisco in any meaningful way" by applying "legal principles in a fair way, but in the context of our community."

First, I thought protecting minority rights and respecting the opinions of others was a San Francisco value? Ohhh, silly me. . .unless you're a Republican, then you don't count. Second, he advocates using the position as judge "a tool for social change." I thought the role of a judge was to interpret and implement the law, not make law.

In case you are wondering why all of a sudden did I choose to make a rant against a retiring Supervisor running for seat on the Superior Court, it is because of something he said recently. According the an article in the Chronicle that detailed a hearing where the Board of Supervisors set up law banning the sale of cigarettes at large drug stores, there was a quote in there by Supervisor Sandoval. It is that quote that led me to this post: "We have to do anything we can to get people to stop smoking. ... To ban the sale of cigarettes citywide would be justifiable," he said. "Call it social engineering, call it what you will, but the statistics speak for themselves."" Supervisor Sandoval has no problem with the government stepping in between you and your ability to make your own decisions. The government can and should hold your hand and guide you to a better lifestyle by banning cigarettes. I find it very hard to believe that Supervisor Sandoval would be an adequate or even fair arbiter of the law should he eventually be elected to the Superior Court.

In interviews with Cal Law, Sandoval couldn't cite to one case where he disagreed with Judge Mellon, couldn't identify one instance where a litigant was treated poorly, instead, he relies on a nearly 10 year old survey where Judge Mellon got low marks for demeanor. He says that the court should be more diverse, by which he means Hispanic. So, his main arguments for voting for him is because he's hispanic and Judge Mellon is mean. Additionally, he seems to the think of the position of judge as being able to dictate what and how things get prosecuted- he noted that he thinks the court deals with too many petty crimes and small time drug deals and wants more prosecution of lending practices. Great. . .let him run for District Attorney and do that. In short, the court is not a political position where one can dictate the types and importance of cases that should be brought before it; it is not a position where one makes law, but where one interprets law.

In an article on this race, Cal Law, which failed to issue an endorsement, they had many concerns about Supervisor Sandoval, notably his experience and his reasoning for running. They noted that

There's the additional problem that Sandoval is running for this position the minute he is termed out from the Board of Supervisors. It smacks of a person looking for the next possible government job, and during our interview he did not evince a passion for the nuts and bolts of judging. In a separate interview with one of our reporters, Sandoval said, "Well, what is a 46-year-old Columbia Law School-trained attorney with a passion for public service supposed to do next? Am I supposed to move to West Texas and be become a peanut farmer?" We find Sandoval's candor admirable, but not reassuring on the point.

I think it has to be questioned his ability to fairly adjudicate cases before him. How would a Judge Sandoval rule on cases involving illegal immigrants caught dealing drugs? He's already said he doesn't think small-time drug cases should be brought before the court, I would imagine he supports the sanctuary city status, and I would imagine he would try to use all available means not to have this illegal immigrant deported. All of which are social and policy positions of the city and not based on the state or federal law. The Bar Association of San Francisco noted that he was unqualified, the Chronicle, noting Sandoval's appearance on Fox News stating that the U.S. does not need a military, says that Sandoval has not shown himself to be fit for the office. How he managed to receive more votes than Judge Mellon is beyond me. Actually, it's not, since this is San Francisco. Yeah, I think that is answer enough.

But today. . .

2008-08-01T11:42:00.000-07:00

I've been trying to avoid writing about national politics for a number of reasons, which I don't feel the need to state right now, but I am becoming concerned. . .concerned with a public that is fawning over a candidate who claims to be on a committee that he isn't on, which shouldn't be a surprise since he doesn't know what's going on in a subcommittee of which he's the chairman. Today in Florida, this same candidate claims that he's "been talking about talking about predatory lending." So, congratulations, you've been talking about talking about doing something, but not actually doing anything. What is even more interesting about the meeting in Florida today is that a group of black activists started asking this candidate about why he's not responding to the needs of black people, first, the candidate noted "You can ask a question later. Sit down." Then when these activists got a chance to ask their questions, people in the audience began to boo the questioners.

Needless to say, first, if another candidate told a group of black activists to sit down, there'd be hell to pay, secondly, if the same candidate's supporters began to boo black activists, it would be all over the press and the media showing how supporters of this candidate are racists and bigots, and all sorts of other nasty words.

I simply cannot fathom how people have been sold on this snake oil seller for so long. His accomplishments are minimal, his experience is non-existent, the cult of personality created around him is astounding, to the point where all of these problems are swept away and people who note them are hounded out of the room, or shut down. The anointed one shall not be troubled by specifics.

In the meantime, I'm planning our escape from San Francisco as the garbage police gets set up. That's right, the illustrious, and newly married, Mayor Newsom wants the city's garbage collectors to be to fine people who do not properly sort their garbage into garbage, recycling and compost. So, garbage collectors will be sorting through your trash to make sure you are doing what the government tells you to do. Yeah, that's not all Big Brother monitoring your garbage. Further, it's simply one more instance where environmental policies are being used to further government's intrusion into our personal lives.

I was at a briefing the other day from the California Air Resources Board, the agency responsible for implementing one of the most egregious examples of government using the environment as an excuse to regulate trade and monitor our lives, and they noted several areas where they will be setting up new monitoring and enforcement standards on a number of areas, including transportation. As part of their goal to reduce CO2 emissions, they want to set up several standards for transportation sector, including automobiles. If you go to slide 17 of this ARB presentation, you'll see that they plan on setting "tire inflation and tire efficiency" standards. My question is- how are they going to enforce "tire inflation" standards on automobiles? Who will be the tire police? Will meter maids that drive around cities looking for parking violations also be carrying tire gauges to check tire pressure, then be allowed to issue citations? How on Earth do they plan to enforce this standard? It seems to me that this is just an example of this state throwing all sorts of ideas into a bucket, then dumping the bucket onto the people of this state and expect them comply. . .or else, regardless of the stupidity of the program, or the cost of complying.

Ok, that was cathartic.

In case you couldn't tell. . .

2008-07-29T11:12:00.000-07:00

I'm in a foul mood today. . .a number of things have caused this, such as this and this, then I'm supposed to be all worked up because the Governor is going to temporarily cut state employee salaries and there's some picket march going on today. Frankly, I don't really care- state worker salaries get cut to minimum wage until a budget is finalized, but we don't get paid until the end of the month anyway, so, only if there is no budget by August 31 will state employees see any real result in "workers salaries slashed." Course, I'm not a temporary employee, so I'm not losing my job. Nevermind that it's the legislators who should be punished for not doing their job. In times like these, I begin to think that a part-time legislature would be ideal; let them concentrate their disastrous law-making in a much smaller period of time, instead of over several years.

But you know what, I'm beginning to care a whole lot less. If people want the government to start making their decisions for them because they don't want to deal with the results, fine, so be it. We are a nation of whiners; when we don't get our way, we complain; when we make a terrible decision, we blame someone else and want the government to fix it; when we travel to a foreign county and people don't speak english, we blame them for not speaking english. We want everything done now and entertain me in the meantime.

But what do I know. . .I chose to live here in San Francisco; I might as well just spit into the wind and then curse the wind.

I'll get over all of it in a few days though.

Really?

2008-07-29T09:39:00.000-07:00

I cannot believe that I'm reading this.

Under the proposed law, Illinois residents would get slapped with a misdemeanor and a $25 fine if caught using a cell phone or other wireless device while traversing streets.

That's right, if this law passed you could get a ticket if you cross the street while texting in Illinois. The government's ability to limit personal choices and decisions are growing each and every year.

To steal a line from an old bumpersticker: Texting is not a crime.

A day at the ballgame

2008-07-21T15:39:00.000-07:00

July 3. . .day before 4th of July. . .Cubs are in town playing the Giants. So, with wife, 2 sisters and Vansmack in tow, we decide to hit up two of the four games the Cubs are in town. July 3 is the 4th and final game of the series. On StubHub I buy 5 bleacher tickets, not knowing that the seats aren't exactly together. Oh well, there are two seats splitting us, we'll just ask the people to scoot down two seats and no big deal.

I meet Vansmack a few hours before the game, first pitch at 4:05, at Gordon Biersch for some lunch and a few beers while we wait for the suckers to get off of work and meet us at the stadium. Have a cheeseburger and manage to put down two beers before it's time to head for the stadium and meet up with the girls, who finally show up just before 4. Walk into the stadium and head for our seats in the bleacher section.

We find our row and, sure enough, there are two people sitting in the two seats separating the five of us. We file down and ask the guy would you mind scooting down two seats so the five us can sit together? He looks at us and says, "These are my seats!" I should note that the bleachers are just long metal benches with numbers on them referring to seat numbers, so, we aren't talking about fold down seats requiring one to get up and move, we are asking if he will slide down two seats. I look at Vansmack, then ask him again, "Excuse me, there's five us and we'd like to sit together, we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't mind moving down two seats." Once again, "These are my seats." So, Vansmack and I decide we'll take the two seats and let the girls take the three, whereupon we spend the good majority of the next 3 innings having a running conversation across the two people. At various times two people go up for food and/or beer (mostly beer), and then hand the beer across to the other side. Each time, the guy just picks up his radio and turns up the volume as he brings it closer to his head. Each time we speak louder to each other.

In the meantime, Vansmack and I try to convince the second person if there's anything we can do to make this easier on everyone, and she says no, he's just obstinate like that since these are his season ticket seats. But, she's a good sport and Vansmack and I end up talking to her about soccer (Spain fan) and Wimbledon (Nadal fan), and how she's from Chile and supports Spain in nearly everything.

About the 5th inning, Vansmack and I run to get some beer and we come back and the guy is gone, but his friend is still there. Even though those are "his seats" he apparently can't sit down for very long, so he walks around, and doesn't return until the 7th inning, by which time we've come back with our final beers for the day.

Now, normally one encounters only one incident like that a day, if that much. However, this being a baseball game, the day before Fourth of July, resulting in people getting out of work early, not having to work the next day, and sitting in the bleachers, something extra special happened shortly after we got back from our final round of beers- a girl fight.

Ok, not really a fight, so to speak, but rather, a bunch of girls in Giants gear sitting down the row from my wife and her two sisters started getting in a yelling match about the Giants and the Cubs. I don't know what started the yelling, but all I know is that a series of curse words starting flowing toward us, by us I mean my wife and her sisters, from these girls, spewing all sorts of profanities and vulgarities about Cubs sucking and kicking asses. . .all of this with a variety of kids sitting in and around us. In an effort to defuse the situation, Vansmack started up with a "Take Your Tops Off" chant which was soon joined in by several guys in the area (including one who pointed which girls he wanted to see with their tops off- one of which did not make the cut), at least one female doing it out of jest, and a mom with a 2 year old sitting next to me (she denied it, but I know what I heard). After a few minutes of them standing on the bleachers, pointing and yelling at my wife and her sisters, a loud cry of "Take Your Tops Off" and another mom asking Vansmack to think of the children, the ushers finally came over and. . .escorted the Giants girls away.

Frankly, I don't know what started it all, or how it escalated into a yelling match (more active participants have been slow in getting me their take). What I do know is that 3 or 4 drunk, female Giants fans got escorted out while 3 Cubs fans, who, I guess, were not as vocal, got to stay. Kudos to Giants security. Course, having grown up here in the Bay Area and having attended a number of Giants/Dodgers game and having sat in the bleachers in Candlestick, this was all pretty tame- there was one game I went to when I was like 10, where someone had a Dodgers pennant and walked down every aisle asking people to spit on it, and then later in the game tried to light another Dodgers pennant on fire, and finally, dumping several beers on a Dodgers fan who dared venture into the bleachers. It was also a night game; a cold, blustery, foggy night game at Candlestick.

The Monday after the holiday I run into a guy I work with who is also a Cubs fan and was sitting a few sections away in the bleachers. I tell him about the yelling and getting the girls ejected and he said, "That was you guys?" Apparently several sections worth of fans in the bleachers were aware of this incident.

Anyway, the Cubs lost that game; in fact, they lost the two games we went to that series. So, another Cubs hat gets put into retirement as I continue in my quest to find a Cubs hat that I can continually wear to a Cubs game where they win. I suppose I could also look at countervaling forces, such as people who I went with, and so forth. Maybe I should give the hat another try under other conditions; say, a Game 4 this fall.

Ipods

2008-07-09T12:45:00.000-07:00

Within the last month of so my 2nd Ipod finally gave out. Hadn't had any problems with it for the 2 years I had it, until I decided to nearly fill the memory with songs in preparation for the trip to Europe, only then did I start to get hard drive issues. So, whatever. . .the first Ipod's hard drive went kaput after a night when the cats decided that it was time to knock it off a table and chase it around the floor. Got the second one a few months before moving out here, and a month before Apple released the video Ipod; I was upset, to say the least. So, for the past 2 years, I've been grooving to my 20GB picture Ipod with no problems. Decide to fill up the hard drive, boom, I've got problems. Got fed up with having to re-set everything, and then the Ipod not connecting to my laptop, that it was decided that I should just take the leap and get a new Ipod, my 3rd Ipod in 5 years. -And with that, went to the Apple store yesterday and plunked down the cabbage for a brand new 160GB black Ipod. Took it home, opened it up, connected it to the laptop and. . . . .nothing.

Yep, nothing. After a few tries I finally got a notification that this Ipod only works with Mac OS X 10.4.8 or higher. Guess what I have: 10.3.9. So, call me a lazy bastard or a cheap-skate, but I had no real reason to upgrade the laptop's operating system beyond what's already there. Combine that with a plan to get a new laptop in the next few months leaves me with practically no reason at all to go out and buy Mac OS 10.5. So, I decided to try and find Mac OS 10.4, which is unavailable on through various Apple stores. Next stop was Ebay where I could find some for sale, ranging from $50 to buy it nows of $130. If someone is going to buy 10.4 for $130, just go out and buy 10.5 for the same price. Frankly, I can't really believe that 10.4 isn't just being given away, especially since it's now more than 2 years old.

So, I'm stuck with a brand new Ipod that I can't connect to my computer without an upgraded operating system, and an operating system that I don't need to upgrade because we're getting a brand new one in a few months. So, until I can find a cheap version of 10.4, I guess I'm stuck with an Ipod I can't use for the time being.

Yes, I realize that this is an incredibly whiney post, but so what, I just needed to vent.

That's odd

2008-07-02T15:20:00.000-07:00

So, went to the local McDonalds for lunch, the same one with the $1.39 double cheeseburger (despite McDonalds' continued marketing of it as part of their $1 menu) and whilst waiting for my double cheeseburgers, a customer after me walks up and orders a Happy Meal. Now, this guy was like 5'6", bald and around 45 years old and in a suit. . .ordering a Happy Meal. What made it even odder was that he paid for his Happy Meal with a $100 bill. Just use you debit card and be done with; did you really need to break your $100 bill at McDonalds by ordering a Happy Meal? Couldn't you have splurged on the double quarter pounder and large Coke, instead of the Happy Meal with small Coke? I can't help but think there was a better usage for that $100.

Anyway, last night a group of us went the Cubs/Giants game here in San Francisco. We got decked out in Cubs stuff and sat in the bleachers. Several amusing events from the game: a whole rash of taunts and jeers went out to Jim Edmonds, 95% of them from people in Cubs gear; Ryan Theriot almost getting Ray Durham into believing there was an overthrow on a play at 2nd base; the "Express" bathroom underneath the bleachers with a line out the door; and having my friend Vansmack buy 4 hot chocolates for various females that were wronged by him at one point or another during the game was amusing as well. Those were just some of the random sights from the game last night, not even going into the terrible decision-making that went on in the 7th inning allowing the Giants to score the 2nd run. It was chilly, but considering that I grew up going to games at Candlestick, games at AT&T Park are more than manageable.

Fun times at the Post Office

2008-06-30T19:59:00.000-07:00

So, had to go to the Post Office today to drop off a letter to the local Union stating that I oppose fees taken out of my check to cover certain expenditures, such as lobbying. The closest Post Office to my work is in a federal courthouse, which means going through security, presenting i.d., putting metal objects through the x-ray and stating my business. A mere annoyance.

The Post Office is in the basement of the federal courthouse, and after walking through a labyrinth, I find the Post Office. The first thing I see as I approach the double doors is a sign that says "No Stamps." Yes, a Post Office that is out of stamps. A portent of things to come.

I get in line and wait, and wait, and wait. Let's say the Post Office worker was deliberate, very deliberate. He has a bald spot on the top of his head, glasses, and a beard that is reminiscent of former Surgeon General C. Everett Coop- a sculptured beard and is long enough to be combed into a slight curl. So, I'm waiting, and waiting, and notice that not only is he deliberate, not only is he slow, but he also has a habit of sticking his tongue out, rather, slipping his tongue would be more accurate. He moves stiffly as he pokes at the computer in front of him all the while every 3 or 4 seconds slipping his tongue out like a snake. It's obvious that it's one of those involuntary habits or tics, but it's gross and annoying. I would say unbecoming a federal employee, but then I remember a) he works for the Post Office and b) I lived in D.C. and know about federal employees.

So, after about 15 minutes, I was the 3rd in line when I got there, I step up to the desk and get out of there rather scot free in 5 minutes. But all I can think about his this guy slipping his tongue out, over and over and over. Hopefully my letter made it out today.

More Life in San Francisco

2008-06-25T15:13:00.001-07:00

We had friends in town over the weekend and on Monday from Rhode Island. We've been friends since D.C., and they came out for a visit and brought their 8 month old along. Over the weekend, drove down the coast, where all the beaches are packed and saw a family with 3 kids all of whom were nekkid, including a 4 or 5 year old boy who once he dried off promptly went down face first into the sand, still nekkid. Gross. On Sunday, went to Napa and stopped at a few wineries. No big deal. But, they weren't flying back until Tuesday, so decided to take Monday off and entertain Andrew the husband with a trip to San Francisco's very own Anchor Steam Brewing Company for a tour and free samples.

Found our way to the brewery which is housed in a rather Art Deco style building. Walk up two flights of stairs, and at the top of the second floor is a guy in a white jump suit there to check off names for the tour- check. Walk in and wait in a room surrounded by various platters with beer logos and pictures on it, including such luminaries as Old Style, Ballentine, Schmidt's, Yuengling, but, alas, no Natty-Boh. At the end of the room was the bar, and in between were various beer making exhibits, several chairs to lounge around in, and in the very far corner a 3 shelf bookcase with Anchor Steam souvenirs. We wait about 5 minutes, then the tour begins- the tour guy proceeds to talk about the process Anchor Steam does to make their beer, shows examples of the 5 main ingredients in Anchor Steam, other than water, explains that every drop of Anchor Steam beer sold world-wide is made in this brewery, talks about the history of Anchor Steam, what a "steam" beer is and how that got incorporated into the Anchor Steam name, and how in the 70s they almost ceased to exist until it was purchased by one Fritz Maytag, and how he has turned the brewery around to be what it is today. The tour guy also explained the various types of beer made by Anchor Steam, of which we would eventually sample 6 of them- I only knew of 3 beers, so I was pretty surprised to learn they made more than just the Christmas beer, Liberty Ale and the namesake. Moved on to the kettles, apparently, the whole process is done in three very large kettles, or tums as they are apparently called. Anchor Steam beer is made in those 3 kettles 4 days a week, with the 5th day devoted to one of their other styles of beer. Walked down two flights of stairs to see the vats of beer waiting to be bottled- they keep the beer at 35 degrees to "condition" it before putting into bottles.

Saw the bottling line, but as we approached it all we heard was breaking glass- as I was to find out later, any mistake with the bottle, including things like misaligned labels are thrown away, except for a few which are saved for employee disbursement. Oh, how sad, you'd think that there would be beer outlets where there is nothing wrong with the liquid itself, just that the bottle is a little odd or the label is wrong. The tour guy said that if they were to let any mistake out that would effect the perception of Anchor Steam, and that can't be allowed. Fine, but do you really need to throw away perfectly good beer in the process? Perhaps just save all those bottles and have a distributor here in town sell those misfit beer bottles at a fraction of the cost, that way you're not left with unsold beer.

We finished up the tour with some additional information on some non-beer liquor that Anchor Steam makes. I am familiar with their rye whiskey, but didn't know they make three different kinds of rye whiskey, I also learned they make two types of gin, and that Fritz owns a vineyard in Sonoma and makes wine, port and grappa. I got the impression that the wine, port and grappa is not readily available for sale and is made in very limited quantities.

After that, we headed back into the room where the tour started and we began our drinking, in 8 ounce glasses. First up was the Anchor Summer. It was very light and refreshing; very enjoyable and 4.6% alcohol. Next, the Anchor Steam, which is the most popular and familiar of all the Anchor beers (4.9% alcohol). After that was the Anchor Liberty Ale which I liked a lot more than I thought I would (6% alcohol). The tour guide called it the first Pale Ale, and was first created to commemorate the midnight ride of Paul Revere, only it came out a year early in 1975. Next came the Anchor Bock (5.5% alcohol). It was a lot darker than I was expecting, having spent most of college living off of Shiner Bock. Which then lead to a discussion about Sam Adams' Double Bock, which the Anchor Bock seemed to be more similar. Andrew and I then reminisced about our experiences with Sam Adams' Double Bock and its effects. Next was the Anchor Porter (5.6% alcohol). I don't normally care for Porter's, they are too bitter for my liking and I don't really care for the coffee/chocolate overtones of the beer, but it was free and this was our 5th beer, so I wasn't dwelling on those negatives. Finally we got to the Anchor Old Foghorn (~9% alcohol!!!!). The Old Foghorn is called a barley wine and is much sweeter than normal beer, so much so that the tour guy said that it was best enjoyed after dinner. I can say that it was tasty, and at roughly 9% alcohol that's some bottle of beer. So, that was 6 beers each poured in 8 ounces. With the Porter and the Old Foghorn weighing me down the tour guy asked if anyone wanted another pour before he closed everything down- I asked for a return to the Summer so that I could start refreshed before meeting the girls for lunch.

Before I leave this entry though, I must bring up something else that took place whilst we were all tasting the beer. A gentleman next to me started talking to another Anchor employee who he apparently knew and started lambasting him for the lack of energy efficiency measures at the brewery, such as the use of incandescent lightbulbs throughout the brewery (the Anchor employee noted that Fritz isn't big on the light put out by the CFL), he then went on about how Sierra Nevada has solar panels, and does Anchor plan on installing solar panels, at which point the employee said, Look outside, how would solar panels help; it was overcast that day in San Francisco, as it is most days in San Francisco. After being harassed enough by Mr. Pat-Myself-On-The-Back, he then started asking the tour guy questions about their distribution and how much energy and carbon is used because they ship their beer around the world. Then he posits: How much better the world would be if we only consumed food and liquid from places within 150 miles of where we lived. The tour guy responded, Maybe, but I love my Scotch. Mr. Self-Satisfaction was having none of the snark and wondered if he could perhaps find a local maker of Scotch or drink something else that did not have as much evil carbon associated it with. Tour guy said Nope, he likes his scotch. I could do nothing but roll my eyes and sigh very loudly at the gall this person had to criticize Anchor Steam for providing a product that people wanted. Yes, god forbid that people outside of the Bay Area want Anchor Steam and that Anchor Steam wants to satisfy that demand. How dare Anchor Steam do that. I am so tired of listening to self-satisfied bay area people go on and on and on about how energy efficient they are, and how their carbon footprint is this or that (normally only after paying for a carbon offset to ease their own conscience). Nevermind that that the 150 mile limit may actually increase emissions and carbon, since large operations that truck in produce from far away is able to make up the carbon difference in volume; in other words, the local farm can bring in 200 to 2,000 pounds of produce from within 150 miles, but the large distributor can bring in 40,000 pounds of produce from within 1,000 miles, the carbon saved from the miles is offset by the volume of food brought in en masse. Course, that's only looking at the environmental aspect of the 150 mile limit, it says nothing about supporting local businesses or freshness or anything like that.

So Andrew not only got to taste some of San Francisco's own Anchor Steam, he also got to come into contact with a smug San Franciscan.

Ohhh, and one other thing about the tour: apparently it was new mother outing day, as there were 7 mothers carrying newborns on the tour, without dads. At the end of the tour they weren't shy about drinking the beer either.

Anyway, when in town during the week, I highly recommend taking the Anchor Steam brewery tour, but reservations are required. I mean it's 3 free beers, and good beer at that.

Life in San Francisco

2008-06-05T16:57:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to share a funny story....

The other morning around 8:50 AM or so I was waiting on the corner of Lincoln and 9th Avenue for a bus, and a woman walks up to me. She asks: Do you know where I can buy a protein bar or something like that? I say: There's a Jamba Juice down on the next corner. And she says: Oh, you mean THAT restaurant?

What? Since when is a Jamba Juice a restaurant. More importantly, when did self-interested people like her become too good for Jamba Juice? She left in a huff, and I saw her a few minutes later across the street at a "health food" store, the kind of store that sells raw food and other nonsense, only it was closed. She seemed to be rather distraught at it being closed as that meant, apparently, having to suffer a trip to Jamba Juice. Of course, I only get one thing at Jamba because everything else seems to have soy-this and yogurt-that in it. I'm tempted to order one of those drinks that has soy milk in it and ask if I can have whole milk instead.

Sometimes I can only shake my head at the people that live in this city; and I guess that would include me.

Oh well

2008-06-03T13:20:00.001-07:00

Today is June 3, and there's an election today here in California. But I failed to finish my proposition review. Frankly, I was not up to the task in reviewing what was left. I went to my polling place, which is in a Starbucks; if only it could have been two doors down from there which is my favorite bar, how much nicer would voting be if you could have a beer to go along with it? Anyway. . .voted, and got out of there.

But, I'm not here to talk about my voting experience, no. . .today, I decided to try the new McDonald's Southern Style Chicken Sandwich. Before moving on I must note two things about my local McDonald's- 1) as part of this whole "Southerninginging" of McDonald's, I could have also ordered a 32oz Sweet Tea to go along with my southern style chicken sandwich, but I hated sweet tea growing up, and I still hate it today (I don't like regular tea either, go figure), and 2) despite the numerous commercials and webpage (which I'm not going to bother linking to because it is just too annoying), the double cheeseburger at this particular McDonald's is not on the $1 menu, instead, it costs $1.39.

Back to the chicken sandwich. It's basically a rip-off of Chick-fil-A, but not anywhere near as tasty. It had three measly pickles, the bun was a bit too greasy and squishy, but not in a good way, and. . .either it had been steamed or had sat out too long, but the bun stuck to the bottom of the cardboard box that it was served in. The chicken was ok, but didn't have the same kick that you can get from Chick-fil-A; in other words, a bit more pepper. Plus, it was a bit smaller than the Chick-fil-A sandwich. So, would I order it again- maybe. At least there are no tomatoes on this one; every time I go to the local McDonald's and order one of their other chicken sandwiches it comes with a tomato, even though I specifically asked for no tomatoes. Needless to say, customer service can be lacking, but if they have the gall to charge $1.39 for a double cheeseburger, what else should I expect?

Speaking of cheeseburgers, I was surprised to read that a favorite cheeseburger place of mine from when I lived in D.C. has recently arrived to Southern California: Five Guys. Oh the many Sunday's when I would drive out to their Alexandria, Virginia location to get a double cheeseburger and an order of fries, whilst nursing a hangover. They also have a few locations in Alabama, where I have family- according to family accounts, their burgers are still good. Nevertheless, with franchising comes the risk of lowered standards.

I will be very interested to visit one of these franchised locations across the country and see if their burgers are still good and live up to my memories. That's always a challenge. Memory has a way of obscuring details, only focusing on the pleasant or terrible details of an event- and not putting the event in perspective. With sensory memories, such as food, things are never just ok- it is nearly impossible the match the first memory of something you associate with good, instead, the sense of excitement and eagerness to recreate that first moment often ends with a sense of disappointment. Events like these can never just be, they are compared and contrasted, and the memory of the past events can fool you into thinking something else. Food memories especially, at least for me.

Proposition E

2008-05-29T14:26:00.000-07:00

Today's topic is Proposition E.

Proposition E is very simple: who should have control over appointments to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors? In reality, the measure does more than just that. The measure 1) says that all current members of the SF PUC terms will expire on August 1, 2008 and 2) specifies the type of experience that each of the 5 positions shall have. Seat 1 shall have environmental policy and environmental justice experience, Seat 2 shall have ratepayer or consumer advocacy experience, Seat 3 shall have project finance experience, Seat 4 shall have water systems, power systems or public utility management experience and Seat 5 shall be an at-large member. As for appointment to the SF PUC, the measure says that any appointment to the SF PUC by the Mayor will be subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors. Currently, anyone appointed by the Mayor takes office immediately and can only be rejected if 3/4 of the Board votes to reject. In essence, the Board of Supervisors wants a larger say in who makes up the SF PUC and what those commissioners will be doing.

As a simple matter of background, the SF PUC is the agency in charge of the city's water system, including the Hetch Hetchy system. The SF PUC is also responsible for various electricity-related projects, such as the various solar-related proposals, as well as the controversial "Combustion Turbine Project" which seeks to shutter the Mirant Potrero power plant and construct a batch of peaker plants to replace the power and reliability of the Potrero plant.

So, with all that going on, should the Board play a larger role in who runs the SF PUC? By specifying what type of background 4 of the 5 commissioners should have does nothing but inject politics into the operation of the SF PUC. If a commissioner is so offensive to the Board, by a 3/4 vote they can reject the appointment. What this measure does is give the Board a chance to hold, and hold, and hold, and hold a nominee for as long as it wants if they do not like a nominee, for whatever reason. Finally, a wholesale firing of the commissioners is the Board's way of wiping the slate clean and enforcing their power right away. This power grab by the Board is unnecessary and would only ensure that the Board's way of thinking prevails.

Vote No on E.