There's really no better place on Earth to hear rampant, unrepressed, unabashed, almost exuberant irrationality than in the world of sports. Hell, sports commentary may have somehow beat out politics in this regard. The ferocious, unrelenting tirades filled with every profane word the English language has yet graced us with that fill the mouths of even the most mundane sports fan whenever a questionable call is made against their favorite team should be evidence enough of this. If that doesn't do the trick, just go onto an ESPN message board after a team loses or listen to some of the most bland, unenlightened "analysis" on sports shows by the likes of Sean Salisbury and Stephen A. Smith.
Unfortunately for those of us who like sports but also prefer a rational argument, College football has blessed us with another conundrum for which angry fans can spit their ill-informed venom at. Of course I'm speaking of the Texas/Oklahoma mess.
Here's the breakdown; Texas and Oklahoma both finished 11-1 overall and 7-1 in the Big 12. When they played each other Texas won on a neutral field 45-35. Now the team that wins the Big 12 South plays the team that wins the Big 12 North for the Big 12 Championship. If two teams have the same record, the head to head match up decides who wins, if there is a three way tie, than the team with the higher BCS ranking goes.
OK, so as you may know, Oklahoma is ranked 3rd and Texas 4th so Oklahoma will played a vastly outmatched Missouri team for the title and likely a trip to the national championship game this Saturday. Texas fans are absolutely outraged, I mean they won the head to head, end of story right. Some Texas fans even set up a website; 45-35.com. It is an outrage isn't it? I mean, if you listen to this idiot, it really is that simple.
Well it's not that simple and I'm sick of hearing Texas fans and poorly educated sports "analysts" tell me it is. See there's this little problem called Texas Tech that every Longhorns fan conveniently forgot about. Here's how the games went down:
Texas beat Oklahoma 45-35, Texas finished 11-1
Texas Tech beat Texas 39-33, Texas Tech finished 11-1
Oklahoma beat Texas Tech 65-21, Oklahoma finished 11-1
There is a three-way tie, therefore head to head is completely nullified. Gone forever, meaningless, pointless, useless, etc. Some have said that Texas Tech hasn't had as tough a schedule, nor as big a margin of victory, and they're not playing as well right now. Well the same exact thing can be said about Oklahoma against Texas. Oklahoma had a tougher schedule, playing top 15 teams Cincinnati and TCU, while the only tough opponent Texas played that Oklahoma didn't was a barely ranked Missouri team Oklahoma will probably throttle tomorrow. Oklahoma has a better margin of victory, they are a hotter team right now, they lost earlier in the season than Texas, they have scored 60 points in four straight games and will likely set an NCAA record for points scored.
So that leaves the most mind numbingly stupid argument left; Texas Tech got blown out so badly they shouldn't be considered. I've actually heard this one many times. Now listen here ya'll, what you are actually saying, whether you’re aware of it or not, is because Oklahoma did so good and beat a team that Texas lost to by so much they don't deserve to go to the championship. If only Oklahoma wasn't as good and didn’t win by as much, then maybe they deserve to go.
Obviously this doesn't mean the BCS is a good system, it is ridiculously unfair. We desperately need a playoff to sort these annual messes out. Really, the Big 12 itself should have a better system. Why is it split into two divisions anyways? Why is a 9-3 team playing an 11-1 team for the Big-12 championship when there are two other 11-1 teams sitting idly by? However, in this very imperfect system, Oklahoma deserves to go. With the head to head nullified, Oklahoma's tougher schedule, better margin of victory and the fact they are certainly playing better right now should trump anything else. Texas is getting screwed, but they're getting screwed out of the third seed in a best of eight playoff that does not currently exist.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Some Change Barack
Not that I expected that much from him, but Barack Obama's cabinet selections have been a disappointment to say the least. Today he officially nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. A bit of a U turn from all those horribly mean things Clinton and Obama said about each other during their bitter primary campaign. I am not exactly what you would call a fan of Hillary Clinton. I've always found her, like her husband, to be the ambitious, cuthroat, lying politican type. Although she did dodge all those make believe bullets in Serbia back in the early 90's, so that's a plus.
My bigger problem is how blatantly status quo Obama's selections have been with Hillary Clinton simply being the biggest name on the list. He also picked many others who were long time Clinton people including John Podesta as Transition Chief and Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff among others. Some have described this as a "a team of rivals" in reference to Abraham Lincoln, who basically put everyone he beat in the election into cabinet posts. That's one way of looking at it, but I don't see it that way. I think these selections, all basically Clinton people (with the notable exception of Robert Gates, who will probably remain at Secretary of Defense, again big change) just creates the second presidency of Bill Clinton.
If that was what this whole election was about, fine, he should have said so. Hillary Clinton at least for once took a leave from her normal dishonesty and basically admitted that was her intention. But this coming from the guy who talked so much about "hope" and "change" and a "new politics" just seems awful disingenuous. I guess that's nothing new from a politician. Change all the way back to 1999!
That being said, it's not all bad. Bill Clinton certainly had many faults, like launching some 25 odd, mostly inept military interventions, but those were at least short, small wars with few casualties unlike the debacles George W Bush got us into in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, while I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Bush. Ironically, our economy actually got freer under Clinton and then less free under Bush, which will probably surprise the many mindless talking head drones who assume rhetoric equals action. According to the Fraser Institute's yearly report on economic freedom, the US was a 7.8 (out of 10) in 1990, two years before Clinton took office. When he left, the US stood at 8.6, and now, after 8 years of Bush it has fallen to an 8.0.
I guess all this elucidates the simple point that politicians are, with very few exceptions, dirty liars. The supposedly egalitarian democrats increased economic freedom, the supposedly free market republicans decreased economic freedom and Barack Obama isn't about change or a new sort of politics. He's simply trying to have the third and then fourth terms of Bill Clinton's presidency. But hey let’s look on the bright side, given our recent history, that's certainly not the worst thing that could happen.
My bigger problem is how blatantly status quo Obama's selections have been with Hillary Clinton simply being the biggest name on the list. He also picked many others who were long time Clinton people including John Podesta as Transition Chief and Rep. Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff among others. Some have described this as a "a team of rivals" in reference to Abraham Lincoln, who basically put everyone he beat in the election into cabinet posts. That's one way of looking at it, but I don't see it that way. I think these selections, all basically Clinton people (with the notable exception of Robert Gates, who will probably remain at Secretary of Defense, again big change) just creates the second presidency of Bill Clinton.
If that was what this whole election was about, fine, he should have said so. Hillary Clinton at least for once took a leave from her normal dishonesty and basically admitted that was her intention. But this coming from the guy who talked so much about "hope" and "change" and a "new politics" just seems awful disingenuous. I guess that's nothing new from a politician. Change all the way back to 1999!
That being said, it's not all bad. Bill Clinton certainly had many faults, like launching some 25 odd, mostly inept military interventions, but those were at least short, small wars with few casualties unlike the debacles George W Bush got us into in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, while I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, he's leaps and bounds ahead of Bush. Ironically, our economy actually got freer under Clinton and then less free under Bush, which will probably surprise the many mindless talking head drones who assume rhetoric equals action. According to the Fraser Institute's yearly report on economic freedom, the US was a 7.8 (out of 10) in 1990, two years before Clinton took office. When he left, the US stood at 8.6, and now, after 8 years of Bush it has fallen to an 8.0.
I guess all this elucidates the simple point that politicians are, with very few exceptions, dirty liars. The supposedly egalitarian democrats increased economic freedom, the supposedly free market republicans decreased economic freedom and Barack Obama isn't about change or a new sort of politics. He's simply trying to have the third and then fourth terms of Bill Clinton's presidency. But hey let’s look on the bright side, given our recent history, that's certainly not the worst thing that could happen.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Oil Company Altruism
Regardless of whether the statistics show it or not, our economy is in a recession. Major banks have failed, the government has unwisely bailed out large financial institutions to the tune of 700 billion dollars and may soon bail out the Big 3 automakers, housing prices have drastically fallen, foreclosures have skyrocketed and unemployment numbers are starting to creep up. We can all feel it, we all know it, we are in a recession.
So isn't nice of our leading energy companies to come along and offer us such charitable prices at the pump? Just a few months ago gas was hovering between $4.40 and $4.60 in Salem, Oregon where I live. Salem is a boring town unfortunately, so each weekend I wanted to leave for Portland or Eugene. But with those kind of gas prices, I weighed the pros and cons each time. Sitting alone in my apartment on a Saturday night isn't that bad compared to purging my wallet at the gas station.
Nationally, things were little better as the average price hit a record $3.24 a gallon in May of this year. But then Christmas came early. Apparently the oil executives felt guilty about their record setting profits and felt like they should give some of it back to us less fortunate. This massive outpouring of altruism has lead gas prices to plummet. In Salem it's $1.99 a gallon, the cheapest I've seen since I was in high school. Nationally gas prices have fallen to $1.89 a gallon. For those of us struggling to pay rent on time, the oil companies may be all that's keeping us afloat. And it doesn't end there. Oil, which was around $150 a barrel has plummeted well below $100. Apparently OPEC has gotten into the Holiday spirit too.
Now unless you are on a record setting pace for denseness, you realize I'm joking around. The oil companies are still as greedy as ever. It's simply they can't charge as much because of good old supply and demand. Honestly think about it, why did the oil executives all of a sudden start to raise prices around the turn of the century? Did they just up and become greedy? Of course not, they've been greedy the whole time, they were just restricted by the market. And now, our inflationary boom has collapsed (financial crisis, housing bubble) and the deflationary adjustment has come. This is bad, but can be good too. Sure investment and wages will go down, and unemployment will go up, but prices should go down as well (that is unless the government tries to keep prices from adjusting, like they did in the Great Depression, which will lead to yet another depression). Eventually (again under the delusional assumption that the government stays out) the economy will stabalize and everything will return to normal.
Now remember before the financial crisis and bailouts and change talk and all that. Remember back to this summer when all the talk was about the housing crisis and oil prices. The oil company's were gouging us! Hang the CEO's from the gallows! The hysteria was completely out of control. It should be no surprise that those leftists at the DailyKos jumped into the muck, but so did Bill O'Reilly and many faux right wingers. Congresswoman Maxine Waters even, to her eternal shame, threatened to nationalize the entire oil industry!
Well what now Maxine? What now Bill? What now left wing nuts at the DailyKos? Will you thank the oil companiess for their collective genoristy? Will you take a quick break from your current outrage over the supposed lack of regulation in our financial markets to apologize for all the bad things you said about them? You know what, save the the apologies and save the gratitude. Here's another idea, why don't you all just realize you don't know the first thing about economics and shut the hell up!
So isn't nice of our leading energy companies to come along and offer us such charitable prices at the pump? Just a few months ago gas was hovering between $4.40 and $4.60 in Salem, Oregon where I live. Salem is a boring town unfortunately, so each weekend I wanted to leave for Portland or Eugene. But with those kind of gas prices, I weighed the pros and cons each time. Sitting alone in my apartment on a Saturday night isn't that bad compared to purging my wallet at the gas station.
Nationally, things were little better as the average price hit a record $3.24 a gallon in May of this year. But then Christmas came early. Apparently the oil executives felt guilty about their record setting profits and felt like they should give some of it back to us less fortunate. This massive outpouring of altruism has lead gas prices to plummet. In Salem it's $1.99 a gallon, the cheapest I've seen since I was in high school. Nationally gas prices have fallen to $1.89 a gallon. For those of us struggling to pay rent on time, the oil companies may be all that's keeping us afloat. And it doesn't end there. Oil, which was around $150 a barrel has plummeted well below $100. Apparently OPEC has gotten into the Holiday spirit too.
Now unless you are on a record setting pace for denseness, you realize I'm joking around. The oil companies are still as greedy as ever. It's simply they can't charge as much because of good old supply and demand. Honestly think about it, why did the oil executives all of a sudden start to raise prices around the turn of the century? Did they just up and become greedy? Of course not, they've been greedy the whole time, they were just restricted by the market. And now, our inflationary boom has collapsed (financial crisis, housing bubble) and the deflationary adjustment has come. This is bad, but can be good too. Sure investment and wages will go down, and unemployment will go up, but prices should go down as well (that is unless the government tries to keep prices from adjusting, like they did in the Great Depression, which will lead to yet another depression). Eventually (again under the delusional assumption that the government stays out) the economy will stabalize and everything will return to normal.
Now remember before the financial crisis and bailouts and change talk and all that. Remember back to this summer when all the talk was about the housing crisis and oil prices. The oil company's were gouging us! Hang the CEO's from the gallows! The hysteria was completely out of control. It should be no surprise that those leftists at the DailyKos jumped into the muck, but so did Bill O'Reilly and many faux right wingers. Congresswoman Maxine Waters even, to her eternal shame, threatened to nationalize the entire oil industry!
Well what now Maxine? What now Bill? What now left wing nuts at the DailyKos? Will you thank the oil companiess for their collective genoristy? Will you take a quick break from your current outrage over the supposed lack of regulation in our financial markets to apologize for all the bad things you said about them? You know what, save the the apologies and save the gratitude. Here's another idea, why don't you all just realize you don't know the first thing about economics and shut the hell up!
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Worst Sports Year Ever (At Least for Washington)
With the election finally over and done with, I feel I should delve into some less important topics such as that alternate universe of escapism we call sports. Although, those suffering from the agony of athletic ineptitude and deprivation that those living just to the north of me are, may disagree about this topic’s level of importance.
What I'm obviously referring to is the epicly bad year Washington residents are experiencing when it comes to sports. Despite all the whining you've heard from Philadelphia or Chicago or Cleveland over the past 20 or 30 years, nothing even comes close to comparing with the absolute horror experienced by Washington sports fans in 2008.
We'll start with baseball. I figure I should get the boring sports out of the way quickly so I can end on a bang. And the only thing more consistently boring than baseball is bad baseball. The Seattle Mariners make for a brilliant example of both the former and the ladder. They went an AL worst 61-101. Ichiro is still doing his thing, but everyone else is just stuck in fail mode. The Mariners have now missed the playoffs seven straight years.
Moving on to football, things get more entertaining but certainly get no better for either Washington’s professional or collegiate teams. The Seattle Seahawks, playing in Mike Holmgren's final season, have been riddled by injuries and are now just 2-8, which will almost assuredly end their run of 5 straight division titles. Even worse is the fact that those two wins are twice as many as both the University of Washington and Washington State combined!
Washington can at least say they've lost star quarterback Jake Locker to injury, but does that excuse being 0-10 and losing six straight by 20 points or more? How about Washington State, they did beat 1-AA Portland State, but have been simply atrocolicious (words don’t describe how bad they’ve played so I made one up that would) in league play. They rank last out of 114 College teams in scoring defense (giving up an other worldly bad 50.2 points per game) and are second to last in scoring offense (13.9 points per game). Yes they are being beat by an average of 36.3 points per game! In Pac-10 play they've given up 60 points four times, along with 58 and 59 and have been shut out three times! They are truly boys amongst men. Thank God for these two teams that they play each other next week in the annual Apple Cup - A game I almost want to make the six hour drive to just to see how awful a game of college football can actually be.
Basketball gets a bit better, than a whole lot worse. Their college teams were actually pretty decent last year, but have graduated some good players and are expected to be middle of the pack this year. The Pro Team, well they were bad, real bad, and then they were gone. In the 2007-08 season the Seattle Sonics went 20-62, the second worst record in the NBA. However, Sonic fans knew it would be a bad season; they traded away Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis for a bunch of picks and young players. Plus they had just drafted Rookie of the Year Kevin Durant who averaged over 2o points a game in his first season. The future looked bright.
Too bad that future now looks bright in Oklahoma City. In 2006, after failing to convince Seattle to help pay for a new stadium, Howard Shultz decided to sell the team to Clayton Bennett. Bennett subsequently held the city hostage by demanding they either build a new stadium or he'd move the team to Oklahoma City. First of all, cities shouldn't be helping private owners pay for new stadiums in the first place, but this case is particularly awful. Not only was there a Dog Day Afternoon like hostage situation, but it appears the plan from the beginning was to move the team, as the new Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon told an Oklahoma City newspaper "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle." Unfortunately, unlike the movie, Clayton Bennett will probably not be shot in the face at the end.
So yeah, Washington and Seattle got screwed by Bennett and his cronies. And unfortunately, for perhaps the millionth example that karma doesn't exist, Bennent is doing just fine and all the rest of Washington's sports teams have utterly collapsed into an unwatchable mess of athletically inept garbage. But hey, cheer up Washington sports fans, there's always next year (well for all your teams but the Sonics that is).
What I'm obviously referring to is the epicly bad year Washington residents are experiencing when it comes to sports. Despite all the whining you've heard from Philadelphia or Chicago or Cleveland over the past 20 or 30 years, nothing even comes close to comparing with the absolute horror experienced by Washington sports fans in 2008.
We'll start with baseball. I figure I should get the boring sports out of the way quickly so I can end on a bang. And the only thing more consistently boring than baseball is bad baseball. The Seattle Mariners make for a brilliant example of both the former and the ladder. They went an AL worst 61-101. Ichiro is still doing his thing, but everyone else is just stuck in fail mode. The Mariners have now missed the playoffs seven straight years.
Moving on to football, things get more entertaining but certainly get no better for either Washington’s professional or collegiate teams. The Seattle Seahawks, playing in Mike Holmgren's final season, have been riddled by injuries and are now just 2-8, which will almost assuredly end their run of 5 straight division titles. Even worse is the fact that those two wins are twice as many as both the University of Washington and Washington State combined!
Washington can at least say they've lost star quarterback Jake Locker to injury, but does that excuse being 0-10 and losing six straight by 20 points or more? How about Washington State, they did beat 1-AA Portland State, but have been simply atrocolicious (words don’t describe how bad they’ve played so I made one up that would) in league play. They rank last out of 114 College teams in scoring defense (giving up an other worldly bad 50.2 points per game) and are second to last in scoring offense (13.9 points per game). Yes they are being beat by an average of 36.3 points per game! In Pac-10 play they've given up 60 points four times, along with 58 and 59 and have been shut out three times! They are truly boys amongst men. Thank God for these two teams that they play each other next week in the annual Apple Cup - A game I almost want to make the six hour drive to just to see how awful a game of college football can actually be.
Basketball gets a bit better, than a whole lot worse. Their college teams were actually pretty decent last year, but have graduated some good players and are expected to be middle of the pack this year. The Pro Team, well they were bad, real bad, and then they were gone. In the 2007-08 season the Seattle Sonics went 20-62, the second worst record in the NBA. However, Sonic fans knew it would be a bad season; they traded away Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis for a bunch of picks and young players. Plus they had just drafted Rookie of the Year Kevin Durant who averaged over 2o points a game in his first season. The future looked bright.
Too bad that future now looks bright in Oklahoma City. In 2006, after failing to convince Seattle to help pay for a new stadium, Howard Shultz decided to sell the team to Clayton Bennett. Bennett subsequently held the city hostage by demanding they either build a new stadium or he'd move the team to Oklahoma City. First of all, cities shouldn't be helping private owners pay for new stadiums in the first place, but this case is particularly awful. Not only was there a Dog Day Afternoon like hostage situation, but it appears the plan from the beginning was to move the team, as the new Sonics co-owner Aubrey McClendon told an Oklahoma City newspaper "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle." Unfortunately, unlike the movie, Clayton Bennett will probably not be shot in the face at the end.
So yeah, Washington and Seattle got screwed by Bennett and his cronies. And unfortunately, for perhaps the millionth example that karma doesn't exist, Bennent is doing just fine and all the rest of Washington's sports teams have utterly collapsed into an unwatchable mess of athletically inept garbage. But hey, cheer up Washington sports fans, there's always next year (well for all your teams but the Sonics that is).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
So What Shouldn't be up for Vote?
In my last entry I discussed the limitations and problems with democracy, at least the unbridled version of it. However, I realized I wasn't very specific on what should be up for vote and what should not be. This is actually a very tricky question, unless of course you're an ideologue, i.e. everything should be up for vote or nothing.
Let's start with the obvious. The politicians that represent us should be elected by popular vote. Having problems with unbridled democracy is by no means supporting dictatorship. Even with a strong constitution and a rigidly defined version of federalism, the likes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Benito Mussolini are going to find a way around them unless they are voted out (or preferably not voted in).
So what else? Well if I was an Ayn Rand obsessed objectivist I would say not much. Pure laizze faire capitalism should rule the day. However, while I lean libertarian, I do think there are places the government can intervene to help a little bit with out screwing up the economy or become totalitarian. I don't believe in massive wealth redistribution, a business-government compact, the military industrial complex or an over bloated affirmative action program for every minority there is, but some mild protections and maybe even a little welfare for the truly downtrodden is by no means out of the question.
Here's how I would break it down. The government's primary goal is to protect natural rights or negative liberty. By that I mean it should protect its citizens from threats to their well being either foreign (invasion, terrorism) or domestic (crime, persecution and the government itself). This epitomizes the classical liberal maxim espoused by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. On the other hand, positive liberty, like the right to a home or healthcare, is really a misnomer because you can't give positive liberty to someone with out taking it from someone else.
Therefore, the federal government should deal almost solely with negative liberty. It should be there to provide a national defense and intrastate police force (like the US Marshalls) to chase down criminals that flee from one state to another and probably the major infrastructure such as the freeways. It should also override state decisions, but only in the negative. So for example, the Jim Crow laws should, and eventually were, be overturned by the federal government. I would probably be OK if the feds also overturned Proposition 8, which I discussed in the last entry. However, the federal government should not be handing out welfare to citizens in Alabama or telling how a small business in Deleware should be ran.
I would give the states more leeway though. Here I think citizens should be able to vote for more positive rights. Some welfare here and there, a couple regulations as well as on the tricky issues like abortion, for which it's debatable whether or not another person is involved. I would still leave things like outright socialism, discriminatory laws, denying gay rights and probably even denying the right to ingest whatever drugs you want off the table.
Why more power to the states? For several reasons. First, this creates a separation of powers where the federal government can prevent the states from denying people's rights while not having the power to do so itself. Secondly, the majority is more likely to actually represent people's opinions in a state because of the smaller and more homogenous populations involved. It always amazed how angry liberals got that major policies in California and Massachusetts are decided by people in Texas and Georgia, yet liberals still oppose state rights. Finally, even if a state enacts an atrocious law that the federal government fails to overturn it, it's much easier to move out of a state than out of the country. And if the United States goes wrong, a country founded on the thirst for freedom, where else do we have to go?
So there you have it. Under these guidelines the federal government could probably be funded by a small non-protective tariff and perhaps some corporate taxes. I'd probably let the state's citizen’s vote on how each state government should be funded even though this opens the possibility for those high taxes I dislike so much. I can always move to New Hampshire right? Anyways, I know it probably needs to be more refined, but it's a good start.
Let's start with the obvious. The politicians that represent us should be elected by popular vote. Having problems with unbridled democracy is by no means supporting dictatorship. Even with a strong constitution and a rigidly defined version of federalism, the likes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Benito Mussolini are going to find a way around them unless they are voted out (or preferably not voted in).
So what else? Well if I was an Ayn Rand obsessed objectivist I would say not much. Pure laizze faire capitalism should rule the day. However, while I lean libertarian, I do think there are places the government can intervene to help a little bit with out screwing up the economy or become totalitarian. I don't believe in massive wealth redistribution, a business-government compact, the military industrial complex or an over bloated affirmative action program for every minority there is, but some mild protections and maybe even a little welfare for the truly downtrodden is by no means out of the question.
Here's how I would break it down. The government's primary goal is to protect natural rights or negative liberty. By that I mean it should protect its citizens from threats to their well being either foreign (invasion, terrorism) or domestic (crime, persecution and the government itself). This epitomizes the classical liberal maxim espoused by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. On the other hand, positive liberty, like the right to a home or healthcare, is really a misnomer because you can't give positive liberty to someone with out taking it from someone else.
Therefore, the federal government should deal almost solely with negative liberty. It should be there to provide a national defense and intrastate police force (like the US Marshalls) to chase down criminals that flee from one state to another and probably the major infrastructure such as the freeways. It should also override state decisions, but only in the negative. So for example, the Jim Crow laws should, and eventually were, be overturned by the federal government. I would probably be OK if the feds also overturned Proposition 8, which I discussed in the last entry. However, the federal government should not be handing out welfare to citizens in Alabama or telling how a small business in Deleware should be ran.
I would give the states more leeway though. Here I think citizens should be able to vote for more positive rights. Some welfare here and there, a couple regulations as well as on the tricky issues like abortion, for which it's debatable whether or not another person is involved. I would still leave things like outright socialism, discriminatory laws, denying gay rights and probably even denying the right to ingest whatever drugs you want off the table.
Why more power to the states? For several reasons. First, this creates a separation of powers where the federal government can prevent the states from denying people's rights while not having the power to do so itself. Secondly, the majority is more likely to actually represent people's opinions in a state because of the smaller and more homogenous populations involved. It always amazed how angry liberals got that major policies in California and Massachusetts are decided by people in Texas and Georgia, yet liberals still oppose state rights. Finally, even if a state enacts an atrocious law that the federal government fails to overturn it, it's much easier to move out of a state than out of the country. And if the United States goes wrong, a country founded on the thirst for freedom, where else do we have to go?
So there you have it. Under these guidelines the federal government could probably be funded by a small non-protective tariff and perhaps some corporate taxes. I'd probably let the state's citizen’s vote on how each state government should be funded even though this opens the possibility for those high taxes I dislike so much. I can always move to New Hampshire right? Anyways, I know it probably needs to be more refined, but it's a good start.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
My Thoughts on Prop 8
In the euphoria liberals having been feeling over the past week after Obama won the election and Democrats picked up several more seats in the House and Senate, there has been one sour note for them. That is the passing of proposition 8 in California. Prop 8 basically bans same-sex marriage and it does so in the biggest and one of the most liberal states in the union.
Now I don't live in California and I am neither gay nor have any interest in getting married anytime soon. I do however agree with my liberal friends that Prop 8 is a ridiculous and unfair law. Of equal importance though, I feel I should weigh in on this issue because it elucidates a paradox within the standard liberal orthodoxy: namely that democracy is an infallible good.
Democracy is good you say, well I agree, but only to a limited extent. There are certain rights we shouldn't be able to vote away from each other. We should remember that Hitler came to power in a democracy (Weimar Republic), the Jim Crow laws were kept in place for 100 years with out being overturned by vote, George Bush was reelected in 2004 and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the popular vote (OK that one's not really fair). Detractors we'll surely say that democracy isn't perfect but it is still good, as Winston Churchill said "democracy is the absolute worst type of government, aside by every other one."
So I guess we just have to live with democracy's imperfections, right? Well not really, because the United States is not a democracy! Yes you read that right and I am not inferring it's a fascist dictatorship (my apologies to any Noam Chomsky fans out there). The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional part obviously implies the Constitution, or namely a strict set of rules our government must be held to. Separation of powers is explicit in that to prevent a consolidation of the monopoly (government), which interprets said document. The Republic part insinuates federalism, or state rights. Now obviously this isn't perfect either as Jim Crow was justified with state rights. But we need not go to any extreme; the federal government can (under the 14th Ammendment) and should prevent the states from blatantly taking people's rights away.
So we need all four (democracy, federalism, a constitution and separation of powers) to have a just government. Unbridled democracy alone is simply mob rule, the power of the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. It’s what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" while liberty was "a well armed lamb protesting the vote." James Madison was more explicit:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
Neo-socialists like Howard Zinn claim Madison was trying to make sure the rich minority could exploit the poor masses, but that had nothing to do with it. Although slavery was allowed (against the wishes of most founding fathers), the idea was that no party, political orthodoxy, religion or anything else could come to dominate the country and that people who held opposing views would be free from the tyranny of the majority. This is why our 1st amendment isn't up for vote. We can't vote away free speech (although politicians through out our history have tried to do it in an underhanded way).
So in essence what Prop 8 did was allowed the majority of Californians to vote away the rights of the minority. This is what the Federal Constitution and every State Constitution is meant to prevent. What angers me here is not so much that Prop 8 passed, but that we would even be allowed to vote on such a thing. Hell, marriage wasn't even a state regulated institution until about 100 years ago when the government got into it (and makes us pay them to get married).
Well, there's the legal, constitutional argument, how about the moral argument. Well first off, it shouldn't matter. Why does someone else getting married, probably a stranger, matter to you at all? Is it to maintain the institutions traditions? Well, just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, so that can't be it. OK, so the Bible says "13If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Well be careful, the Bible also says "18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Are you really going to feel good about enforcing that one? All Christians need to either accept that the Old Testament is a bit anachronistic and there's a lot of allegory in there or you are not even close to living a Christian life and should certainly not be casting the first stone! Keith Olbermann, who usually bugs me like he’s the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, actually puts it very well.
Oh wait, my bad, I found this great top 10 list that explains why gay marriage should be outlawed. I'll try not to write so much next time before changing my mind at the last second:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Again, my bad...
Now I don't live in California and I am neither gay nor have any interest in getting married anytime soon. I do however agree with my liberal friends that Prop 8 is a ridiculous and unfair law. Of equal importance though, I feel I should weigh in on this issue because it elucidates a paradox within the standard liberal orthodoxy: namely that democracy is an infallible good.
Democracy is good you say, well I agree, but only to a limited extent. There are certain rights we shouldn't be able to vote away from each other. We should remember that Hitler came to power in a democracy (Weimar Republic), the Jim Crow laws were kept in place for 100 years with out being overturned by vote, George Bush was reelected in 2004 and Saddam Hussein got 100% of the popular vote (OK that one's not really fair). Detractors we'll surely say that democracy isn't perfect but it is still good, as Winston Churchill said "democracy is the absolute worst type of government, aside by every other one."
So I guess we just have to live with democracy's imperfections, right? Well not really, because the United States is not a democracy! Yes you read that right and I am not inferring it's a fascist dictatorship (my apologies to any Noam Chomsky fans out there). The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional part obviously implies the Constitution, or namely a strict set of rules our government must be held to. Separation of powers is explicit in that to prevent a consolidation of the monopoly (government), which interprets said document. The Republic part insinuates federalism, or state rights. Now obviously this isn't perfect either as Jim Crow was justified with state rights. But we need not go to any extreme; the federal government can (under the 14th Ammendment) and should prevent the states from blatantly taking people's rights away.
So we need all four (democracy, federalism, a constitution and separation of powers) to have a just government. Unbridled democracy alone is simply mob rule, the power of the 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. It’s what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner" while liberty was "a well armed lamb protesting the vote." James Madison was more explicit:
The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
Neo-socialists like Howard Zinn claim Madison was trying to make sure the rich minority could exploit the poor masses, but that had nothing to do with it. Although slavery was allowed (against the wishes of most founding fathers), the idea was that no party, political orthodoxy, religion or anything else could come to dominate the country and that people who held opposing views would be free from the tyranny of the majority. This is why our 1st amendment isn't up for vote. We can't vote away free speech (although politicians through out our history have tried to do it in an underhanded way).
So in essence what Prop 8 did was allowed the majority of Californians to vote away the rights of the minority. This is what the Federal Constitution and every State Constitution is meant to prevent. What angers me here is not so much that Prop 8 passed, but that we would even be allowed to vote on such a thing. Hell, marriage wasn't even a state regulated institution until about 100 years ago when the government got into it (and makes us pay them to get married).
Well, there's the legal, constitutional argument, how about the moral argument. Well first off, it shouldn't matter. Why does someone else getting married, probably a stranger, matter to you at all? Is it to maintain the institutions traditions? Well, just 40 years ago interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states, so that can't be it. OK, so the Bible says "13If a man also lie with man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Well be careful, the Bible also says "18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Are you really going to feel good about enforcing that one? All Christians need to either accept that the Old Testament is a bit anachronistic and there's a lot of allegory in there or you are not even close to living a Christian life and should certainly not be casting the first stone! Keith Olbermann, who usually bugs me like he’s the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, actually puts it very well.
Oh wait, my bad, I found this great top 10 list that explains why gay marriage should be outlawed. I'll try not to write so much next time before changing my mind at the last second:
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Again, my bad...
Congrats Obama
OK, so I guess I'm about a week late, but then again, no one really reads my blog anyways so I have a pretty flexible schedule. Regardless, congratulations President Elect Barack Obama. I didn't vote for you, I think many of your policies are wrong, but I think you're a good, honorable person and will be a major improvement over our current president (of course, my last bowel movement would have probably been an improvement).
Given that the election really came down to Obama and McCain, I'm glad Obama won. His vicotry is basically a rejection of the the Iraq War. And while I doubt Obama will start withdrawing our troops from all over the world, I do think he'll at least slowly bring that awful war to a close.
As I stated earlier, his economic policies do make me a bit nervous. Then again, McCain wasn't an improvement. I could barely stand the irony of McCain calling Obama the "redistributionist and chief" a week or so after he voted to pass the $700 billion dollar bailout (the biggest wealth redistribution in American history). Obama is not a socialist by any means, still a new New Deal is definitely not what we need right now. Hopefully he'll keep it within reason. Although with all the problems this country is facing and pressure he's facing, I kinda doubt it. Oh well. Good luck President Obama.
Given that the election really came down to Obama and McCain, I'm glad Obama won. His vicotry is basically a rejection of the the Iraq War. And while I doubt Obama will start withdrawing our troops from all over the world, I do think he'll at least slowly bring that awful war to a close.
As I stated earlier, his economic policies do make me a bit nervous. Then again, McCain wasn't an improvement. I could barely stand the irony of McCain calling Obama the "redistributionist and chief" a week or so after he voted to pass the $700 billion dollar bailout (the biggest wealth redistribution in American history). Obama is not a socialist by any means, still a new New Deal is definitely not what we need right now. Hopefully he'll keep it within reason. Although with all the problems this country is facing and pressure he's facing, I kinda doubt it. Oh well. Good luck President Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Getting My Vote On
Who to vote for, who to vote for? That was my dilemma last weekend as I went through and filled out my mail-in ballot. It was probably the most mind-numbingly boring experience of my entire life... so I'd like to share it with you. Don't worry, I'll skip the boring ballot measures and annexation requests and State Treasurer runoff and jump right to the real meat of the matter: Who should I vote for President.
I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.
Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.
So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.
What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.
So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.
So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.
So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.
I'll start with the Republicans. Wow, have they proven they don't deserve my vote over the past eight years. I'll say that no matter what happens, this election can't be all bad given that George Bush will be out of office in two months. And while I like John McCain as a person and definitely respect him for what he had to go through in Vietnam, I simply can't vote for him. I won't even consider it. The reason being is his steadfast support for the war in Iraq and his almost romantic disposition toward US militarism. Every prediction made by the war's supporters - that it would be a cake walk, that there wouldn't be an insurgency, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that oil would pay for the war, that there wouldn't be any sectarian violence - has been proven wrong. The surge seems to have helped stabilize the situation, but I think it has more to do with the Iraqi people segregating themselves along sectarian lines. Basically McCain was wrong about Iraq in the beginning and he is still unwilling to budge. To me, this is unacceptable.
Unfortunately it's not just Iraq with him. McCain is a super hawk, through and through. He even said in one of the Republican debates that "we lost in Vietnam because we didn't have the will to finish the job." Really John, really? Were 13 years not enough (1960-1973)? Were 55,000 dead Americans not enough? I'm just afraid that he is such a hawk that not only will we stay in Iraq for a 100 years but that Iran may be next. To fill out his resume he has admitted he's doesn't know much about the economy and Sarah Palin is inexperienced and looks kind of lost on the campaign trail. At least she's helped Saturday Night Live produce a much needed revival.
So let's turn to the Democrats, Barack Obama is tempting. All that talk of change, well it makes me think of this. He did oppose the Iraq War and comes of as uniting figure. However, if you read his anti-war speech closely, it's really not very anti-war, it's just anti-this-war. While obviously very few people would oppose all wars regardless of circumstance, Obama felt it necessary to reiterate that four times in a 921 word speech. And since when does one short speech make you passionately anti-war prior to the conflict. So Barack may just bring us back to the ineffective, scattered, naive interventions a la Bill Clinton. Oh and he hasn't pushed any legislation to end the war of even voted against funding it. Some change there buddy.
What worries me more about Obama is his economic ideas. As I mentioned in the previous post, the government is the root of our financial crisis, but the junior senator from Illinois simply blames Wall Street and only Wall Street. Overall he wants to raise taxes during a recession. Come on Barack, economics 101! Sometimes his economic policies are just plain ridiculous, such as when he was asked why he wants to raise the capital gains tax even though the last two times that was done it brought in less revenue. His answer: it's more fair. Really Barack, really? He also wants to increase spending, which will mean more borrowing, even with the tax increases he has proposed. Thereby increasing our ever growing and unsustainable national debt, which I will have to write a blog about sometime later.
So I'm saying no to the two major candidates. Aren't I throwing my vote away then? Well, I live in Oregon, which is easily in Obama's camp. So no matter who I vote for I'm throwing my vote away. I'm not against democracy by any means (although it needs to be restrained by a strong constitution, separation of powers and federalism). And I do know that if many people vote for a third party candidate en masse it could swing the election, such as with Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. However I also know that it is simply a fact that no election has ever been decided by one vote and Oregon will go blue no matter how I fill out my ballot. So screw the major parties and call it a protest vote if you want, but I'm voting for who I want regardless of their odds.
So then who? Well I liked Ron Paul a lot during the primaries, so maybe I could write him in. He's not on the ballot, but did gain quite a following during the primaries. Paul's libertarian conservatism may be a bit simplistic, but he's one of the few politicians that Washington hasn't corrupted. I supported him until those ugly, racist newsletters saw the light of day. Paul says he didn't write them and I believe him, but it's hard to believe he had no idea what was going on. I mean the newsletter was called the Ron Paul Newsletter for crying out loud. So I guess I still respect him (and by the way his book, The Revolution: a Manifesto, is quite good), but I'm not going to write him in.
So, given my moderate libertarian beliefs I guess I'll just go with Bob Barr and the libertarian ticket. I have some beefs with the former congressman too - such as his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, a very unlibertarian piece of legislation if there ever was one - but overall he's a more restrained version of Ron Paul with out the racist charade circling him. Hey, he's as good as anyone to throw my vote away on.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Should We Blame the Market?
Watch five minutes of coverage on the financial crisis and you'll come across one general theme: the markets are to blame. We need more regulation. Go ahead, turn on CNN. How about that, huh.
With the presidential election closing in fast, both candidates, but especially Barack Obama have been pushing for more federal oversight, regulation and assistance. John McCain is less enthusiastic about the regulation, but went ahead and joined Obama in supporting the 700 billion dollar bailout among other measures. And plenty of polls have been showing that people are losing trust in the free market and believe more regulation is required.
Well is this what we should do? Did capitalism fail? Did the markets let us down like they always seem to do? Do we need our benevolent government to step in and save the day? Well if you trust the government to fix this mess you might as well ask the guy who just stabbed you to perform the surgery.
First let me start with a disclaimer, a big one at that. I do not mean to absolve Wall Street of its responsibility. On the aggregate, they screwed up badly. Some, such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America, did the right thing. They played it conservatively when housing prices were skyrocketing and now they're the one's with enough money to buy up all those who got caught up in what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." However, most of the major firms and CEO's behaved irrationally, irresponsibly and sometimes criminally.
What started this train a rollin' were the flood of sub prime mortgages made by financial institutions to borrowers who had no business buying a home. Many of these loans were interest only or negatively amortized, which basically means that the owners were relying on continued appreciation or otherwise they would be upside down (owe more than the home was worth). Many banks accepted stated income, which boiled down means the borrower simply states how much they make and that's good enough. The stupidity here needs no further elaboration. In addition, many mortgage brokers would do anything and everything they could to get people into these loans because the risk didn't matter to them, they were just in it for the commission. Finally, these mortgages were packaged into mortgage-backed securities that were then sold to investors thereby infecting the entire financial system with garbage loans. Here's a nice little primer on how the whole process worked.
Anyways, when the real estate market finally and inevitably started to take back some of its ridiculous gains, the whole deck of cards collapsed. So again, Wall Street deserves plenty of blame, especially AIG, who after being bailed out is now spending $140,000 on a party for their "top sellers."
Given all of this, you may ask how is not the market's fault you ask? Well gee, where should I begin?
Let's start with the Federal Reserve and its ridiculous monetary policy during the real estate boom. After the dot com bubble burst, the Enron and World Com scandals and the 9-11 attacks the markets looked shaky. Alan Greenspan and the Fed thought that dramatically lowering interest rates could help avert a recession. They lowered the discount rate to 1% and kept it there for about two years! This is a stupidly low rate for a ridiculously stupid period of time. It probably prevented a longer recession after 9-11 (there was still a short one) but the prosperity was all an illusion.
What such a monetary policy did was push floods of liquidity into the market. With people scarred of a tumbling stock market they turned to real estate and the bubble began to form. Housing prices and starts accelerated at record paces and builders built far too many homes and apartments. Why did they do that? Simple, they supplied what demand told them to. Unfortunately the demand was artificial, pumped up by the low interest rates. In turn people started refinancing their newly found equity and used it for all sorts of things (like big screen TVs, new cars, etc.). This spending was what made the economy run. Unfortunately, that money was not only borrowed, it was borrowed against equity that shouldn't have existed in the first place! When the market finally adjusted people found themselves with what amounted to unsecured credit card debt. And predictably the foreclosures started coming en masse.
Unfortunately, this was not the only mistake the government made. Thomas Sowell made a pretty good list, but I'll highlight a couple of the other ones for you. First it was the goal of both the Clinton and Bush administration to increase home ownership. It sounds great, but like most political inventions, these great sounding goals come with unintended consequences. One of the major ways they attempted to influence this trend was with the Community Reinvestment Act. What this program did was push lenders to make loans in poor communities. Sounds altruistic and all, but these lenders need to justify risky loans with higher rewards. So whereas politicians used to be praising banks for making risky, higher interest loans, now they are condemning them. Say what, politicians can be hypocritical... who would have thought?
Then there's the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thing. These are both government created firms that have made it easier to make home loans. Again nice sounding, but it has lead to a steady and artificial growth in real estate prices for a long time. And a little digging will expose how again the politicians cheered Fannie Mae when it made it its goal in 2002 for every American to own a home. Same old goal, same old political cheering and same old unintended consequences. Now look where we are.
There are a litany of other government offenses, but I'll stop there. The main question is do we need more regulation now? There are probably some helpful regulations here and there, but going back to a strictly regulated economy is not the answer. Whenever that temptation befalls you, just remember the airlines used to be heavily regulated and now they are not. If they still were there would be no Southwest or Jet Blue to give you cheap flights to one of the few other countries that we still have a good exchange rate with. Same goes for many other industries. In addition, we would be regulating to prevent this crisis, not the next one. As the famous military slogan goes "we must be prepared to fight the first day of the next war, not the last day of the last war." Unfortunately, the best medicine for this whole mess is probably just time. Time for the market to liquidate the bad debt so we can get back to some sense of normalcy. Then hopefully our government can maintain some semblance of a reasonable fiscal and monetary policy. Damn, good thing you can't see me because I couldn't even write that with a straight face.
With the presidential election closing in fast, both candidates, but especially Barack Obama have been pushing for more federal oversight, regulation and assistance. John McCain is less enthusiastic about the regulation, but went ahead and joined Obama in supporting the 700 billion dollar bailout among other measures. And plenty of polls have been showing that people are losing trust in the free market and believe more regulation is required.
Well is this what we should do? Did capitalism fail? Did the markets let us down like they always seem to do? Do we need our benevolent government to step in and save the day? Well if you trust the government to fix this mess you might as well ask the guy who just stabbed you to perform the surgery.
First let me start with a disclaimer, a big one at that. I do not mean to absolve Wall Street of its responsibility. On the aggregate, they screwed up badly. Some, such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America, did the right thing. They played it conservatively when housing prices were skyrocketing and now they're the one's with enough money to buy up all those who got caught up in what Alan Greenspan called "irrational exuberance." However, most of the major firms and CEO's behaved irrationally, irresponsibly and sometimes criminally.
What started this train a rollin' were the flood of sub prime mortgages made by financial institutions to borrowers who had no business buying a home. Many of these loans were interest only or negatively amortized, which basically means that the owners were relying on continued appreciation or otherwise they would be upside down (owe more than the home was worth). Many banks accepted stated income, which boiled down means the borrower simply states how much they make and that's good enough. The stupidity here needs no further elaboration. In addition, many mortgage brokers would do anything and everything they could to get people into these loans because the risk didn't matter to them, they were just in it for the commission. Finally, these mortgages were packaged into mortgage-backed securities that were then sold to investors thereby infecting the entire financial system with garbage loans. Here's a nice little primer on how the whole process worked.
Anyways, when the real estate market finally and inevitably started to take back some of its ridiculous gains, the whole deck of cards collapsed. So again, Wall Street deserves plenty of blame, especially AIG, who after being bailed out is now spending $140,000 on a party for their "top sellers."
Given all of this, you may ask how is not the market's fault you ask? Well gee, where should I begin?
Let's start with the Federal Reserve and its ridiculous monetary policy during the real estate boom. After the dot com bubble burst, the Enron and World Com scandals and the 9-11 attacks the markets looked shaky. Alan Greenspan and the Fed thought that dramatically lowering interest rates could help avert a recession. They lowered the discount rate to 1% and kept it there for about two years! This is a stupidly low rate for a ridiculously stupid period of time. It probably prevented a longer recession after 9-11 (there was still a short one) but the prosperity was all an illusion.
What such a monetary policy did was push floods of liquidity into the market. With people scarred of a tumbling stock market they turned to real estate and the bubble began to form. Housing prices and starts accelerated at record paces and builders built far too many homes and apartments. Why did they do that? Simple, they supplied what demand told them to. Unfortunately the demand was artificial, pumped up by the low interest rates. In turn people started refinancing their newly found equity and used it for all sorts of things (like big screen TVs, new cars, etc.). This spending was what made the economy run. Unfortunately, that money was not only borrowed, it was borrowed against equity that shouldn't have existed in the first place! When the market finally adjusted people found themselves with what amounted to unsecured credit card debt. And predictably the foreclosures started coming en masse.
Unfortunately, this was not the only mistake the government made. Thomas Sowell made a pretty good list, but I'll highlight a couple of the other ones for you. First it was the goal of both the Clinton and Bush administration to increase home ownership. It sounds great, but like most political inventions, these great sounding goals come with unintended consequences. One of the major ways they attempted to influence this trend was with the Community Reinvestment Act. What this program did was push lenders to make loans in poor communities. Sounds altruistic and all, but these lenders need to justify risky loans with higher rewards. So whereas politicians used to be praising banks for making risky, higher interest loans, now they are condemning them. Say what, politicians can be hypocritical... who would have thought?
Then there's the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thing. These are both government created firms that have made it easier to make home loans. Again nice sounding, but it has lead to a steady and artificial growth in real estate prices for a long time. And a little digging will expose how again the politicians cheered Fannie Mae when it made it its goal in 2002 for every American to own a home. Same old goal, same old political cheering and same old unintended consequences. Now look where we are.
There are a litany of other government offenses, but I'll stop there. The main question is do we need more regulation now? There are probably some helpful regulations here and there, but going back to a strictly regulated economy is not the answer. Whenever that temptation befalls you, just remember the airlines used to be heavily regulated and now they are not. If they still were there would be no Southwest or Jet Blue to give you cheap flights to one of the few other countries that we still have a good exchange rate with. Same goes for many other industries. In addition, we would be regulating to prevent this crisis, not the next one. As the famous military slogan goes "we must be prepared to fight the first day of the next war, not the last day of the last war." Unfortunately, the best medicine for this whole mess is probably just time. Time for the market to liquidate the bad debt so we can get back to some sense of normalcy. Then hopefully our government can maintain some semblance of a reasonable fiscal and monetary policy. Damn, good thing you can't see me because I couldn't even write that with a straight face.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Chris Cornell Brings Sexy Back
Of all the "what the fuck?" inducing collaborations in music history this might be the what the fuckiest. Chris Cornel, the man behind Soundgarden and Audioslave has teamed up with Timbaland, the man behind Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake, to make Scream, which should be in stores sometime in early February.
I am a huge fan of Chris Cornell. If I made a list of my top ten favorite bands Soundgarden would be number 1 and Audioslave would be number 2. Temple of the Dog (his one time collaboration with Pearl Jam) and his solo work (even though Carry On was a bit of a disappointment) would probably both be in the top ten as well. Still, this mix just sounded like a bit too much for me. I mean I enjoy Timbaland when I’m out at the bars, but Chris should be singing about Black Hole Sun’s not Promiscuous Girls.
The first single, Long Gone, was debuted on The Ryan Seacrest Show making it even less rockish and more what the fuckier. And the early reviews have been well, mixed. Some are extremely negative, but quite humorous. Like this gem, “While better respected and less dead than most grunge singers, Cornell has been in decline for some time," and,
In order to minimize the traumatic effects of experiencing the subsequent Cornell/Timbaland samples, I'll start the dissection process with "Watch Out," a malignant musical tumor that makes the other songs, any one of which might normally be the worst thing you've heard all year, seem benign by comparison.
He then goes on to explain why three choruses describing the antics of a reckless driver may be a wee bit excessive. Of course the language he used was a bit more, oh I don't know, course. Even the positive reviews have to get a shot or two in, “...with Cornell's angsty rock-god vocals ricocheting off Timbo's skittering beats, are fresher and more enjoyable, at least in a monkey-riding-a-tricycle sort of way."
Haha! Well I guess that’s what you get when the guy who sung “pearls and swine bereft of me” is now singing “pick it up, pick it up, watch out, now pick it up.” I mean honestly, what the hell does that even mean?
However, while some of the songs like “Part of Me” and “Watch Out” have some of the dumbest lyrics I’ve ever heard, others like “Ground Zero” and “Long Gone” aren’t bad. And the hidden track that got leaked, “Two Drink Minimum,” is brilliant. It’s very reminiscent of his first and highly underrated album “Euphoria Morning.”
Overall, from what I’ve heard (almost half the album), I like it. Even though I feel like I shouldn’t. Maybe I really shouldn't. I mean rock fans are supposed to be all self-righteous and only like rock. Anything else is sell out corporate crap meant to brainwash us right? Oh well, maybe I'm breaking out, I don't know. Regardless, Scream has a certain Gnarls Barkley feel with an undeniable energy to it. And Cornell's signature vocals haven't sounded this good since his early days in Soundgarden. The new stuff is by no means as good as Soundgarden, Audioslave or Euphoria Morning, but it’s still enjoyable R&B. Hell it’s probably my favorite R&B/hip hop music of all time (not that that’s saying much). And hey, everyone needs a couple of club hits right?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Why Are We Afraid?
Fear is a natural and useful instinct that all humans share. It is meant to alarm us when there is danger. We are afraid of a stranger standing in front of us with a gun because well, they can shoot us. Sure we could probably go with out the emotion and rationally construe that the best course of action is to tread carefully. Actually fear may make things worse by inducing panic. Yet many if not most other emotions are like that. Anger being probably the best example, because it is basically always useless. However, most other emotions are triggered by a situation that understandably stimulates it. Anger comes when someone or something wrongs us in some way. Fear however, seems to manifest itself in completely meaningless situations. So what is it that we really fear?
There are a multitude of different phobias, few of which make rational sense. Why on Earth would a 150 pound human being be scarred of a non poisonous little Granddaddy Long Leg spider that weighs less than an ounce? Yet, other fears that almost everyone has are present, even if not to the extent of a phobia. For example, calling a girl (or boy) you like, cold calls, phone calls in general, knocking on someone’s door, speaking up in a meeting, etc.
In essence, those fears fall into one category, while the others, like the aforementioned arachnophobia, fall into a second. The second category is simply a fear of danger. That danger is often non-existent, like in the case with most spiders, or horror films or dark alleys, etc. Yet it makes sense that people may feel this way. Some spiders are poisonous, horror films represent very dangerous situations for characters the audience has grown to care about and bad things can happen in dark alleys although they rarely ever do. The second fear makes less sense however. That is the fear, I believe, of being judged negatively.
This fear includes taking risks, initiating conversation with a stranger, potential client or someone you are attracted to, starting a business, etc. Some might argue that a third category should be added, that of failing, but I disagree. I think it’s the same basic fear. The fear of taking risks would seem to amount to a fear of failing, but is it failing or is it being judged for your failure? I believe it is the ladder. If something is appealing to someone, they will take the steps to get there, even if it sets them back financially or in some other area of life. Think about it this way, why would the average American be more willing to spend 101% of their income on mindless consumerism than launch a new venture? Laziness perhaps, or maybe some fear becoming financially ruined, but most don’t want people to see them aim for a goal and then fail. They don’t want to be judged.
Our culture today revolves around what you appear to be. Abercrombie and Fitch, the Gap, Banana Republic all celebrate this image driven culture along with plastic surgery, breast enhancements, most rappers, movie stars, most advertising, credit cards, etc. The problem is however, that appearance has nothing to do with yourself and only how others perceive you. People are basing their behavior, persona and just about everything they are on what others want them to be. Thus it makes perfect sense when Stephen Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Effective People, did a study on new age vrs older self help literature and found that books written in the past 50 years focused on one’s exterior persona while those written before are based on an introspective approach to self improvement. This cultural paradigm shift has come with quite unfortunate consequences.
Now this isn’t all to say I’m against capitalism (I’m not) or believe the good old days were so much better than now (they weren’t). But we as a society have appeared to lose some valuable insights. For instance, trying to please everyone will please no one, especially not yourself. It just makes you a yes man, fad riding, amalgamation of 50 different pop icons with no real discernable personality. Furthermore, it makes one fear others internal judgment constantly. Thus it cripples any attempt to reach out to others, take risks or pursue “strange” opportunities or dreams for fear of this judgment. What’s ironic is that people who speak their mind, take risks and have a sense of humor about failing are respected more by their peers than those who don’t. They just come across, well, they come across as real.
I for one believe that we’ve made great improvements in society overall. I wouldn’t go back to segregated, intolerant Cold War era of the 1950’s and earlier into the World Wars, colonialism, monarchies, de facto feudalism. Yet this change, or perhaps trend, has significantly damaged us by making us fear the irrational. Surely these fears existed before, but our culture exacerbates them and with out understanding where this fear comes from and how irrational it is, it is sure to cripple us in whatever we do.
There are a multitude of different phobias, few of which make rational sense. Why on Earth would a 150 pound human being be scarred of a non poisonous little Granddaddy Long Leg spider that weighs less than an ounce? Yet, other fears that almost everyone has are present, even if not to the extent of a phobia. For example, calling a girl (or boy) you like, cold calls, phone calls in general, knocking on someone’s door, speaking up in a meeting, etc.
In essence, those fears fall into one category, while the others, like the aforementioned arachnophobia, fall into a second. The second category is simply a fear of danger. That danger is often non-existent, like in the case with most spiders, or horror films or dark alleys, etc. Yet it makes sense that people may feel this way. Some spiders are poisonous, horror films represent very dangerous situations for characters the audience has grown to care about and bad things can happen in dark alleys although they rarely ever do. The second fear makes less sense however. That is the fear, I believe, of being judged negatively.
This fear includes taking risks, initiating conversation with a stranger, potential client or someone you are attracted to, starting a business, etc. Some might argue that a third category should be added, that of failing, but I disagree. I think it’s the same basic fear. The fear of taking risks would seem to amount to a fear of failing, but is it failing or is it being judged for your failure? I believe it is the ladder. If something is appealing to someone, they will take the steps to get there, even if it sets them back financially or in some other area of life. Think about it this way, why would the average American be more willing to spend 101% of their income on mindless consumerism than launch a new venture? Laziness perhaps, or maybe some fear becoming financially ruined, but most don’t want people to see them aim for a goal and then fail. They don’t want to be judged.
Our culture today revolves around what you appear to be. Abercrombie and Fitch, the Gap, Banana Republic all celebrate this image driven culture along with plastic surgery, breast enhancements, most rappers, movie stars, most advertising, credit cards, etc. The problem is however, that appearance has nothing to do with yourself and only how others perceive you. People are basing their behavior, persona and just about everything they are on what others want them to be. Thus it makes perfect sense when Stephen Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Effective People, did a study on new age vrs older self help literature and found that books written in the past 50 years focused on one’s exterior persona while those written before are based on an introspective approach to self improvement. This cultural paradigm shift has come with quite unfortunate consequences.
Now this isn’t all to say I’m against capitalism (I’m not) or believe the good old days were so much better than now (they weren’t). But we as a society have appeared to lose some valuable insights. For instance, trying to please everyone will please no one, especially not yourself. It just makes you a yes man, fad riding, amalgamation of 50 different pop icons with no real discernable personality. Furthermore, it makes one fear others internal judgment constantly. Thus it cripples any attempt to reach out to others, take risks or pursue “strange” opportunities or dreams for fear of this judgment. What’s ironic is that people who speak their mind, take risks and have a sense of humor about failing are respected more by their peers than those who don’t. They just come across, well, they come across as real.
I for one believe that we’ve made great improvements in society overall. I wouldn’t go back to segregated, intolerant Cold War era of the 1950’s and earlier into the World Wars, colonialism, monarchies, de facto feudalism. Yet this change, or perhaps trend, has significantly damaged us by making us fear the irrational. Surely these fears existed before, but our culture exacerbates them and with out understanding where this fear comes from and how irrational it is, it is sure to cripple us in whatever we do.
What it Means to be Moderate
I am a self-described libertarian. However, many libertarians annoy me with their righteous moral certitude (ever read Ayn Rand?). So I must also add that I consider myself a political moderate, and no, that certainly doesn’t mean I don’t pay attention. It means, like it sounds, that I fall in between the political extremes at least as it relates to the United States of America. And to do that and care and be informed, well let me tell you, it’s harder than being a rank and file conservative or liberal. It means I have to form objective opinions on my own, recognize bias, and never only settle for one source or point of view. Yet it is well worth it.
The main reason it is so worth it is what becomes of those who are not. It’s amazing the amount of bias that smart people will allow themselves to absorb with out a second thought. It will always amaze me when a conservative takes something Bill O’Reilly says as fact or a liberal does the same with Michael Moore. These two are bias producing machines, using stick men opposition, shouting, omission and fancy editing to make their point seem like the only one that could possibly be correct.
The idea that only your point of view is correct is, in my humble opinion, the single greatest cause of human suffering in the world. I’m not saying that Bill O’Reilly or Michael Moore and anyone who agrees with them are evil. I’m saying that their thinking and techniques are what has lead to such disastrous consequences. Normally at this point, it would be prudent to give an example, but there are so many that it’s hard to settle on just one. For instance, the Nazi’s believed it was only OK to be Arians, Osama Bin Laden and his followers believe it is only OK to be an Islamic fundamentalist, Pol Pot and Khmer Rogue believed that it was only OK to be an uneducated, agrarian, communist, etc. etc. How hard would it be for someone to say “this is too much, these are people too!” Evidently, very hard when you’re only seeing things from one perspective.
This ‘with me or against me’ attitude creates a false dichotomy: an absolute good and an absolute evil. What must happen to that absolute evil? Well it must be eliminated! So we see the Holocaust and Killing Fields and just about every other tragedy as a result. Now obviously this doesn’t mean that those with strong opinions are going to go on a genocidal rampage. It’s just that this kind of ideological idolatry is the foundation that kind of evil can be built upon. Luckily, for the most part the problems it causes are less severe.
The US government is currently paralyzed by partisan politics where each side is looking to gain power instead of helping the common good. I heard a political pundit say that more people know Bush’s political advisor (Rove) than his chief of staff (who knows what his name is?)! And it’s true! George Bush, as well as other Republicans and Democrats, have done a great disservice to the American people by being a member of their party first and their country second. The rhetoric coming from both sides of aisle during this election cycle should be proof enough of this.
So finally, what it means to be a moderate must be capped by what it absolutely does not mean to be a moderate. Being moderate does not mean that you don’t have strong opinions. I think George Bush has failed miserably, but that doesn’t mean I’m a liberal. Who’s to say our political balance is even in the right hemisphere. For example, a moderate in the United States would be considered a radical right-winger in the former Soviet Union!
A moderate could be a communist or a laissez-faire capitalist (like me), it doesn’t matter what you believe. In essence, you can still be a liberal or conservative and still be moderate. Because a true moderate is not defined by where he stands, but the fact that he knows and tries to understand where others stand and why. Someone who is willing to debate robustly but in the end, agree to disagree. A moderate is someone who recognizes that we are all human and all want what’s best, we just disagree on how to get there.
The main reason it is so worth it is what becomes of those who are not. It’s amazing the amount of bias that smart people will allow themselves to absorb with out a second thought. It will always amaze me when a conservative takes something Bill O’Reilly says as fact or a liberal does the same with Michael Moore. These two are bias producing machines, using stick men opposition, shouting, omission and fancy editing to make their point seem like the only one that could possibly be correct.
The idea that only your point of view is correct is, in my humble opinion, the single greatest cause of human suffering in the world. I’m not saying that Bill O’Reilly or Michael Moore and anyone who agrees with them are evil. I’m saying that their thinking and techniques are what has lead to such disastrous consequences. Normally at this point, it would be prudent to give an example, but there are so many that it’s hard to settle on just one. For instance, the Nazi’s believed it was only OK to be Arians, Osama Bin Laden and his followers believe it is only OK to be an Islamic fundamentalist, Pol Pot and Khmer Rogue believed that it was only OK to be an uneducated, agrarian, communist, etc. etc. How hard would it be for someone to say “this is too much, these are people too!” Evidently, very hard when you’re only seeing things from one perspective.
This ‘with me or against me’ attitude creates a false dichotomy: an absolute good and an absolute evil. What must happen to that absolute evil? Well it must be eliminated! So we see the Holocaust and Killing Fields and just about every other tragedy as a result. Now obviously this doesn’t mean that those with strong opinions are going to go on a genocidal rampage. It’s just that this kind of ideological idolatry is the foundation that kind of evil can be built upon. Luckily, for the most part the problems it causes are less severe.
The US government is currently paralyzed by partisan politics where each side is looking to gain power instead of helping the common good. I heard a political pundit say that more people know Bush’s political advisor (Rove) than his chief of staff (who knows what his name is?)! And it’s true! George Bush, as well as other Republicans and Democrats, have done a great disservice to the American people by being a member of their party first and their country second. The rhetoric coming from both sides of aisle during this election cycle should be proof enough of this.
So finally, what it means to be a moderate must be capped by what it absolutely does not mean to be a moderate. Being moderate does not mean that you don’t have strong opinions. I think George Bush has failed miserably, but that doesn’t mean I’m a liberal. Who’s to say our political balance is even in the right hemisphere. For example, a moderate in the United States would be considered a radical right-winger in the former Soviet Union!
A moderate could be a communist or a laissez-faire capitalist (like me), it doesn’t matter what you believe. In essence, you can still be a liberal or conservative and still be moderate. Because a true moderate is not defined by where he stands, but the fact that he knows and tries to understand where others stand and why. Someone who is willing to debate robustly but in the end, agree to disagree. A moderate is someone who recognizes that we are all human and all want what’s best, we just disagree on how to get there.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Does Fasting Work?
Many cultures through out time have placed fasting in high esteem. To many fasting is a spiritual thing. Some Buddhist monks basically fast their entire lives and even Moses did some fasting among others the Bible references. Today people do it for spirtual or medical reasons or simply to lose weight.
The question is, does fasting actually do anything? Supporters say it detoxifies the body while helping people build discipline and lose weight. Wikipedia cites a study by Berkely that suggests fasting can decrease the risk of cancer and extend one's lifespan. On the other hand, some mainstream sources say it does nothing and can actually be harmful (and messy too if you use laxtives in the process, although that's kinda expected).
Fasting undoubtedly puts the body into starvation mode, which basically means that once you start eating again your body will store everything as fat until your metabolism gets back up to speed. So ironically, fasting can actually cause you to gain weight.
So when I got the strange impulse to do this, I was nervous about a couple things (going into hypoglycemia not surprisingly was the highest on the list). However a friend of mine had just done it with positive results and the idea got stuck in my head to go for it. For me it was about discipline. If I can go with out food, I can do anything (or not do anything).
So I decided to do a five day water fast. However, I quickly started to doubt my wisdom in this chosen endeavor. After the end of the first day the hunger pain was awful. Day two was almost unbearable. The hunger pain was so bad that it was actually hard to go to sleep even though I was exhasusted. In addition to that, I couldn't focus very well and my tongue started to turn a gross white color. It was also a little awkward when my stomach started growling whenever I was around someone (I didn't tell many people I was doing it). I'd always say it must have been something I ate (or didn't eat, ha ha).
Luckily, the third day felt fine and so did the fourth. I guess my body got use to not having food. Like an annoying, little kid begging for attention who finally just gave up. The hunger pains did come back on the fifth day, but I got through it. To celebrate, I bought a pizza and wow, it was easily the best tasting thing I've ever eaten!
Overall it was something I'm very glad I did. I felt like I achieved something and have been much more disciplined ever since doing it; working out consistently, getting my work done, not smoking, eating healthy and all that. I also lost 13 pounds in five days which was nice. And oh yeah, I didn't die. Given all that, I'd have to recommend it.
The question is, does fasting actually do anything? Supporters say it detoxifies the body while helping people build discipline and lose weight. Wikipedia cites a study by Berkely that suggests fasting can decrease the risk of cancer and extend one's lifespan. On the other hand, some mainstream sources say it does nothing and can actually be harmful (and messy too if you use laxtives in the process, although that's kinda expected).
Fasting undoubtedly puts the body into starvation mode, which basically means that once you start eating again your body will store everything as fat until your metabolism gets back up to speed. So ironically, fasting can actually cause you to gain weight.
So when I got the strange impulse to do this, I was nervous about a couple things (going into hypoglycemia not surprisingly was the highest on the list). However a friend of mine had just done it with positive results and the idea got stuck in my head to go for it. For me it was about discipline. If I can go with out food, I can do anything (or not do anything).
So I decided to do a five day water fast. However, I quickly started to doubt my wisdom in this chosen endeavor. After the end of the first day the hunger pain was awful. Day two was almost unbearable. The hunger pain was so bad that it was actually hard to go to sleep even though I was exhasusted. In addition to that, I couldn't focus very well and my tongue started to turn a gross white color. It was also a little awkward when my stomach started growling whenever I was around someone (I didn't tell many people I was doing it). I'd always say it must have been something I ate (or didn't eat, ha ha).
Luckily, the third day felt fine and so did the fourth. I guess my body got use to not having food. Like an annoying, little kid begging for attention who finally just gave up. The hunger pains did come back on the fifth day, but I got through it. To celebrate, I bought a pizza and wow, it was easily the best tasting thing I've ever eaten!
Overall it was something I'm very glad I did. I felt like I achieved something and have been much more disciplined ever since doing it; working out consistently, getting my work done, not smoking, eating healthy and all that. I also lost 13 pounds in five days which was nice. And oh yeah, I didn't die. Given all that, I'd have to recommend it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Did Osama Bin Laden Win?
The stock market just fell below 9000 for the first time since the 90's after the Dow dropped another 679 points today. The stock market has already fallen almost 40% from its all time high of 14164 in October 9th of 2007 and will probably continue to fall. Huge banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers have failed along with insurance giants like AIG. Mortgage foreclosures are up, inflation is up and Americans still save less than 0% of their income. That brilliant $700 billion dollar bailout package doesn't seem to be having its desired effect.
All of this was predictable and I take little pride in the fact I predicted it given how obvious it was (and how bad it could get). Economics is an extremely complicated discipline, but the basics are pretty simple. You cannot dramatically lower taxes, dramatically increase spending (Medicare expansion, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security, etc.) and start two wars with out bankrupting your country. Our government is worse than a teenage girl with her parent's credit card.
What makes this even worse is that not only did we do it to ourselves, but we fell right into our enemy's plan. We executed it to a T. Osama Bin Laden knew very well he couldn't defeat the United States militarily. What he did know is that he could get us stuck in the Middle East crapping money away fighting endless insurgencies. He bled us. And that was his strategy the whole time! He even stated it publicly saying, "So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." He went further and cited Russia, who in the 1980's were bankrupted fighting Bin Laden's insurgents in Afghanistan. Yet we were still too stupid to listen, or at least our politicians were.
So where do we go from here? Well first things first, we have to withdraw our military. Not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the entire world. The quasi-empire can go! As far as Osama Bin Laden is concerned, he'll lose support if the US leaves the region. Radical Islamists will likely turn on their own government instead of worrying about a bunch of infidels on the other side of the planet. Regardless we have bigger problems at home.
We then need to use the saved money to balance the budget. Right now, we just gave a $700 billion dollar bailout to our major financial institutions, but we have no money and our credit line with China is basically maxed out. So we almost assuredly just printed the cash. This crisis will get much worse if we keep that up, the dollar will just collapse and we'll have runaway inflation during a recession. We need to keep taxes as low as possible for the time being and simply be patient while the market liquidates the bad debt. It will take time and it will hurt, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. You have to pay for your mistakes. And the United States has many mistakes to pay for.
All of this was predictable and I take little pride in the fact I predicted it given how obvious it was (and how bad it could get). Economics is an extremely complicated discipline, but the basics are pretty simple. You cannot dramatically lower taxes, dramatically increase spending (Medicare expansion, No Child Left Behind, Department of Homeland Security, etc.) and start two wars with out bankrupting your country. Our government is worse than a teenage girl with her parent's credit card.
What makes this even worse is that not only did we do it to ourselves, but we fell right into our enemy's plan. We executed it to a T. Osama Bin Laden knew very well he couldn't defeat the United States militarily. What he did know is that he could get us stuck in the Middle East crapping money away fighting endless insurgencies. He bled us. And that was his strategy the whole time! He even stated it publicly saying, "So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." He went further and cited Russia, who in the 1980's were bankrupted fighting Bin Laden's insurgents in Afghanistan. Yet we were still too stupid to listen, or at least our politicians were.
So where do we go from here? Well first things first, we have to withdraw our military. Not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from the entire world. The quasi-empire can go! As far as Osama Bin Laden is concerned, he'll lose support if the US leaves the region. Radical Islamists will likely turn on their own government instead of worrying about a bunch of infidels on the other side of the planet. Regardless we have bigger problems at home.
We then need to use the saved money to balance the budget. Right now, we just gave a $700 billion dollar bailout to our major financial institutions, but we have no money and our credit line with China is basically maxed out. So we almost assuredly just printed the cash. This crisis will get much worse if we keep that up, the dollar will just collapse and we'll have runaway inflation during a recession. We need to keep taxes as low as possible for the time being and simply be patient while the market liquidates the bad debt. It will take time and it will hurt, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. You have to pay for your mistakes. And the United States has many mistakes to pay for.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Here's to NOT Being "Broadway" Brett
So this whole Favre saga ended about two weeks ago with him being traded to the Jets and as a big Brett Favre and Packers fan, I don't know what to think about it. I think the Jets have actually added a lot of talent this offseason and should be able to compete for a playoff spot, although the AFC if stacked. The Packers also have a lot of talent and assuming Aaron Rodgers pans out, should be very good too. I guess I'll just root for them both this season, luckily they don't play each other.
But I must get one thing off my chest. In Jets fans mad search for a nickname for the newest Jet quarterback, "Broadway" Brett seems to have surfaced as the favorite (just ahead of Jet Favre). This is an obvious reference to "Broadway" Joe Namath. Now at first, this seems like an obvious compliment. Joe Namath was a rock star in New York, famous for his grandiose persona and of course the guarantee and upset victory over Baltimore in Super Bowl III. In a recent ESPN poll, he was voted the greatest New York Jet of all time.
However, why it's meant as a compliment, I for one hope Brett is nothing like Joe on the field. Winning a Super Bowl would be great, which Joe did, don't get me wrong. But Joe Namath, put simply was not a great quarterback, not even a good one. In fact, I would say he wasn't even OK, he was below average at best! His off the field persona and longing to kiss Suzy Kolber seem to have made up for his awfully mediocre play on it.
Don't believe me, well let's look at the numbers. For his career he threw 173 touchdowns vrs 220 interceptions. Yes, he threw 47 more interceptions than touchdowns! He threw more touchdowns than interceptions in only 2 of 13 seasons and lead the league in interceptions four times! He completed but 50.1% of his passes with a career passer rating of 65.5. These numbers are simply awful. Going through each season one by one, I count a total of four in which he might not be benched today, although none of those are guaranteed. His best pass rating for a season was 74.3, which would have been good enough for 25th place out of 34 in 2007. His career rating would have placed him 33rd.
In comparison, Brett Favre has thrown 442 touchdowns vs. 288 interceptions. He's completed 61.4% of his passes and has a 85.7 pass rating. Now, I know stats aren't everything and passing has gotten easier with the rules and strategies these days. But come on, the difference is ridiculous! And even compared to contemporary elite quarterbacks, Joe Namath is garbage. Johnny Unitas had 290 td's to 253 ints, completed 54.6% of his passes and had a rating of 78.2. Earl Morall had 161 td's to 148 int's, completed 51.3% of his passes and had a pass rating of 81.6. Bart Starr had 152 Td's to 138 int's, completed 57.4% of his passes and had a rating of 80.5. Johnny Unitas won three championships, Earl Morall won one and Bart Starr won five.
Ok well maybe "Broadway" Joe was a good runner. Well no, he ran for only 140 yards in 13 seasons. OK not a good runner. But he was a winner right? Well kind of, but not really. His career record was 63-63-4. He was .500! Aside from one game he was completely mediocre. A game that was won by the defense 16-7, Joe Namath didn't even throw a touchdown. How this guy got in the Hall of Fame is simply a mystery.
So you know what, I'll go with Jet Favre, because calling him "Broadway" Brett is simply an insult.
But I must get one thing off my chest. In Jets fans mad search for a nickname for the newest Jet quarterback, "Broadway" Brett seems to have surfaced as the favorite (just ahead of Jet Favre). This is an obvious reference to "Broadway" Joe Namath. Now at first, this seems like an obvious compliment. Joe Namath was a rock star in New York, famous for his grandiose persona and of course the guarantee and upset victory over Baltimore in Super Bowl III. In a recent ESPN poll, he was voted the greatest New York Jet of all time.
However, why it's meant as a compliment, I for one hope Brett is nothing like Joe on the field. Winning a Super Bowl would be great, which Joe did, don't get me wrong. But Joe Namath, put simply was not a great quarterback, not even a good one. In fact, I would say he wasn't even OK, he was below average at best! His off the field persona and longing to kiss Suzy Kolber seem to have made up for his awfully mediocre play on it.
Don't believe me, well let's look at the numbers. For his career he threw 173 touchdowns vrs 220 interceptions. Yes, he threw 47 more interceptions than touchdowns! He threw more touchdowns than interceptions in only 2 of 13 seasons and lead the league in interceptions four times! He completed but 50.1% of his passes with a career passer rating of 65.5. These numbers are simply awful. Going through each season one by one, I count a total of four in which he might not be benched today, although none of those are guaranteed. His best pass rating for a season was 74.3, which would have been good enough for 25th place out of 34 in 2007. His career rating would have placed him 33rd.
In comparison, Brett Favre has thrown 442 touchdowns vs. 288 interceptions. He's completed 61.4% of his passes and has a 85.7 pass rating. Now, I know stats aren't everything and passing has gotten easier with the rules and strategies these days. But come on, the difference is ridiculous! And even compared to contemporary elite quarterbacks, Joe Namath is garbage. Johnny Unitas had 290 td's to 253 ints, completed 54.6% of his passes and had a rating of 78.2. Earl Morall had 161 td's to 148 int's, completed 51.3% of his passes and had a pass rating of 81.6. Bart Starr had 152 Td's to 138 int's, completed 57.4% of his passes and had a rating of 80.5. Johnny Unitas won three championships, Earl Morall won one and Bart Starr won five.
Ok well maybe "Broadway" Joe was a good runner. Well no, he ran for only 140 yards in 13 seasons. OK not a good runner. But he was a winner right? Well kind of, but not really. His career record was 63-63-4. He was .500! Aside from one game he was completely mediocre. A game that was won by the defense 16-7, Joe Namath didn't even throw a touchdown. How this guy got in the Hall of Fame is simply a mystery.
So you know what, I'll go with Jet Favre, because calling him "Broadway" Brett is simply an insult.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Super Bad, Grotesquely Ugly, Dark Side of Technology
What is it about technology that can cause such love/hate relationships? It helps with so many things, but when it goes wrong, it goes oh so wrong. Technology is like having an extremely hot girlfriend. They're great and all, especially for some things you just can't do nearly as well yourself, but unfortunately such women tend to be extremely needy and unbearably high maintenance.
OK, so poorly made, moderately disgusting, overtly chauvinistic analogies aside, technology is probably so important to daily life that we would all die off rather quickly if it was all just to go away one day. Yet many people, and myself in particular, often treat technology like a spoiled, ungrateful child treats his parents. We are like, to get all Biblical on you, Bill Gates' prodigal son. We rarely tout it's many benefits (like keeping us alive) and always rant at it's rare hiccups. It's quite irrational really.
But you know what, I don't care. Fuck computers and fuck technology! They can go away and never come back for all I care! Yeah I know I couldn't be writing this if it weren't for technology, so? You think I don't have anything better I could be doing than being lured to this damn machine to write a blog no one will read, or read spam mail sent to me by some doushe bag in Nigeria who wants me to invest $10,000 in his brothers Swiss Bank account, or find out how many viruses, trogans and malware I can download in one sitting from some pimplely faced, teenage hacker eating cheese puffs in his mothers basement? No, there is an entire assortment of better things I could be doing right now.
OK, so a quick explanation is in order. About four months ago my computer crashes and my hard drive explodes. I of course lose everything. I then proceed to spend a bunch of money getting a new hard drive and promptly my screen starts screwing up. No big deal right? So I go to Best Buy and the guy tells me it's the mother board and I should call Dell to get it fixed. So I do, and some girl in Bangladesh trying to fake an American accent tells me that actually it's the hard drive that's cashed! Then she tells me to call the out of warranty people the next day (because the out of warranty repair people were obviously out of the office that day for no reason whatsoever). So the next day I call them, and they tell me I need to call the home computer department, but they inexplicably close at 2:00 so I'd have to call them the next day. I patiently explained that we were talking about the warranty now and not the computer itself, which was apparently a cue for him to start speaking his native tongue because I did not understand a single word after that. The situation is currently unresolved as I have stooped to using my brother's computer to write a blog that again, no one will probably read.
And yeah, I know last time I defended free trade, but I might have to make an exception for tech support. I got nothing against people from other countries, but with tech support, I mean, you're resolving problems with God Forsaken, Devil Incarnate technology! Clear communication can very well be the only thing maintaining the victim's sanity.
Regardless, I'm left with my second fried hard drive in 4 months and my hatred for technology has spilled over. Unfortunately, technology is quite inanimate, which makes it difficult to inflict pain upon any of its many forms. And regrettably, any good revenge requires at least some pain. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for breaking something.
OK, so poorly made, moderately disgusting, overtly chauvinistic analogies aside, technology is probably so important to daily life that we would all die off rather quickly if it was all just to go away one day. Yet many people, and myself in particular, often treat technology like a spoiled, ungrateful child treats his parents. We are like, to get all Biblical on you, Bill Gates' prodigal son. We rarely tout it's many benefits (like keeping us alive) and always rant at it's rare hiccups. It's quite irrational really.
But you know what, I don't care. Fuck computers and fuck technology! They can go away and never come back for all I care! Yeah I know I couldn't be writing this if it weren't for technology, so? You think I don't have anything better I could be doing than being lured to this damn machine to write a blog no one will read, or read spam mail sent to me by some doushe bag in Nigeria who wants me to invest $10,000 in his brothers Swiss Bank account, or find out how many viruses, trogans and malware I can download in one sitting from some pimplely faced, teenage hacker eating cheese puffs in his mothers basement? No, there is an entire assortment of better things I could be doing right now.
OK, so a quick explanation is in order. About four months ago my computer crashes and my hard drive explodes. I of course lose everything. I then proceed to spend a bunch of money getting a new hard drive and promptly my screen starts screwing up. No big deal right? So I go to Best Buy and the guy tells me it's the mother board and I should call Dell to get it fixed. So I do, and some girl in Bangladesh trying to fake an American accent tells me that actually it's the hard drive that's cashed! Then she tells me to call the out of warranty people the next day (because the out of warranty repair people were obviously out of the office that day for no reason whatsoever). So the next day I call them, and they tell me I need to call the home computer department, but they inexplicably close at 2:00 so I'd have to call them the next day. I patiently explained that we were talking about the warranty now and not the computer itself, which was apparently a cue for him to start speaking his native tongue because I did not understand a single word after that. The situation is currently unresolved as I have stooped to using my brother's computer to write a blog that again, no one will probably read.
And yeah, I know last time I defended free trade, but I might have to make an exception for tech support. I got nothing against people from other countries, but with tech support, I mean, you're resolving problems with God Forsaken, Devil Incarnate technology! Clear communication can very well be the only thing maintaining the victim's sanity.
Regardless, I'm left with my second fried hard drive in 4 months and my hatred for technology has spilled over. Unfortunately, technology is quite inanimate, which makes it difficult to inflict pain upon any of its many forms. And regrettably, any good revenge requires at least some pain. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for breaking something.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Why Our Manufacturing Jobs Are Leaving (Hint: It’s Not Free Trade)
OK, pose the following question to anyone: “why has the US lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs in last 15 years?” I’d bet good money that the answer will be free trade or maybe NAFTA. It’s just common knowledge. Duh. As paleoconservative Pat Buchanan puts it “Between January 2002 and January 2007, the gargantuan U.S. trade deficit set five straight world records…If this is the fruit of a successful trade policy, what would a failed trade policy look like?” (1) Or Barack Obama who agrees with Pat on approximately nothing is actually in perfect harmony here “It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart.” I’ve even heard Lou Dobbs isn’t a fan. I guess John McCain still supports free trade, but never really gives a rationale for it. That seems pretty standard these days, I mean, look at the embarrassing attempts the guy defending free trade makes in this debate. Countries like China have much lower wages, fewer labor protections and environmental standards so of course every company that can would up and leave the United States if there were no trade barriers. It’s that simple.
Well, that’s a pretty good argument with only one small flaw… it’s complete, utter bullshit. It’s actually not very hard to prove this too, which I just happen to be in the mood to do. Actually, scratch that, I’ll let renowned economist Henry Hazlitt do it for me, suppose
An American exporter sells his goods to a British importer and is paid in British pounds sterling. But he cannot use British pounds to pay the wages of his workers, to buy his wife’s clothes or to buy theater tickets. For all these purposes he needs American dollars. Therefore his British pounds are of no use to him unless he either uses them himself to buy British goods or sells them to some American importer…” (2)
For all intensive purposes the United States is the only country that uses the dollar.* Every dollar that leaves our country must eventually come back. Foreigners could buy up some manufacturing plants here, but if they move them out of the country, any profits they got from the United States would still have to be spent in the United States.
So there really shouldn’t ever be a trade deficit of any major significance. Oh, but you’re saying there are. Well two points need to be made, first in general and then specifically with regards to the United States.
In general, obviously currencies don’t leave and come back instantaneously. There will be up and down cycles. It’s also hard to account for every economic transaction-taking place between individuals in one country and another. This is especially true given there are often large black markets in even the freest economies. And lastly, well governments just lie sometimes. This all becomes obvious when you look at the CIA factbook for 2007, which says the world as a whole is running a $178 billion dollar trade surplus.** This of course is impossible.
Accounting issues only explain small discrepancies though. The United States is a very peculiar case. We just happen to hold the reserve currency of the world. To explain what this is and how it came about we have to go back to the end of World War II. After the war, the Allied governments wanted to set up a system that would facilitate international trade and prevent the hyper nationalistic protectionism of the 1930’s that helped spur the Second World War. John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White designed a system known as Bretton Woods, in which every country in the American sphere of influence tied their currency to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate and the dollar was in turn tied to gold at $35 and ounce.
Unfortunately, this system was doomed from the beginning; the problem was well, it relied on a wise fiscal policy by US politicians. In 1971, after a decade of paying for guns and butter (the Vietnam war and the Great Society) by inflating the dollar, the US government could no longer justify the $35/ounce exchange rate. Foreign investors started asking for their gold and Nixon responded by closing the gold window (effectively declaring bankruptcy).
The fixed exchange rate system was eventually replaced with floating exchange rates with no gold backing. This allowed investors to set currencies values by bidding on them in relation to each other. Now this system works in principal, but unfortunately it opens up countries to currency attacks. If a government enacts poor policies, investors can leave that currency en masse. Or powerful countries can simply defund a weaker country if they don’t like its policies. Regardless, it leaves countries vunerable as illustrated by the most famous example of such currency implosions, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.
To avoid these crises (and store a "risk free" currency in case of other problems), governments started stockpiling dollars in reserve to act as a bulwark in case their own currency is attacked. While the dollar was the reserve currency under Bretton Woods, as well as the 70’s and 80’s, governments stockpiles really accelerated 1990’s and 2000's when China started taking off and the fall of communism brought with it a whole host of new countries who, lacking Soviet support, needed to start stockpiling dollars.
Hopefully you can see where this is going. The dollars are no longer coming back to the United States. We buy toys from China and oil from Saudi Arabia and cars from Japan and electronics from Taiwan and cocaine from Mexico and they turn around and stuff those dollars in their central banks. This does two things; first companies no longer have to buy anything from the United States, they can simply outsource their factories and then sell the dollars they collect to the host countries central bank and thus our manufacturing sector is hollowed out. Second, it gives the US government a license to print just about infinite money with out producing inflation.
So now we can have guns and butter part deux but with out the inflation. How wonderful! Unfortunately, as Herb Stein once said, “things that can’t go on forever don’t.” The dollar currently makes up 63.8% of foreign reserves with the euro in a distance second at 26.4%. Unfortunately, as you’ve probably noticed the dollar is sinking in value like a rock. We are printing so much money that central banks are becoming nervous and diversifying into the euro and other currencies. Eventually, if our dollar continues to sink they will pull the plug and all those dollars will come rushing back to the United States. If this happens, the dollar will hyperinflate overnight.
While we may very well be starring a crisis in the face, free trade has nothing to do with it. And free trade certainly has nothing to do with our dwindling manufactuing sector. Anyways, we really don’t even have free trade, as NAFTA and the WTO are managed trade agreements that have plenty of tariffs and subsidies snuck into them. As Milton Friedman said when Charlie Rose asked him about the proposed Central American version of NAFTA “I discovered it was a thousand pages long and every page has exceptions to free trade. It’s not a free trade agreement.” (3) Still, what we have isn’t rampant protectionism either. However, if we just throw up a bunch of tariffs right now other countries would simply retaliate (or possibly sell off their dollars) and prices would rise with out our manufacturing sector returning. It would be Smoot-Hawley all over again. It’s that simple.
*There are technically 10 small countries that also use the dollar (usually secondarily to another currency). However, since the dollar is usually secondary and the countries are small this has a relatively small effect on trade balances. In addition, the fact these countries use the dollar is simply more evidence of the whole dollar hegemony problem.
**The CIA doesn’t have data on seven small countries and a few have old data. However, every country with old data has a deficit/surplus fewer than 100 million dollars and similar estimations can be made for the seven exclusions which include the likes of North Korea. These discrepancies certainly wouldn't even get close to adding up to 178 billion dollars.
(1) Patrick Buchanan, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed are Tearing America Apart, Pg. 203, Thomas Dunne Books, Copyright 2007
(2) Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Pg. 70, Laissez Faire Books, Copyright 1979
(3) Milton Friedman, An Hour with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, Charlie Rose, PBS, 12/26/2005
Well, that’s a pretty good argument with only one small flaw… it’s complete, utter bullshit. It’s actually not very hard to prove this too, which I just happen to be in the mood to do. Actually, scratch that, I’ll let renowned economist Henry Hazlitt do it for me, suppose
An American exporter sells his goods to a British importer and is paid in British pounds sterling. But he cannot use British pounds to pay the wages of his workers, to buy his wife’s clothes or to buy theater tickets. For all these purposes he needs American dollars. Therefore his British pounds are of no use to him unless he either uses them himself to buy British goods or sells them to some American importer…” (2)
For all intensive purposes the United States is the only country that uses the dollar.* Every dollar that leaves our country must eventually come back. Foreigners could buy up some manufacturing plants here, but if they move them out of the country, any profits they got from the United States would still have to be spent in the United States.
So there really shouldn’t ever be a trade deficit of any major significance. Oh, but you’re saying there are. Well two points need to be made, first in general and then specifically with regards to the United States.
In general, obviously currencies don’t leave and come back instantaneously. There will be up and down cycles. It’s also hard to account for every economic transaction-taking place between individuals in one country and another. This is especially true given there are often large black markets in even the freest economies. And lastly, well governments just lie sometimes. This all becomes obvious when you look at the CIA factbook for 2007, which says the world as a whole is running a $178 billion dollar trade surplus.** This of course is impossible.
Accounting issues only explain small discrepancies though. The United States is a very peculiar case. We just happen to hold the reserve currency of the world. To explain what this is and how it came about we have to go back to the end of World War II. After the war, the Allied governments wanted to set up a system that would facilitate international trade and prevent the hyper nationalistic protectionism of the 1930’s that helped spur the Second World War. John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White designed a system known as Bretton Woods, in which every country in the American sphere of influence tied their currency to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate and the dollar was in turn tied to gold at $35 and ounce.
Unfortunately, this system was doomed from the beginning; the problem was well, it relied on a wise fiscal policy by US politicians. In 1971, after a decade of paying for guns and butter (the Vietnam war and the Great Society) by inflating the dollar, the US government could no longer justify the $35/ounce exchange rate. Foreign investors started asking for their gold and Nixon responded by closing the gold window (effectively declaring bankruptcy).
The fixed exchange rate system was eventually replaced with floating exchange rates with no gold backing. This allowed investors to set currencies values by bidding on them in relation to each other. Now this system works in principal, but unfortunately it opens up countries to currency attacks. If a government enacts poor policies, investors can leave that currency en masse. Or powerful countries can simply defund a weaker country if they don’t like its policies. Regardless, it leaves countries vunerable as illustrated by the most famous example of such currency implosions, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.
To avoid these crises (and store a "risk free" currency in case of other problems), governments started stockpiling dollars in reserve to act as a bulwark in case their own currency is attacked. While the dollar was the reserve currency under Bretton Woods, as well as the 70’s and 80’s, governments stockpiles really accelerated 1990’s and 2000's when China started taking off and the fall of communism brought with it a whole host of new countries who, lacking Soviet support, needed to start stockpiling dollars.
Hopefully you can see where this is going. The dollars are no longer coming back to the United States. We buy toys from China and oil from Saudi Arabia and cars from Japan and electronics from Taiwan and cocaine from Mexico and they turn around and stuff those dollars in their central banks. This does two things; first companies no longer have to buy anything from the United States, they can simply outsource their factories and then sell the dollars they collect to the host countries central bank and thus our manufacturing sector is hollowed out. Second, it gives the US government a license to print just about infinite money with out producing inflation.
So now we can have guns and butter part deux but with out the inflation. How wonderful! Unfortunately, as Herb Stein once said, “things that can’t go on forever don’t.” The dollar currently makes up 63.8% of foreign reserves with the euro in a distance second at 26.4%. Unfortunately, as you’ve probably noticed the dollar is sinking in value like a rock. We are printing so much money that central banks are becoming nervous and diversifying into the euro and other currencies. Eventually, if our dollar continues to sink they will pull the plug and all those dollars will come rushing back to the United States. If this happens, the dollar will hyperinflate overnight.
While we may very well be starring a crisis in the face, free trade has nothing to do with it. And free trade certainly has nothing to do with our dwindling manufactuing sector. Anyways, we really don’t even have free trade, as NAFTA and the WTO are managed trade agreements that have plenty of tariffs and subsidies snuck into them. As Milton Friedman said when Charlie Rose asked him about the proposed Central American version of NAFTA “I discovered it was a thousand pages long and every page has exceptions to free trade. It’s not a free trade agreement.” (3) Still, what we have isn’t rampant protectionism either. However, if we just throw up a bunch of tariffs right now other countries would simply retaliate (or possibly sell off their dollars) and prices would rise with out our manufacturing sector returning. It would be Smoot-Hawley all over again. It’s that simple.
*There are technically 10 small countries that also use the dollar (usually secondarily to another currency). However, since the dollar is usually secondary and the countries are small this has a relatively small effect on trade balances. In addition, the fact these countries use the dollar is simply more evidence of the whole dollar hegemony problem.
**The CIA doesn’t have data on seven small countries and a few have old data. However, every country with old data has a deficit/surplus fewer than 100 million dollars and similar estimations can be made for the seven exclusions which include the likes of North Korea. These discrepancies certainly wouldn't even get close to adding up to 178 billion dollars.
(1) Patrick Buchanan, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed are Tearing America Apart, Pg. 203, Thomas Dunne Books, Copyright 2007
(2) Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Pg. 70, Laissez Faire Books, Copyright 1979
(3) Milton Friedman, An Hour with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, Charlie Rose, PBS, 12/26/2005
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is George Bush the Worst President Ever? No, but not for a Lack of Trying
Fewer and fewer people these days would dare say George Bush has been a good president. His approval rating is hovering around 30%, worldwide it is even worse, many staunch Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Gordan Smith, Patrick Buchanan and Bob Barr have turned against him, there have been hundreds of books and documentaries lambasting him, Keith Olbermann and Dennish Kucinich among others demanded he be impeached and even my super conservative roommate is completely fed up with him. I posed this question to him "whenever you think we should do something and then Bush comes out with a similar proposal, does it make you question your assumptions?" His answer: an emphatic "yes!"
Bush has certainly been bad. The wars in Iraq in Afghanistan have so far yielded 4677 deaths and possibly many more suicides as well as countless Iraqi casualties. The reasons for the Iraq war turned out to all be false. His administration failed to stop 9/11 or catch Osama Bin Laden. His policies have vastly increased the number of terrorists as well, defeating the whole idea of a “war on terrorism.” The deficit has skyrocketed leading to high inflation. The economy is also extremely weak making the possibility of 70's like stagflation uncomfortably high. Government spending has increased quicker under Bush than at any time since the Great Society. Of all the embarrassing things he has said, the most ridiculous was probably his attack on John Kerry in one of the debates for "pretending to be fiscal conservative." Sorry sir, you are pretending to be a fiscal conservative. OK, back to the transgressions; the Patriot Act set fire to the 4th and 6th ammendments of our constitution allowing federal agents to search your home while you are not there, with out a warrant and with out even telling you they were there. The Military Tribunals Act is a direct assault on Habeus Corpus, the water boarding, renditions and other torture scandals, the miserable response to Katrina, the Scooter Libby scandal, and then there was that ridiculous attempt to put retroactive immunity into a funding bill earlier this year. There are plenty more, but you get the idea.
So how could such a dismal track record not ordain Bush Jr. as the worst president ever? Well, when you're competing with our 42 previous presidents, you've got a strong handicap to start with! Richard Nixon comes to mind right away. In my honest opinion, Watergate was about the best thing he did. However, the worst of all time belongs to a guy who inexplicably manages his way into most historians’ top 10 lists : Woodrow Wilson.
Woodrow Wilson, wait, let me think... oh yeah, World War I, League of Nations, decent president. Well right on the first two, not quite so much on the third. Many historians have called him an "idealist" for the 14 Points he proposed after the conclusion of World War I. The truth is less appealing, for starters, the man was a die hard racist whose favorite film was D.W. Griffith's Klu Klux Klan adoring The Birth of a Nation. And as one might expect from an extreme racist, upon being elected he almost immediately went about segregating the executive branch.
However, being a bad person doesn't necessarily make for a bad president. Ty Cobb was one of the most miserable human beings that ever lived, but he could sure play baseball. Unfortunately, Wilson’s ugly side was more evident in his policies than his character.
We'll start with his economic policies, which were in some ways prescient (being in favor of centralization), but were also disastrous. He brought us both the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. You can argue that these are legitimate now (I wouldn't), but economists almost universally blame the Federal Reserve for causing the Great Depression. Some, like Milton Friedman blame the Fed for mismanaging the crisis, others like Murray Rothbard blame it for creating it.
Still, all we have is that he was a racist and his economic policies turned out to be disastrous a decade after he left office. No, those reasons alone won’t do the trick. The reason Wilson was the worst president in history was all about World War I.
In 1914, Europe brought upon the world the worst war we had ever seen. The American people were almost unanimous in wanting to stay neutral. Wilson played lip service to this sentiment, even using the line "he kept us out of the war" to get reelected in 1916. However, Wilson wanted the US to have a seat at the peace conference. (1) He wanted to "make the world safe for democracy." The only way to do this was to get the United States into the war. In many ways he was the first neoconservative (except they don’t like the whole League of Nations idea).
To do this he’d need a reason though. Many believe today the cassus belli for the United States to enter World War I was when 128 Americans died after the Luisitania was sunk on May 7th, 1915. However it was actually two years later when almost simultaneously Germany foolishly sent the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico (who was in the middle of a civil war) recommending they retake Texas and reopened unrestricted submarine warfare. Wilson decided this was unacceptable and asked the congress to declare war on Germany (which they actually did back then).
However these were ridiculous reasons on their face. The Zimmerman telegram was bad, but basically meaningless given Mexico’s state of affairs. And was losing a few ships worth hundreds of thousands of American lives? Wouldn’t going to war require more ships to go through dangerous waters? Furthermore, it was blatant hypocrisy. Wilson had no problem with the almost identical policy Britain had in blockading (and starving) Germany.
Wilson went ahead regardless though, and to gain public support for the war he launched the first propaganda ministry in the history of the United States. He set up the War Industries Board that could only be described as fascist. Its job was to control the prices businesses charged, ration resources and bully anyone who resisted into compliance. He censored newspapers, jailed dissidents, initiated the first draft since the Civil War and sent over 4 million Americans to the muddy, rant infested trenches on the Western Front. 117,000 would not return. (2).
Yet somehow it got worse as soldiers returning home brought with them the Spanish flu, which killed another 675,000 Americans. And if all this were not bad enough, his “idealism” failed in every way possible. The 14 Points predictably broke down as the Allies wanted revenge for the brutal four-year war. The League of Nations was all he got through, which the United States didn’t even join. In the end, what Wilson claimed was the “war to end all wars” was only that for 20 years when we were blessed with World War II (the war to end that theory). Unfortunately the peace treaty Wilson wanted so much to be apart of, the vicious Treaty of Versailles, had a lot to do with the Nazi’s coming to power (along with the Great Depression the Federal Reserve helped create).
If the United States had stayed out of World War I, it is certainly possible that the First World War would have ended in a bitter stalemate, which neither side would have wanted to repeat. Instead, one side was humiliated and forced to pay massive reparations. The Nazis capitalized on the discontent the Treaty of Versailles brought as well as Germany’s economic woes to come to power in 1933. While we can never know for sure, it’s certainly plausible that if the United States had stayed out of World War I, we would have never heard the name of Adolf Hitler. Jim Powell strongly defends this argument in his book Wilson’s War. It’s not to say World War II and the Holocaust were Wilson’s fault, but the unintended consequences of his reckless actions should be lessons for everyone today. And it’s still safe to blame him for the 117,000 dead Americans as well as the horrible precedents he set. Afterall, he was the first one that foolishly thought the United States should be the world’s policeman.
So while George Bush has certainly been bad, Woodrow Wilson still has him beat in my book. Luckily for George W, he’s got six months left to screw things up even further. Good luck George.
(1) Tom Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Pg. 123-124, Regnery Publishing, Copyright 2004
(2) Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, Pg. 108-113, Random House Inc., Copyright 2007
Bush has certainly been bad. The wars in Iraq in Afghanistan have so far yielded 4677 deaths and possibly many more suicides as well as countless Iraqi casualties. The reasons for the Iraq war turned out to all be false. His administration failed to stop 9/11 or catch Osama Bin Laden. His policies have vastly increased the number of terrorists as well, defeating the whole idea of a “war on terrorism.” The deficit has skyrocketed leading to high inflation. The economy is also extremely weak making the possibility of 70's like stagflation uncomfortably high. Government spending has increased quicker under Bush than at any time since the Great Society. Of all the embarrassing things he has said, the most ridiculous was probably his attack on John Kerry in one of the debates for "pretending to be fiscal conservative." Sorry sir, you are pretending to be a fiscal conservative. OK, back to the transgressions; the Patriot Act set fire to the 4th and 6th ammendments of our constitution allowing federal agents to search your home while you are not there, with out a warrant and with out even telling you they were there. The Military Tribunals Act is a direct assault on Habeus Corpus, the water boarding, renditions and other torture scandals, the miserable response to Katrina, the Scooter Libby scandal, and then there was that ridiculous attempt to put retroactive immunity into a funding bill earlier this year. There are plenty more, but you get the idea.
So how could such a dismal track record not ordain Bush Jr. as the worst president ever? Well, when you're competing with our 42 previous presidents, you've got a strong handicap to start with! Richard Nixon comes to mind right away. In my honest opinion, Watergate was about the best thing he did. However, the worst of all time belongs to a guy who inexplicably manages his way into most historians’ top 10 lists : Woodrow Wilson.
Woodrow Wilson, wait, let me think... oh yeah, World War I, League of Nations, decent president. Well right on the first two, not quite so much on the third. Many historians have called him an "idealist" for the 14 Points he proposed after the conclusion of World War I. The truth is less appealing, for starters, the man was a die hard racist whose favorite film was D.W. Griffith's Klu Klux Klan adoring The Birth of a Nation. And as one might expect from an extreme racist, upon being elected he almost immediately went about segregating the executive branch.
However, being a bad person doesn't necessarily make for a bad president. Ty Cobb was one of the most miserable human beings that ever lived, but he could sure play baseball. Unfortunately, Wilson’s ugly side was more evident in his policies than his character.
We'll start with his economic policies, which were in some ways prescient (being in favor of centralization), but were also disastrous. He brought us both the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. You can argue that these are legitimate now (I wouldn't), but economists almost universally blame the Federal Reserve for causing the Great Depression. Some, like Milton Friedman blame the Fed for mismanaging the crisis, others like Murray Rothbard blame it for creating it.
Still, all we have is that he was a racist and his economic policies turned out to be disastrous a decade after he left office. No, those reasons alone won’t do the trick. The reason Wilson was the worst president in history was all about World War I.
In 1914, Europe brought upon the world the worst war we had ever seen. The American people were almost unanimous in wanting to stay neutral. Wilson played lip service to this sentiment, even using the line "he kept us out of the war" to get reelected in 1916. However, Wilson wanted the US to have a seat at the peace conference. (1) He wanted to "make the world safe for democracy." The only way to do this was to get the United States into the war. In many ways he was the first neoconservative (except they don’t like the whole League of Nations idea).
To do this he’d need a reason though. Many believe today the cassus belli for the United States to enter World War I was when 128 Americans died after the Luisitania was sunk on May 7th, 1915. However it was actually two years later when almost simultaneously Germany foolishly sent the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico (who was in the middle of a civil war) recommending they retake Texas and reopened unrestricted submarine warfare. Wilson decided this was unacceptable and asked the congress to declare war on Germany (which they actually did back then).
However these were ridiculous reasons on their face. The Zimmerman telegram was bad, but basically meaningless given Mexico’s state of affairs. And was losing a few ships worth hundreds of thousands of American lives? Wouldn’t going to war require more ships to go through dangerous waters? Furthermore, it was blatant hypocrisy. Wilson had no problem with the almost identical policy Britain had in blockading (and starving) Germany.
Wilson went ahead regardless though, and to gain public support for the war he launched the first propaganda ministry in the history of the United States. He set up the War Industries Board that could only be described as fascist. Its job was to control the prices businesses charged, ration resources and bully anyone who resisted into compliance. He censored newspapers, jailed dissidents, initiated the first draft since the Civil War and sent over 4 million Americans to the muddy, rant infested trenches on the Western Front. 117,000 would not return. (2).
Yet somehow it got worse as soldiers returning home brought with them the Spanish flu, which killed another 675,000 Americans. And if all this were not bad enough, his “idealism” failed in every way possible. The 14 Points predictably broke down as the Allies wanted revenge for the brutal four-year war. The League of Nations was all he got through, which the United States didn’t even join. In the end, what Wilson claimed was the “war to end all wars” was only that for 20 years when we were blessed with World War II (the war to end that theory). Unfortunately the peace treaty Wilson wanted so much to be apart of, the vicious Treaty of Versailles, had a lot to do with the Nazi’s coming to power (along with the Great Depression the Federal Reserve helped create).
If the United States had stayed out of World War I, it is certainly possible that the First World War would have ended in a bitter stalemate, which neither side would have wanted to repeat. Instead, one side was humiliated and forced to pay massive reparations. The Nazis capitalized on the discontent the Treaty of Versailles brought as well as Germany’s economic woes to come to power in 1933. While we can never know for sure, it’s certainly plausible that if the United States had stayed out of World War I, we would have never heard the name of Adolf Hitler. Jim Powell strongly defends this argument in his book Wilson’s War. It’s not to say World War II and the Holocaust were Wilson’s fault, but the unintended consequences of his reckless actions should be lessons for everyone today. And it’s still safe to blame him for the 117,000 dead Americans as well as the horrible precedents he set. Afterall, he was the first one that foolishly thought the United States should be the world’s policeman.
So while George Bush has certainly been bad, Woodrow Wilson still has him beat in my book. Luckily for George W, he’s got six months left to screw things up even further. Good luck George.
(1) Tom Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Pg. 123-124, Regnery Publishing, Copyright 2004
(2) Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, Pg. 108-113, Random House Inc., Copyright 2007
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Real Death Toll in Iraq
Alright, it's time to get a bit more serious than Brett Favre, much more serious. As of July 14th, 2008, 4119 American soldiers and 314 troops from other nations in the "coalition of the willing" have been killed in Iraq since the war started on March 20th, 2003. An additional 30,349 have been wounded although some estimates put the real number closer to 100,000.
Yet as awful as those stastics are, they are really much worse. According to CBS, in 2005 alone 6256 American soldiers and veterans commited suicide! This shouldn't be that shocking giving the revelations in 2007 of the cockroach infested building 18 at Walter Reed as well as the well documented effects of post traumatic stress syndrome. Nonetheless, it's just as horrifying.
What makes an accurate estimation of the number of suicides among our veterans even more difficult is that CBS had to fight tooth and nail to get this information and to my knowledge hasn't been able to get information for 2004, 2006, 2007 and so far in 2008. This is nothing new for the Pentagon, they typically won't even let the media see the coffins of those killed in action. Still, it would probably be safe to assume that the epidemic is even more widespread today as soldiers are serving a third and fourth tour as well as longer tours.
However, I will be generous in trying to extrapolate a rough estimate and use the 6256 suicides as a baseline for each year. We can then look at what the suicide rate should have been among the armed forces by looking at the national average. There are surely many demographic differences that should be accounted for, but I'm just looking for a rough estimate. In 2005, 32,637 people committed suicide in the United States, or about 0.0011%, although among males it was about 0.0017%. Since the military is predominantly male, let’s use the 0.0017% to find what should be the average (1). While the suicides are predominantly among veterans that served in Iraq, the data obtained by CBS are suicides among the armed forces, so I will use that total. Since most of the armed forces have not seen combat in Iraq, again I'm being generous. Regardless, there are currently 1,380,028 men and women in the military (2), so there should be about 2346 suicides per year. The difference between 6256 and 2346 is 3910. I think it is reasonable to attribute the increased suicides to the war, which has been going on for about 5 1/4 years. So 3910 X 5.25 = 20,528 estimated suicides attributable to the war since it began! Add that to the 4119 soldiers who were killed in action and we arrive at a grand total of 24,647 deaths.
Again this can not be verified given the information I have access to and a much more thorough study would have to be taken to come up with a more supportable number. However, this is a story that has barely made it into the public and needs to be reported on more, although I should give credit to CBS who did a story on it back in November.
We must also not forget the huge cost for the citizens of Iraq. The official number of Iraqi dead is around 93,778 and probably much higher. According the Opinion Research Business the number could be over a million! Many more have been forced to leave the country, the infrastructure is still heavily damaged and the nation is stuck amidst terrible ethnic strife. It's nice that a tyrant like Saddam Hussein is gone, but with no WMD, no connection to Al Qaeda, and the enormous human and financial cost, if we haven't yet done it, it's time to admit we made a horrible, horrible mistake.
(1) U.S.A. Suicide: 2005 Official Final Data, American Association of Suicidology, http://www.suicidology.org/
(2) Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade, Department of Defense, August 31, 2007, http://www.defenselink.mil/
Yet as awful as those stastics are, they are really much worse. According to CBS, in 2005 alone 6256 American soldiers and veterans commited suicide! This shouldn't be that shocking giving the revelations in 2007 of the cockroach infested building 18 at Walter Reed as well as the well documented effects of post traumatic stress syndrome. Nonetheless, it's just as horrifying.
What makes an accurate estimation of the number of suicides among our veterans even more difficult is that CBS had to fight tooth and nail to get this information and to my knowledge hasn't been able to get information for 2004, 2006, 2007 and so far in 2008. This is nothing new for the Pentagon, they typically won't even let the media see the coffins of those killed in action. Still, it would probably be safe to assume that the epidemic is even more widespread today as soldiers are serving a third and fourth tour as well as longer tours.
However, I will be generous in trying to extrapolate a rough estimate and use the 6256 suicides as a baseline for each year. We can then look at what the suicide rate should have been among the armed forces by looking at the national average. There are surely many demographic differences that should be accounted for, but I'm just looking for a rough estimate. In 2005, 32,637 people committed suicide in the United States, or about 0.0011%, although among males it was about 0.0017%. Since the military is predominantly male, let’s use the 0.0017% to find what should be the average (1). While the suicides are predominantly among veterans that served in Iraq, the data obtained by CBS are suicides among the armed forces, so I will use that total. Since most of the armed forces have not seen combat in Iraq, again I'm being generous. Regardless, there are currently 1,380,028 men and women in the military (2), so there should be about 2346 suicides per year. The difference between 6256 and 2346 is 3910. I think it is reasonable to attribute the increased suicides to the war, which has been going on for about 5 1/4 years. So 3910 X 5.25 = 20,528 estimated suicides attributable to the war since it began! Add that to the 4119 soldiers who were killed in action and we arrive at a grand total of 24,647 deaths.
Again this can not be verified given the information I have access to and a much more thorough study would have to be taken to come up with a more supportable number. However, this is a story that has barely made it into the public and needs to be reported on more, although I should give credit to CBS who did a story on it back in November.
We must also not forget the huge cost for the citizens of Iraq. The official number of Iraqi dead is around 93,778 and probably much higher. According the Opinion Research Business the number could be over a million! Many more have been forced to leave the country, the infrastructure is still heavily damaged and the nation is stuck amidst terrible ethnic strife. It's nice that a tyrant like Saddam Hussein is gone, but with no WMD, no connection to Al Qaeda, and the enormous human and financial cost, if we haven't yet done it, it's time to admit we made a horrible, horrible mistake.
(1) U.S.A. Suicide: 2005 Official Final Data, American Association of Suicidology, http://www.suicidology.org/
(2) Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade, Department of Defense, August 31, 2007, http://www.defenselink.mil/
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Madden Curse Strikes Again
At the risk of reducing the creditability of my blog, writing about this whole Brett Favre debacle is simply irresistible. I myself am a huge Favre and Green Bay Packers fan. I started watching them back in 1995, the first year he won the MVP. The second season was even better as the Packers beat New England 35-21 in Super Bowl XXXI. Since then I have watched him put up great numbers, the Packers win a lot of games and both of them combine to rip my heart out in the playoffs year after year. Overtime interceptions are totally weak.
However, despite being a big fan, I have to remain objective. Lately he has been exerting what can only be referred to as diva like tendencies. I remember reading in a Sports Illustrated in 2001 that there were rumors next season (2002) might be Favre's last. Well seven years of fence sitting went by before he finally retired in March of this year and now guess what, he is unretiring. How could a guy who is so decisive on the field (even when that involves throwing the ball to the other team) be so indecisive off it? I mean, I can kind of understand waiting months into the offseason before deciding to come back, but unretiring and even being willing to play for another team after 16 seasons in green and gold; say it isn’t so Brett. How could this be?
The answer may lie with Shaun Alexander in 2007 who had a poor, injury riddled season after winning league MVP and leading the Seahawks to the Super Bowl. Two years later he’s not even a Seahawk. The answer may lie with Michael Vick who spent almost the entire 2004 season injured after going to the pro bowl the previous year and is now in prison. It may lie with Marshall Faulk in 2003, the year he fell off the map. It may lie with the piss poor season Daunte Culpepper had in 2002 after throwing and running for 40 TD's in 2001. What did these poor fools all have in common? They all graced the cover of Madden's career ruining video game the previous year.
When it was announced this year that a then retired Brett Favre would be on the cover of Madden 09, speculation ran wild (well not really) that Favre may actually avoid the Madden curse. Others predicted that perhaps Aaron Rodgers would lead the Packers to a 19-0 Super Bowl win or maybe the tractor the media tells me Brett spends his entire offseason on would break down, but few could have predicted this mess. The Madden curse has struck again in its most creative guise yet!
The whole thing looks like a no win situation. The Packers said Favre could come back as the highest paid backup in sports history, which is ridiculous. He wants to be released, but the Packers don’t want him in the NFC. And since the only teams interested are probably Minnesota, Tampa Bay and maybe Chicago there’s no simple solution. Even if the Packers honored Brett’s request, could you imagine him in one of those fruity, purple Viking uniforms? Ughh! So while I'd love for them to resolve this and Favre to come back and win the Packers a fourth Super Bowl, hopefully if that doesn’t work he’ll just stay retired. That way at least John Madden won't be able to gush about how much fun Brett Favre is having.
However, despite being a big fan, I have to remain objective. Lately he has been exerting what can only be referred to as diva like tendencies. I remember reading in a Sports Illustrated in 2001 that there were rumors next season (2002) might be Favre's last. Well seven years of fence sitting went by before he finally retired in March of this year and now guess what, he is unretiring. How could a guy who is so decisive on the field (even when that involves throwing the ball to the other team) be so indecisive off it? I mean, I can kind of understand waiting months into the offseason before deciding to come back, but unretiring and even being willing to play for another team after 16 seasons in green and gold; say it isn’t so Brett. How could this be?
The answer may lie with Shaun Alexander in 2007 who had a poor, injury riddled season after winning league MVP and leading the Seahawks to the Super Bowl. Two years later he’s not even a Seahawk. The answer may lie with Michael Vick who spent almost the entire 2004 season injured after going to the pro bowl the previous year and is now in prison. It may lie with Marshall Faulk in 2003, the year he fell off the map. It may lie with the piss poor season Daunte Culpepper had in 2002 after throwing and running for 40 TD's in 2001. What did these poor fools all have in common? They all graced the cover of Madden's career ruining video game the previous year.
When it was announced this year that a then retired Brett Favre would be on the cover of Madden 09, speculation ran wild (well not really) that Favre may actually avoid the Madden curse. Others predicted that perhaps Aaron Rodgers would lead the Packers to a 19-0 Super Bowl win or maybe the tractor the media tells me Brett spends his entire offseason on would break down, but few could have predicted this mess. The Madden curse has struck again in its most creative guise yet!
The whole thing looks like a no win situation. The Packers said Favre could come back as the highest paid backup in sports history, which is ridiculous. He wants to be released, but the Packers don’t want him in the NFC. And since the only teams interested are probably Minnesota, Tampa Bay and maybe Chicago there’s no simple solution. Even if the Packers honored Brett’s request, could you imagine him in one of those fruity, purple Viking uniforms? Ughh! So while I'd love for them to resolve this and Favre to come back and win the Packers a fourth Super Bowl, hopefully if that doesn’t work he’ll just stay retired. That way at least John Madden won't be able to gush about how much fun Brett Favre is having.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Why Would I add My Name to the Blogosphere?
That is the question I’ve asked myself many times since the idea of blogging emerged in some rarely used part of my mind. The odds of my blog ever being read en mass are extremely unlikely. There are already countless blogs out there as well as online versions of every magazine, newspaper, news network, university, think tank and activist group out there. many of which actually pay people to write. I guess it boils down to something even more selfish than wanting to be read and make money from spending a few hours here and there silently opining in front of my computer: I want to do it.
Perhaps this luring temptation was best put by Christopher Hitchens when asked why he wrote, "...it was sort of decided for me, I think. I believe it's true with anyone who makes it their life. It isn't what you do, it's what you are, in other words, that somehow you've always known." (1) That's a little extreme in my case, but there is surely something irresistible about writing down your thoughts and leaving them out there for everyone to see. It's strangely therapeutic.
That's not to say that's it's solely a self-soothing sort of exercise. I would love to be read widely and influence people. I do have strong opinions and believe strongly our country is heading in the wrong direction and most intellectuals are off base with their solutions. It's almost as if I have a duty to fight what's happening even if it's only in an unread blog on one of umpteen blogging sites. And hey, it could be the start of something bigger. As an old Chinese proverb says, “every thousand mile journey begins with the first step.”
There's one last reason that is probably the most important of all. It's often said that teaching is the best method of learning. Well I, and surely many of my friends, am getting tired of interjecting my politics into a random talk about which team had the best draft. Unfortunately, people don’t always want to hear your opinions about what caused the Roman Empire to collapse and sometimes I can’t resist. Writing solves this dilemma. It is like teaching a nonexistent person. It allows you to see your own thoughts and evaluate your own arguments. I've often found logical fallacies, blatant omissions and other flaws in my reasoning after putting pencil to pad (or fingers to keyboard). If nothing else, writing will allow me to question my assumptions and clarify my opinions. Basically it should make me more smarter. And that in itself makes writing worth while.
(1) Christopher Hitchens, Conversations with History, Conversations with Christopher Hitchens P. 3 of 5, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/Elberg/Hitchens/hitchens-con3.html
Perhaps this luring temptation was best put by Christopher Hitchens when asked why he wrote, "...it was sort of decided for me, I think. I believe it's true with anyone who makes it their life. It isn't what you do, it's what you are, in other words, that somehow you've always known." (1) That's a little extreme in my case, but there is surely something irresistible about writing down your thoughts and leaving them out there for everyone to see. It's strangely therapeutic.
That's not to say that's it's solely a self-soothing sort of exercise. I would love to be read widely and influence people. I do have strong opinions and believe strongly our country is heading in the wrong direction and most intellectuals are off base with their solutions. It's almost as if I have a duty to fight what's happening even if it's only in an unread blog on one of umpteen blogging sites. And hey, it could be the start of something bigger. As an old Chinese proverb says, “every thousand mile journey begins with the first step.”
There's one last reason that is probably the most important of all. It's often said that teaching is the best method of learning. Well I, and surely many of my friends, am getting tired of interjecting my politics into a random talk about which team had the best draft. Unfortunately, people don’t always want to hear your opinions about what caused the Roman Empire to collapse and sometimes I can’t resist. Writing solves this dilemma. It is like teaching a nonexistent person. It allows you to see your own thoughts and evaluate your own arguments. I've often found logical fallacies, blatant omissions and other flaws in my reasoning after putting pencil to pad (or fingers to keyboard). If nothing else, writing will allow me to question my assumptions and clarify my opinions. Basically it should make me more smarter. And that in itself makes writing worth while.
(1) Christopher Hitchens, Conversations with History, Conversations with Christopher Hitchens P. 3 of 5, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/Elberg/Hitchens/hitchens-con3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
