Blaming the Tea Party?

I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of all the finger pointing.

During the 2008 election, I wish I had a nickle for every time I heard "Four More Years of Bush's Failed Policies", and all of the other attacks on the then sitting President. Now, I am not a Bush fan. But, he was the President.

It's ironic, because I just heard a Congresswoman from Texas claiming that Obama is the most abused President of all time. Hmm. Really? I will never forget a bumper sticker on a car in Virginia that read "Buck Fush". Other than talk radio, I have not heard near the criticism of President Obama that President Bush had to put up with. Even today, Bush is being blamed for the economy.

I could not believe my ears this morning. I heard a couple of the talking heads saying that the Democrats were blaming the downgrade of the US credit rating on the Tea Party. Wow. How does that make sense?

A credit rating is based on the ability of the borrower to be able to repay the amount borrowed. You have a credit card right? Well, what happens if you just keep spending and spending? Is your credit rating going up or down? Perhaps we could use some common sense here. Continued deficit spending is the real financial crisis.

It looks to me like the government elitists want us average working class Americans to believe that the Tea Party caused the downgrade. Are you serious? The Tea Party are the ones that were advocating fiscal responsibility - the only ones. So, how is it possible that the Tea Party is responsible for the downgrade? This is like blaming the person who is telling you to stop getting credit cards, or you will be in bankruptcy.

This is the ultimate and most despicable spin by the government elitists I have seen to date. This is why I say that our elected officials are either corrupt or incompetent. How can any rational person claim that the Tea Party is responsible for the downgrade, when all they were doing was advocating fiscal responsibility?

The fact is that this latest debt ceiling legislation does not reduce real spending one bit. It reduces the automatic budget increases for the next ten years, assuming the future Congresses agree to the proposed spending. In short, it is politics as usual. It was the Tea Party that forced the inclusion of the Balanced Budget Amendment in the legislation. It was the Tea Party that wanted to reduce spending, and to balance the budget. These are things that make fiscal sense. So, how can you blame the Tea Party for the downgrade?

I mentioned earlier that blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade is the most despicable thing I have ever heard. I was wrong. I heard that the Vice President of the United States called the Tea Party a bunch of Terrorists. Now, I heard this from one of the talk radio shows this past week; I have not heard the actual statement by the Vice President. So, I do not know if this is a "sound bite" from the talk radio crowd trying to get a reaction. Let me say this, if the Vice President did call the Tea Party a bunch of Terrorist, he should resign. This is not the kind of attitude I want from my Vice President. This is despicable behavior. And, if any of us working class Americans did this, we would probably be fired. Mr. Vice President, if you called the Tea Party a bunch of Terrorists, you need to do the right thing and resign.

From my point of view, the Tea Party are the ones that are fighting for fiscal responsibility. To blame them for the downgrade is just plain idiotic.

God Bless the Tea Party.

Incompetent Elected Representatives

I thought that raising the debt ceiling would fix the financial crisis. That's what the media and all the politicians in Washington told us. Event though it is counter-intuitive that we could borrow our way out of the financial crisis, that is what we were told.

Well, the S & P just downgraded the US credit rating. There are only two ways to look at this (in my opinion). Either we the American people were lied to, or, our elected representatives are incompetent. I'd certainly hope that the our elected representatives would not lie to the American people - ignore them maybe - but not lie to them. Therefore, we have to conclude that our elected representatives are incompetent. Notice: I did not say Democrats or Republicans; Congress, Senate or the President. I said our elected representatives (collectively) are incompetent.

Incompetent might sound like a strong word. But, I think it is appropriate. After all, these elitist in Washington live by a different set of rules than the rest of us average working class Americans. I don't know anyone (except the congress) that gets an automatic pay increase every year. Can you imagine? How can anyone with a conscience vote for legislation that gives automatic pay increases; knowing full well the number of unemployed people we have in this country. And, yet, I have not seen one of them stand up and offer to reduce their salary and benefits until unemployment is below 5%. Shocking.

The majority of Americans want a Balanced Budget Amendment. Why? Because they recognize that without a Balanced Budget Amendment, it is going to be politics as usual in Washington. For example, this latest legislation is supposed to cut spending. But, it does not cut real spending; it cuts the automatic increases that are planned for future years. This is like a gambler or drug user promising to stop gambling or taking drugs. Let me go out on a limb here, and say there is no way we are ever going to get a balanced budget without a Balanced Budget Amendment.

How can we trust our elected representatives? They were wrong about the financial crisis. And, this has not been the first time they have been wrong. They vote themselves automatic pay increases. They ignore the will of the American people time after time. I don't know about you, but, I have had enough of this! Unless we see some drastic changes very soon, I say we throw them all out and start over.

The need for a Balanced Budget Amendment is extremely obvious. And, even though there is supposed to be a vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment, as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, I believe this is a rouse. If they (Democrats and Republicans) were serious about a Balanced Budget Amendment, they would have made the debt ceiling increase dependent on the "passage" of a Balanced Budget Amendment - not just a vote. You see, its too easy for the Congress to block the passage of the Amendment; then it is back to politics as usual.

How do I know the vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment will be a token effort? Have you noticed the latest code words from the Administration: "Balanced Approach". This is innuendo intended to make us think that the government elitists are able to do a balanced budget without being bound by a Balanced Budget Amendment. I don't know about you, but I am done with believing that these government elitists are working on behalf of the average working class Americans.

Let me ask you: what happens if you get into too much debt? Does your credit score go down? You bet it does! So, using this logic, what do you think is the logical reaction to raising the debt ceiling? Well, raising the debt ceiling is a clear indicator that deficit spending is still not under control. And, I think it indicates that the government elitists have no intention of making the tough decisions in order to get the deficit spending under control. I also suspect that this is why our debt rating has been downgraded. Isn't that logical?

As I mentioned in my post on The Real Financial Crisis, we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. These government elitists cannot be trusted to balance the budget. So, we the people of the United States of America need to put something in place to protect our Country and our way of life.

Join me in making sure we get a Balanced Budget Amendment!

It's not hard at all. Here's what you need to do:

1. Go to your local office supply store and purchase blank postcards; you can get the kind that you can print in your printer, or, you can get the kind that you can write out by hand.
2. Write (or print) the following message on one side of the postcard: " We the People of the United States of America want a Balanced Budget Amendment. If you vote against the Balanced Budget Amendment, I will vote against you in the next election; and forever."
3. Make enough postcards for every voting member of your family, and, for your Congressional Representative, your two Senators and the President.
4. Address your four postcards for every voting member of your family to your: Congressional Representative, both of your Senators and the President.
5. Apply stamps and mail

I fully expect these government elitists to try to ignore this attempt to get their attention. They think they can wait us out. We have to be persistent. That is why I am asking you to do this once a month until the vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment is conducted. Please, your country needs you. Take a little time to make your voice heard. Let's flood the Congress and White House with your voice.

We the American People want a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we are not taking "NO" for an answer. It's time to take back our country! Make your voices heard!

Obfuscating the Truth

The President wants us average working class Americans to believe that the "sky is falling".

Isn't the government still collecting taxes? That money must be going somewhere. Perhaps we should be directing that money to the most important things. That's what us average working class Americans have to do every day, or we end up in bankruptcy.

If I understand default, that means we do not pay the principal or interest on our debt. I don't think we would default for something like ... not paying the President or the rest of those Government Elitists in Washington. In fact, if they (the elitists) truly cared about the American People, every last one of them would be volunteering to forgo their salaries until this "crisis" is over. At a minimum, these elitists should repeal their automatic pay increases and Cadillac Benefits programs. If I were the President or a member of Congress, that is what I would be doing. My point is: it looks to me like the "crisis" is manufactured, in order to push through a political agenda.

The President's position is that the Congress has already approved a budget. And, that this approval should include any borrowing necessary to meet those obligations. I agree that when a budget is approved for a particular year, the permission to borrow the money for that year is implicit. However, we are only getting half of the story.

The problem is the budget increases that are built into the future years. It would be one thing to base next year's budget on this year's budget - without any increase. But, for some reason, the budgets for future years are set to automatically increase year on year. What idiot did that?! Our deficits are already out of control. How can anyone in good conscience put in automatic spending increases under these circumstances? This is the other half of the story.

The Democrats are calling for the Republicans to compromise. Seriously? It looks to me like the Republicans are trying to control spending for a change. The majority of Americans want to cut spending, and, they want a Balanced Budget Amendment. It seems to me that this is precisely what the Republicans are trying to do. So, why should they compromise? To compromise is to ignore the will of the American People. The amazing thing is that the Democrats are ignoring the will of the American people again, and, they are getting away with it!

The Democrats know full well that there are lots of spending increases built into future budget years. And, they are blocking every attempt by the Republicans to rein in that spending. They have the media putting out fear-mongering stories to support their talking points. The Democrats want the American People to believe we will default, and, it will be the Republican's fault, because they will not compromise.

The Democrats say they want compromise. But, it looks to me like they are trying to manipulate public opinion by obfuscating the truth; in order to push through their agenda. It seems to me that the Republicans had better not compromise, because if they do, spending will continue to spiral out of control.

I am particularly disappointed in Senator Reid. How can you claim that a piece of legislation that is trying to get our deficit spending under control is "irresponsible"? Do you (Senator Reid) recognize the real finance crisis that this country is facing? Let me help you out: it's deficit spending. You want the Republicans to compromise; how about you? What are you doing to get the deficit spending under control? And I mean really under control? Are you in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment? If not, then I would like to know why. If so, then why aren't you working with Republicans to get it passed? It would be so easy to say that we are putting a Balanced Budget Amendment in place, and we are going to cap and reduce spending over the next 5 to ten years until we are where we need to be. Perhaps instead of trying to make legislation so complex, you should try to keep it simple. Senator Reid, why don't you try following the will of the American People for a change?

The American People had better wake up. It looks to me like the Republicans are trying to rein in spending. But, I think they are still weak. We the People need to continue to encourage (remind) the Republicans to do the will of the American People. If we don't keep up the pressure, we are going to be back to politics as usual. The Real Financial Crisis is the deficit spending.

The Real Financial Crisis

Time for some good old fashioned logical thinking. This debt ceiling debate is all the rage. But, it's time to take the politics out of the discussion, and stick to logic.

We have a national debt. We pay interest on that national debt. The bigger the national debt, the more interest that has to be paid on the national debt. So, logically speaking, allowing the national debt to grow is a bad thing; because eventually the interest will exceed the potential amount of taxes that can pay it. I don't think any rationale person can argue with this logic.

The rational thing to do is to ensure that the interest payments on the national debt do not exceed a certain percentages of "revenues" (as the Democrats call them) or taxes (as the Republicans call them). This means we need to keep our debt rating, so the rate does not go up. It also means that we need to stop increasing the debt; as the more debt, the higher the interest. Again, I don't think any rational person can argue with this logic either.

So, what's the real problem???

Clearly - anything that increases the national debt is a problem. This means that any deficit spending of any kind is a problem.

Here is where the political parties diverge based on their philosophies. Democrats believe the spending is important to "balance society". That is, they want social programs for those who are less fortunate. Republicans, on the other hand, do not want social programs. They like to spend (just like the Democrats); they just like to spend on things like the military.

Over the last forty or fifty years, both parties have been doing significant deficit spending; for all sorts of reasons. As a tax payer, it looks to me like both parties have been having a fifty year orgy with our tax dollars. Well, my fellow Americans, it's time to bring that spending orgy to a close.

Democrats claim that tax cuts are to blame for deficit spending. And, I believe they are right. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is irresponsible and stupid.

Republicans claim that spending is too high. Well, yeah. Then why didn't you cut spending when you cut taxes? Republicans believe that cutting taxes helps the economy. Well, yeah. Putting more cash into any economy will help. The problem is that this cash was "borrowed cash". You can't grow an economy on borrowed cash, just like you can't spend yourself out of a recession; particularly if you are spending borrowed money.

The Democrats know that if the American people were asked to support some (or any) of their social programs via tax increases, the answer would be "absolutely not". So, they don't ask - they just spend.

You can see the problem. The issue of how much taxes, and how much to spend on social programs has completely polarized both parties; to the point where the government is broken.

Now, I am absolutely not saying we should have one party in power. That has been a complete disaster in the past. I am saying that we need to solve the real problem: deficit spending. And, that tax and social program discussions need to be taken out of the debate.

The real financial crisis IS the deficit spending. It must stop, or America is going to be bankrupt. Both parties (Democrats and Republicans) have proven themselves untrustworthy when it comes to managing a budget. Therefore, the only solution to this crisis IS a Balanced Budget Amendment.

It's time to do your part, my fellow Americans. It's time to contact your Congressional representative, your Senators and the President to let them know that deficit spending is not going to be tolerated any longer. And, that We the People expect a Balanced Budget Amendment. We also expect both parties to put aside tax and social program spending discussions until a Balanced Budget Amendment is put in place. Let's go America - Call and Write now!!

Still not listening!

The majority of Americans want both spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Notice, I said spending cuts. This does not mean that Americans want spending cuts and tax increases to deal with the deficit issue - they want spending cuts - they do not want tax increases.

I do not want any tax increases on anyone other than those in the very top tax bracket. And, since this administration likes to parse every word, I define a tax increase as anything that increases the amount of taxes that I am required to pay. So, those thoughts of getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction had better be reconsidered. If my taxes go up, I will be sure to vote against anyone who was party to raising those taxes. I don't have an issue with raising the top tax rate from 33% to 38%, if that is what the Democrats want in exchange for the spending cuts and Balanced Budget Amendment. But, I am absolutely not in favor of anything else that will result in increased taxes.

Mr. President, how can you ignore the American people once again? The polling data is very clear: Americans want spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Yet, you go onto national television telling the American people that you are trying very hard to get the Republicans to agree to a solution. Huh? The congress has already passed what the American people want. Are you not listening! Did you not learn anything from the 2010 election?

If the American people ever needed better evidence that this President is putting his own agenda above the will of the American people, you now have it. Let's look at the events for the last couple of months.

In May, the US hit its debt ceiling. Did the administration make any attempt to cut spending? No - there is no evidence that spending has been reduced. When you are at your debt limit, should you continue to borrow? Well, I don't think so. And, it is obvious the American people think that spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment are the key to solving the debt ceiling crisis.

What have the Democrats done? Well, the Senate put together the "gang of six", as a compromise approach. And, as expected, the Conservatives were all over this plan as not being a good plan. In the mean time, Congress passes Cut, Cap and Balance. And, what do the Democrats do - nothing? Reid calls this irresponsible legislation, and refused to allow a vote. Then, the President goes on television to tell the American people that he is upset because Boehner will not compromise. The President claims that he has offered a compromise that is much better than the "gang of six" plan, and, that he does not understand why the Republicans will not compromise. Seriously? Mr. Boehner, don't you dare blink!

You have to look closely at the President's tactics here. First, the senate puts together the "gang of six", and, Reid blocks the vote. Then, the President comes up with a plan that is "better" than the plan from the "gang of six". This is a classic bait and switch. And, I suspect this administration thought they would get away with it.

Congress has already passed the Cut, Cap and Balance. This is what the American people want. So, if the President and Mr. Reid were really listening to the American people, they would get behind this plan. But, once again the Democrats are ignoring the will of the American people. After all, the American people are stupid, and, its up to the Democrats to save them from themselves. Getting the picture here?

It's time for action. Everyone needs to contact their Senators, and let them know that you will not tolerate ignoring the will of the American people any longer. We have a real opportunity for spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Please, take a few moments to call and write your Senator. We need to put pressure on these folks, to ensure they do what they are supposed to do: represent the will of the American people.

Call and write now! Make them listen!

Don't you dare blink!

This message is to the Republicans in the House and Senate: Don't you dare blink!

When I say "Don't you dare blink!", I am talking about the Balanced Budget Amendment. I am not talking about the change in the very top tax bracket. I don't agree with changing any of the other tax brackets. But, if the only thing the Democrats are asking for is an increase in the very top tax bracket from 33% to 38%, then this is something that I think should be done. The key must be spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. If the Democrats want both a debt ceiling increase and an increase in the very top tax bracket, then I think that is a fair compromise.

By the way, this amendment had better be so obvious, that anyone can read it and understand it. No more of this cryptic crap that is intended to facilitate more pork-barrel spending. No more politics as usual. This is your chance to re-establish the fiscal conservative reputation that was destroyed by both of the Bush administrations. This is your chance to do the right thing for the American people.

I believe the only way to get spending under control is to have a Balanced Budget Amendment. And, I don't think the debt ceiling should be raised unless we get a Balanced Budget Amendment.

I have been following the media stories that are all intended to get the public worried about an economic collapse because of the Republican strategy to force a Balanced Budget Amendment in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The media (and I suspect this administration) would have you believe that the crisis is so bad that only an increase in the debt ceiling will solve the problem. Well, I have a very simple question for both the media and this administration: why did this administration wait so long to act?

This administration has known that the Republicans were going to take a position to reduce spending; this was the obvious mandate from the American people in the 2010 elections. Of course, I also recognize that this administration believes they are operating on some kind of higher moral ground, and, thus, does not have to listen to the will of the American people; but, the signs were all there. The American people are very concerned about the excessive government spending and the size of the debt. And, no amount of media spin is going to change this.

The Democrats want us to believe that the people in the top tax bracket are some how benefiting more than the rest of us. Well, what about the people in Congress who get automatic pay increases every year? To me, I would rather have our government elitists reminded who they work for, and have all of their "perks" stripped away. I am sure that would save the government more than we can get by raising taxes on those in the top tax bracket.

I know I sound like a broken record on this point, but, the American people are not stupid. They are balancing their checkbooks every day, and they are seeing the impact on the price of goods that they have to consume. They understand that endless debt is not the answer. And, they are willing to make the hard choices in order to avoid bankruptcy. This is fundamentally different from the approach being used by this administration. Despite the evidence that you cannot spend your way out of a recession (because it just causes hyper inflation), this administration has continued to spend like there is no limit to the money that can come off the printing presses. This is the kind of arrogance that the American people wanted to be stopped when they gave control of Congress to the Republicans.

So, here we are: both parties nose to nose on the issue of the debt ceiling. Yes, the Republicans can give in. But, they should not. It's time for this administration to do the right thing. In fact, it was time for this administration to do the right thing months ago.

When the average American realizes that they are not going to have the money to do what they want to do, they adjust their spending to match their income. Sure, some can go and get a better job to increase their income, and, thus, keep spending. But, at some point, the credit card limits are reached, and, they have to make some hard choices.

This administration knew that they were going to hit their borrowing limit months ago. Did they stop or even curtail their spending? Not from what I can tell. It looks to me like they have just been jamming through as much spending as they could, on every entitlement program they could.

So, not only does this administration not stop spending, they try to spin this as the rich versus the poor. Despicable. Don't get me wrong: I think the very top tax rate should be increased from 33% to 38%. The problem is that this will not balance the budget. It's just not enough money. But, it looks good in the media, and, its an effective diversionary tactic; which is why this administration is taking this approach.

The Democrats have taken to running commercials showing Republicans pushing Grandma off a cliff because they want to curtail spending. Yet, when President Obama comes out saying that the Medicare age should be raised from 62 to 65, the media praises the administration for its innovative thinking. Who is really pushing Grandma off the cliff? All of these half-truths are just causing more problems. And, both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty of trying to manipulate public opinion with half-truths. Shame on you both!

So, back to my question: why did the Obama Administration wait this long to act? Why didn't the Obama Administration do what we as average Americans would have to do once we reach our credit card limit? Why did this administration continue to spend? Imagine what would happen if all the American people just continued to spend? Oh wait, we don't have to imagine; we can just look at what caused all the foreclosures in the last three years.

It seems very logical to me that reductions in spending by consumers will adversely effect the economy. That said, what happens when a population spends money it really does not have? Well, they go into debt, and, their financial burden is increased by something called interest.

Interest is income for the banking industry, so they are not about to do anything that will interrupt their income stream. In fact, its obvious to me that greed in this industry is what caused consumers to be loaned more money than they could ever be expected to pay back. Yet, the government let the banks loan this money anyway; because they wanted the money to go into the economy. This artificial growth is nothing more than a temporary "high". And, when the money is gone and the bills are due, that is where the real pain starts. It's an addiction - plain and simple.

The sad thing is that the government wants us to be addicted to spending; because it makes us dependent on them. But, in fact, I believe it goes deeper than that. If a person being loaned money can be influenced by the person that is lending that money, then the person loaning the money has considerable power over the person borrowing the money. I think the same is true for governments, as well as the people elected into government positions. Is this what democracy has come down to?

I have a theory.

Once you subscribe to the "spend yourself out of a recession" theory, you would also have to subscribe to the "cutting spending will cause a recession" theory. It's one thing to spend money you have, but another all together to spend money you do not have.

I suspect that there would be some impact on the economy, if the government were to cut spending too drastically. This would be an impetus for this administration to resist spending cuts. If the spending cuts lead to another recession, this administration would most certainly get blamed, and they would lose the election. For me, I find it despicable that these government elitists are playing games with the lives of the average American.

I suspect that this administration was counting on their ability to manipulate public opinion through the media. The media has certainly been doing their part. I just read an article in USA Today indicating that raising the debt ceiling was not a big deal. I will take this article apart piece-by-piece in my next post. For now, I want to focus on the administration's attempt to manipulate public opinion, rather than dealing with the real problem. The real problem is spending.

Mr. President, you made a mistake. You cannot spend your way out of a recession. As a student of history, and, as smart as you are supposed to be, you should have known that. Now, its time to do the right thing. Yes, you might lose the election. But, are you willing to sacrifice the country so you can be President for another term? Wake up man! The spending is killing this country. Your policies are not working. You want to be a great leader, then try listening to a different set of people. I am an idealist too. But, I am also a pragmatist. You have to know that the spending is going to come back to haunt us. You ran on a platform of change, well, this is your chance. Start listening to the American people. Start listening to those who want to put our spending under control. Start supporting and helping the working class. Stop the pork-barrel spending. Stop the entitlements. Support a Balanced Budget Amendment. Now that would be change I can believe in.

Mr. President, you should have addressed the spending head-on, instead of trying to talk your way out of this. It looks to me like you wanted to pick a fight with the Republicans on this issue. I suspect you even thought you could use this issue to catapult yourself into another term in office. Well, I can tell you that your message is resonating with the left; as I am hearing it from all my liberal friends. But, I can also tell you that your message is not resonating with those in the middle; and, that is who you need to convince to get re-elected. You claim to be a centrist - now it's time to prove it. It's time to get behind the spending cuts. It's time to endorse a Balanced Budget Amendment.

I reiterate my challenge to the Republicans in the House and the Senate: Don't you dare blink!

In exchange for the Balanced Budget Amendment and immediate spending cuts, the Republicans should agree to raise the debt ceiling and to increase the very top tax rate from 33% to 38%.

Republicans are Lost

The first Republican debate is on CNN!

Really ...

So, the Republicans decide to have a debate on CNN. Why? Someone in the Republican camp is not taking this Presidential election very seriously. Why in the world would the Republican party want their first debate on CNN? Isn't it obvious that the liberal media is just looking for sound bites for Obama's campaign team? Why are you playing right into Obama's hands?

If you think I am joking, just take a look at some of the questions that were asked during this debate. If this were a serious debate, why would the moderator be asking about Blackberry versus iPhone? Or, about what kind of pizza the candidates like? And, what about the question where the American people think that the Republican field of candidates is "weak"? Tell me - what purpose does that question serve?

In my opinion, the liberal media is looking for every opportunity to spin the Republican primary into something that will help the Obama campaign. So, why play into this?

This is precisely why I stopped watching CNN back in 2008; cannot stomach the liberal spin in all of their reporting. Best Political Team my foot!

If the Republicans are serious about the 2012 election, they had better get their act together very quickly. The only issue that matters is that Obama is not re-elected in 2012. To this end, all of the Republican party candidates should be focusing on bringing Obama's dismal performance record into the light for all Americans to see.

The liberal media wants to see the Republican candidates fight. They want the drama. They want the material for use in the main election campaign. So, strategically speaking, it makes sense to "not" give the liberal media what they are looking for. This debate should have been an opportunity for all of the Republican candidates to present a common theme: Obama should not be re-elected in 2012, and, the reasons why. Don't play the liberal media game: stick together in pointing out the issues with the Obama Presidency. This is the only way a Republican can beat Obama: on his record.

If the Republican primary gets ugly (which I believe is what Obama and the liberal media are counting on), we guarantee Obama a second term. The only way to defeat Obama is for the Republicans to use the primary as a way to have lots of candidates pointing out the same issues in the Obama Presidency; make him own his record. If nothing else, every Republican candidate should state that every Republican candidate is a better choice than Obama. The Obama campaign wants to divide and conquer - don't let them.

In the end, the American people will choose a Republican candidate to face Obama. If that candidate is to have any chance of winning, all the other candidates need to continue their efforts in pointing out Obama's record. This is the only way Obama can be defeated in 2012.

Trump for President

Mr. Trump,

I believe you to be an American Patriot. You are certainly a successful businessman. So, I am going to try to reason with you regarding your presidential ambitions. First and foremost: are you serious? I am asking this only because I know you have media interests, and, I know the publicity is not bad for your businesses. The question is simply do you really want all the headaches that come with the office? Why would you want that, when you are clearly already better off than most Americans? If you truly believe that you are being called to serve, then, I think there is a way you can run for President without causing the Ross Perot effect.

Here's my problem: if you run as either a Republican or an Independent, you will end up splitting the anti-Obama vote. This is not good, unless your intention is really to help him get re-elected. Is that your intention? Do you want to re-elect Obama to a second LAME DUCK term as President? I really want to know. The American people deserve to know.

Either you want to get Obama re-elected, or, you don't. If you don't want Obama to get re-elected, I have a sure fire way of putting him out of office: you should run for president; just on the Democrat ticket. If you really want to be President, then I think you should announce that you are challenging Obama for the Democrat nomination. If you can defeat him in the primaries, then our problem is solved. And, I believe that Obama can be beaten by a more moderate Democrat candidate in the primaries.

Are you up to the challenge, Mr. Trump? If you wanna be President, then, please, do the American people a favor and challenge Obama directly in the Democratic primaries. Otherwise, please, help the Republicans to launch a focused campaign to get this guy out of office in 2012. I don't believe our country can take four more years of the liberal policies that are coming out of this administration.

We need your help Mr. Trump. It's time to fire Barrack Obama as the American President.

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden is dead!

This is really great news, isn't it? Or is it? Don't get me wrong, I think this guy was a menace, and, he should have been brought to justice for the 9/11 attacks on the US.

I am a bit confused though. I thought this administration opposes torture. I thought this administration wants to give "rights" to everyone, including the 9/11 attackers. Haven't we been doing just that for one of the other attackers? It's a bit inconsistent to insist on "humane treatment" for one of the 9/11 masterminds, and then summarily execute another. Yeah, Osama bin Laden was probably more dangerous. But, a public trial would have been better for the American people. My grandfather always told me that two wrongs don't make a right. So, is it right to execute someone, even if they committed murder? I don't want to debate the death penalty in this particular blog. But, I do want you to consider the inconsistencies of this administrations actions.

In the poker world, a change in behavior is called a "tell". Is this a tell? If so, what does it mean?

Justice is a key cornerstone of our country. In order for Justice to be fair, it must be applied the same for all people; despite circumstances. When Justice is not applied equally (according to Dr. Martin Luther King), its discrimination. That said, why summarily execute one 9/11 mastermind, and try to put another on a public trial? Did Osama bin Laden get a secret trial that I am not aware of? Should we be executing people without a trial?

Actually, why kill Osama bin Laden in the first place? Why not capture him and bring him back for a very long and public trial? Politically, I would think this would have been better for this administration. In fact, I will go so far as to say It could have assured Obama a second term. Is this a "tell"?

Not only is Osama bin Laden dead, but, his body was "buried at see" (according to media reports). Okay - why? Why bury him at sea? Yeah, yeah, I heard the explanation from the administration. I just find it curious. Why bury the body at sea? Is this a "tell"?

This administration seems be inconsistent on a number of things; the Osama bin Laden execution is just one example. Then, there is the sudden position by this administration, that the US must stop it's deficit spending. This is not really consistent (in my opinion) with the actions of the administration during it's first two years. I think the deficit numbers and the debt ceiling speak for themselves in this regard.

One thing is for sure, this event (execution of Osama bin Laden) sure put Obama on the front page of every media outlet in the world. He's a global hero. In fact, I hear he is up for a Nobel Peace Prize. Oh wait, he already has one of those. Well, I am sure the world will find a way to reward his actions. This is some serious political capital that Obama has right now. And, based on past his history, I am sure that he will find a way to capitalize on it.

Did you know that the Dollar has been gaining on the Euro since Osama bin Laden was executed? Yep, it was around $1.50 to buy one Euro before Osama bin Laden was killed. As of the writing of this blog, the rate has dropped to almost $1.40 to buy one Euro. And, guess what? The price of gas has been dropping too. But, what caused this shift in the Dollar/Euro rate? Is this just a coincidence, or is this a "tell"?

The administration did say they were going to reduce deficit spending. And, a statement like that might be met with skepticism given the administration's track record; unless, the administration was able to gain credibility through some other means.

Obama is a global hero! He got Osama bin Laden!

I've been wondering for weeks why this administration would choose to get involved in the Libyan conflict. Something just did not add up here. This was completely inconsistent with the administration's position on Bush and the Iraq war. Yet, this administration used almost the same humanitarian arguments to justify the military action. Is this a "tell"?

It is ironic that the French opposed getting involved in Iraq, yet, they seem to be aggressively bombing the Libyan military. Of course, having the US and the UK join forces with the French to "protect the civilian population" almost makes the military action justifiable. Another "tell"?

Do the French have the ability to influence the Dollar/Euro exchange ratio?

Meanwhile, debates have begun in Washington on the debt ceiling. Republicans were gearing up to make their stand. After all, the rationale given by Republicans for NOT shutting down the government during budget battles, was that a stand could be made on the debt ceiling debates.

Americans are dancing in the streets! Osama bin Laden is dead, and, gas prices are dropping. What more could they (Americans) ask for? Americans are breathing a sigh of relief. Things are looking up. There finally is hope!

I've been asking myself why this administration would give the order to get Osama bin Laden now, when they could have easily waited until this event could have a bigger impact on the upcoming election. I'm sure the administration will spin this as putting the country before politics. But, that is just not consistent with the administration's track record. It looks to me like these folks really like being in power, and I am convinced they will do anything to stay in power (see Servants or Masters). Of course, for all we know, the administration might have been waiting for the right moment all along.

So, why go after Osama bin Laden now?

Well, clearly, this will ensure that the Republicans will be very cautious about picking a fight with the administration over the debt ceiling. The American people are celebrating - the debt ceiling is the last thing on their minds right now.

But still, why now? Why use the political capital now instead of closer to the election? And, why was Osama bin Laden buried at sea?

I find it interesting that Al Queda admitted (almost immediately) that Osama bin Laden had been killed. Now, if I was hiding and the press said I was dead, I would want everyone to believe the press so I could keep right on hiding. I would instruct my media folks to go along with the story. I also might be worried that the people who were looking for me might be using this as a tactic to get me to relax my vigilance.

Some are saying that Al Queda intends to use this as a rallying cry for more attacks on the US. This would most certainly lead to higher security (and awareness) in the US for years to come. We know this because of the 9/11 attacks. We also know that national solidarity helped to re-elect Bush in 2004. Bush was the hero back then, because he was keeping the country safe.

Even without Osama bin Laden's body, Obama is a global hero. Americans are celebrating in the streets. And, at this point, the Republicans are back on the defensive. I believe this is precisely how Obama was able to get himself elected in 2008. And, at this point, it sure looks like he is moving in for a win. The Republicans were counting on the deficit and national security as their key issues, and both of these have effectively been neutralized.

In poker, when a player manages to out-play his opponent, the player is congratulated for his exceptional play. Well played Mr. president - well played. The Republicans never saw this coming.

The Republicans should be kicking themselves for not acting when they had the chance. In my opinion, they better start listening to the people who gave them control of congress; they better eliminate the deficit. Otherwise, they are gonna all be voted out in 2012. I know my Republican representative is on shaky ground because he has not voted the way we wanted him to vote.

This administration has proven to me that they can do anything they want, and then spin the media in order to manipulate public opinion. How else can you explain the obvious inconsistencies? In fact, they can even explain the inconsistencies in this blog as conspiracy theories; much the same as the great birth certificate conspiracy theories. I prefer to look at the inconsistencies as "tells". At this point however, it really does not matter whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive; all play lines lead to the same outcome.

I would hope that most Americans would recognize the true nature of this administration's policies. More importantly, I would hope that Americans would look closely at this administration's actions, and ignore or avoid all of the media spin. I've been reading the articles in Newsweek (and other publications) that explain how hard the president's job is. These kinds of articles are clearly intended to gain sympathy from the public for what I believe is a really is a poor performance record.

Consider this: if things are bad when the administration has to be careful because of the upcoming election, imagine how bad things could get when this is a lame-duck administration.

The election in 2012 must be about this administration's actions; all of their actions, not just those media moments that we are going to get pummeled with over the next year. I believe our only hope is that Americans look closely at this administration's actions, when they are considering who to vote for in 2012.

By the way, it would not surprise me one bit if Osama bin Laden suddenly went on public trial right before the 2012 election; this is my conspiracy theory. You heard it here first! :-)

The true irony is that no matter whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive, he may have succeeded in bringing the change HE wanted to America, by ensuring a favorable climate for this administration to have a second term - a lame-duck term.

May God have mercy on America.

The Budget War

What a miracle! The President and the Congress managed to come to a historic agreement at the last possible minute. Yeah, right.

To quote from a movie I really like, "I haven't seen that kind of dancing since Star Search". It's pretty clear to me that both parties are playing the public opinion game. But, why all the drama? Is it really that hard to do the right thing? Why is it so difficult?

What was the basis of the argument? The Democrats want funding for Planned Parenthood, and the Republicans don't. The Republicans claim that this is a back door way to fund abortion. I don't know if this is the case or not. And, as with many of these political debates, this is a distraction from the real issue at hand.

For me, the real issue is the budget; end of story. We cannot keep spending at the levels that we are spending at today. We need a balanced budget amendment, and we need it now.

I digress ...

We need to get to the root of the problem. While I have not identified the root cause (yet), I think I have identified a key motivation in this case. The initial budget battle was over Planned Parenthood. Or, more generally, the battle was over this kind of funding. Democrats believe that the Federal Government should fund organizations like Planned Parenthood. Republicans are against funding these kinds of organizations.

The question is why would the Democrats want to fund Planned Parenthood? Well, this organization (and others like it) are part of the coalition of voters that the Democratic party has put together to keep themselves in power. These folks (not just the democrats) know how to take advantage of polling data. And, they know (and are confident) they can manipulate a good percentage of the public's opinion; certainly those who believe in Planned Parenthood (for example).

The battle ground has been established. Democrats need the support from people who endorse organizations like Planned Parenthood; its one of the pillars of their political empire. The Republicans know this, and, they know that eliminating funding for these kinds of organizations will reduce the political influence of the Democrats. After all, without the funding, there is no political influence.

Now we can see what is motivating both the political parties. It's all about power (see Servants or Masters), and, it is not something as noble as "doing the right thing". Let me be clear here: both parties are complicit. That would also explain the drama over the "working together" theme that has started to come out of the media.

Planned Parenthood is a charitable organization. Why would they need funding from the Federal Government; particularly if most people believed in what this organization was doing? Wouldn't the public gladly donate to such a worthy cause? There are a tremendous number of charitable organizations, which are able to exist today without government funding. So, what does that tell us? It tells us that if we left organizations like Planned Parenthood to normal charitable funding models, they would cease to exist. Isn't that what evolution is all about: survival of the fittest?

Planned Parenthood, and other charitable organizations like them, are being treated like endangered species. They are given protection and funding from the Federal Government. And, this, I believe is the key pattern to our budget problems. We simply cannot afford to fund every "pet project" that comes along. Specifically, the Federal Government should be focusing on doing things that benefit society as a whole.

"For the People" indicates to me that all the people should be treated fairly and equally. I don't see how funding organizations like Planned Parenthood (with tax money) is in the best interest of "We the People".

Why does the Federal Government feel the need to get involved in Social issues? Shouldn't the Federal Government be focusing on ensuring that all citizens are treated equally? Well, how does funding something like Planned Parenthood do that? Oh, I know, if it were not for programs like this one, the poor would be disadvantaged. Well, that is the definition of a charitable organization. And, there are well established models for these kinds of organizations.

I still do not see the justification for the Federal Government's involvement in funding organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Now, I believe we can get to the root cause. Programs like Planned Parenthood target specific issues within society. I am not going to debate the worthiness of these organizations. But, I want to point out that these organizations would probably die from natural attrition, if they were left to normal charitable funding strategies. Let me put it to you another way. Imagine that everyone got to pick their favorite charitable organization; such that the government would be forced to support all of these organizations. Is this really scalable? No way. So, it must be a business proposition: the Democrats get political support, and the organizations get government funding.

We are a charitable species, for the most part. We do not want to see people suffer. And, this is precisely how "We the People" are being manipulated: guilt. We saw a perfect example of this recently. I was absolutely shocked at the media portrayals of those who apposed the funding of Planned Parenthood as "heartless".

{Begin Rant}
I find this kind of journalism to be disgusting (see Is the Head Dead Yet?). When a journalist switches from the facts at hand, to supporting their personal charities, then that journalist is not doing their job. If people (including journalists) feel strongly about the plight of a particular charity, then, instead of trying to encourage "we the people" to encourage government funding of the charity, these "noble people" (or elitists) should reach in their own pockets and give until they have nothing left to give.

But, you see, these "noble people" are not doing that. Instead, they want the power to reach into another person's pocket. How is that being charitable?
{End Rant}

If, as a celebrity, you want to encourage donations to your favorite charity, I think that is great. But, if on the other hand, you are using your status as a celebrity to encourage political support for a political party, based on the fact that the political party is supporting your charity with government funds ... well ... that's not charity.

If a charitable program does not provide equal benefit to each and every citizen, it has no business being funded by the Federal Government. Rather, these organizations should be made to stand on their own merits. And, if they are not able to get funding through conventional methods, then they should go the way of the dinosaur.

The budget war is just getting started. And, I must say, I am not encouraged. If you read my "I Want" blog, you can see the behavior I described there is evident in this case as well.

I saw in the newspaper that President Obama plans to tell the nation how he is going to reduce the budget deficit. Well, since you (Mr. President) are the one that let this deficit get out of control, it would be nice if you actually took responsibility for the out-of-control spending. But, somehow, I suspect that this speech is going to be "spin", and not based on facts. After all, the truth does not seem to matter; its all about perception. I also find it ironic that the administration that caused this budget deficit is now claiming they know how to fix it. I keep hearing echoes of President Reagan saying "Tax and Spend ...".

I have no intention of letting the Republicans skate on this issue. Make no mistake, I for one voted for my congressional representative based on a desire to get the spending under control. This is my number one issue. That said, I found out that my congressional representative voted with the Republicans on the last two budget votes. Be warned: you are up for election again in 2012. And, if you cannot get the job done, we will elect someone who can.

I have to say I am very disappointed in the lack of resolve in the Republican establishment. Not to be crude, but it is time for you to collectively "grow a pair" and do what needs to be done.

I call this a budget war, because the outcome of this war will be just as devastating as any war. The key casualty of this war will be the US Dollar. Oil prices are approaching record levels, and so are international exchange rates. If we lose the budget war, I fear the US Dollar will collapse and take the American way of life with it.

God have mercy on us.

Send Arms

Are you the parent of a college student? Ever see the signs on the college football or basketball games, where the students say something like "Hi Mom - Send Money"? Well, I see a pattern.

I think it is obvious that I do not support American involvement in the Libyan conflict; I made that clear in my "Full Spin Ahead !!" blog. Yet, it seems that the rebels in Libya are asking for all kinds of assistance. And, since the American government (particularly this administration) has still not learned its lesson, I am sure its only a matter of time before we start sending "assistance" to the rebels. Oh, it will be legal - I am sure this administration will see to that. But, I think there are bigger questions that need to be asked here:

• What kind of assistance is being provided?
• Are we planning to send weapons of any kind?
  
• Who will the "assistance" really be used against?

I mean, what happens when you send "assistance" to a country like Libya? Do we make them sign Non-Disclosures and Service Level Agreements? Do we make them sign contracts as to who they will use the "assistance" against, and, more importantly, who they WILL NOT use the "assistance" against?

Can we really trust rebels from a foreign country?

Well ... we trusted the Afghanistan rebels, and we ended up with 3,000 dead Americans.

What's to say that the "assistance" is not going to make its way to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or to the southern border of the United States. Think I am being an alarmist? Well, of course that is what this administration will say; they do not like to be questioned. But, since this administration doesn't seem to have a very good gauge, when it comes to assessing the risks to the American people, and, the American press does not seem to be interested in doing their job (checks and balances and all), I think this is a legitimate question.

Look Mom! I'm a journalist! ;-)

My point here is that we need to be very careful. This administration clearly disregards the voice of the people; believing that the average American to not smart enough to understand complex issues. And, to this end, this administration has demonstrated that they do not necessarily think through their plans of action (both healthcare reform and financial reform come to mind). So, I am being proactive with my opinion. Since I know that this administration likes to keep things simple, I will keep it simple. I don't see how we can trust the rebels, since we really do not know who they are. Therefore, based on past experience, arming rebels is a bad idea.

Let's learn from past mistakes. We need to:

• Get out of Libya
• Stay out of Libya
• Don't send any kind of military assistance to Libya; especially, DO NOT SEND ARMS!

It would be a real shame if some of our own "military assistance" made its way across the southern border of the US, and into the hands of some bad people.

Think about it.

Get it yourself !

I am just plain shocked. I'm so shocked, I needed to vent. So, this will be a quick rant. :-)

I am in a Marriott Courtyard in the London area. And, I just ordered room service; as I did not want to eat in the restaurant because of the time required. I figured room service would be quicker.

Well, I already have a bottle of water in my room. I return to the US tomorrow, and I can't take the water through security. So, since I was ordering room service, I figured I could get a glass of ice with my meal.

Well !

The person taking my room service order told me in no uncertain terms that there was an ice machine just at the end of the hall by the lift (that's an English elevator).

I felt like Ralphy as he sat in Santa's lap. I was speechless as she reviewed my order and terminated the call with "that's it then".

I'm sure I will find this humorous at some point. But, as a platinum Marriott member, I'm not real happy about being told to "get it myself". That said, maybe I am taking my elite status too seriously. And, maybe I needed to be reminded of a few things.

I wonder if they read my "I want" blog. ;-)

Sent from my iPhone

Full Spin Ahead !!

What were we thinking? Did we not learn anything from Afghanistan and Iraq? Why in the world are we in yet another military campaign against another Arab country?

I find our (American) involvement in the Libyan conflict shocking and hypocritical. Libya is a sovereign country. Sure, they are likely in the middle of a civil war. Was Iraq any different? I thought (according to Democrats) Iraq was a mistake. So, why are we (the US) embarking on yet another intervention into the affairs of another sovereign country? Are Democrats allowed to incite wars, and Republicans are not?

Oh, and what would the US do if another country tried to come into our country to "enforce a no fly zone"? How can we not see that this is a really bad idea?

I keep hearing from the talking heads on the news, that the difference between this "conflict" and the "conflicts" in Iraq and Afghanistan is the support from the other Arab nations. I am pretty sure the Saudi's were very supportive of getting Saddam (nut case that he was) out of office. And, I also keep hearing that this is not about changing the regime; but about protecting the civilians within Libya. I remember hearing this same message during the Iraq war.

And the media!! Wow!! I just watched a news report (UK news channel), and they showed a generic picture of a helicopter landing on a aircraft carrier. The part that raised my eyebrows was the story going along with the video. The news had someone from the military to speculate on what that helicopter was doing. Did you get that? This was not a journalist reporting facts, this was a journalist making up a story to match the image on the screen. There were no facts stated! Did you read my "Is the head dead yet" blog?

One thing is for sure, our government officials keep overstepping the bounds of their office. And, who appointed the UN as the world police force? Why are we (the US) spending our hard earned resources on this conflict? Whose side are we on, and why?

Yes, we have to be on one side or the other; we are clearly bombing just one side of this conflict. I don't know about you, but that signals taking sides to me. Why do we feel the need to take sides?

What about the hypocrisy of this administration? I still remember all the Bush-Bashing that went on during the 2008 election over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, how can this administration do something like this?

Well, this looks to me like another case of "do what I say and not what I do". What a shame. This looks bad on so many fronts, because it IS bad on so many fronts. But, for some reason, this administration keeps thinking that they can do anything they want to do, and, the media will help them sell it to the American people. Shocking.

Here we go: Full Spin Ahead!!

Sent from my iPad

Hope and Faith

I was just recalling a lunch time conversation I had with some friends back in the late summer of 2008. In this conversation, we were of course talking about the upcoming election. And, as I recall, one of my friends said something that seemed odd at the time; but it has stayed with me since then. They said "at least Obama will bring Hope to the people".

As I said, I did not give it much thought at the time. But, of late I have been reminded of this and other comments by other friends. I have seen a pattern emerge from all the various conversations and comments. And, I feel compelled to talk about this pattern. That said, I'm not really sure where to begin. My thoughts and memories are swirling around in my head right now, and I am looking for the thread to pull in order for all this to make sense. So, here goes.

What do you think of when you hear the word "Hope"?

Well, for me, Hope is something that goes with a situation, where the odds are against something good happening. Or, when something bad is happening and the odds of the situation being corrected are not good. To me, we need Hope when things look the worst, and we want (or need) to get beyond the situation that we are facing.

As a country, were we so bad off that we needed some kind of miracle? Why would we need Hope?

I think it is safe to say that there were a great number of people who were unhappy and/or disillusioned, and, that this was somehow attributed to our government. We then have to ask ourselves what is the root cause, if we want to understand the need for Hope; the need for Change.

Why were people unhappy and disillusioned? Well, if you have expectations that you will be rich (for example), and, you are not rich, you would probably be unhappy and maybe even disillusioned.

Aren't we a bit spoiled? Don't we in this country have so many more opportunities than those elsewhere? Shouldn't we be happy with and thankful for what we have? And, isn't it really greedy and selfish of us to be wanting more, given what we already have?

Moreover, haven't we been manipulated (see "Is the head dead yet" blog) into thinking that we are somehow being treated unfairly; because there are people who have more than we have? Haven't we been convinced that our neighbor has something we should also have? And, after all, who's fault is it if our neighbor has more than we have?

Now we are getting somewhere: it's the governments fault; at least in the minds of some people. And, it's the governments responsibility to make this right. This explains why we would put our Hope for Change into a single man.

Wow! What a brilliant campaign Obama ran! The media created the mindset, and the Obama campaign capitalized on this big time. If this does not send chills up and down your spine, you should read the "Masters or Servants" blog and the "Is the head dead yet" blog.

Are "we the people" so absolutely self centered (spoiled) that we can only think of ourselves (see "I Want" blog)? Seriously. Why are we so focused on what our neighbors have? Why aren't we focused on being thankful for what we have, instead of lusting after what our neighbors have?

This seems to me to be a root cause. And, the really sad thing is that this gives our "Masters" a way to manipulate us. All because we cannot get away from our envy. It's ironic really. People put their hope into a government that ultimately sees them as "Servants".

My hope is that people in this country will focus more on doing the right thing, and that people will be less envious and selfish. But, this is not something I expect (or hope) that the government will do. People have to make individual choices. I'm just hoping they make the right choices for the right reasons.

Why are people hoping for the government to do something? I think we have a second root cause here: the government is seen as the highest authority.

As Americans, we have a Constitution which spells out our God given Rights. These Rights are not given to us by the government. These rights are in fact to protect us from the government, and, ultimately from people who might use the government for their own purposes. These rights come from God, as "One Nation Under God". And, God is the highest authority.

Our money all indicates our collective "trust" in God. Yet, we put our hope and faith in one man? I can see now why some of the conservative talking heads make reference to Obama as a deity. I don't like this tactic, by the way. But, given the way the campaign was run, I can see the rationale for their position.

Do we really, as a nation, trust God? Well, if you read my "What are the odds?" blog, you will see that things are changing. And, I think this gives us the "why" for the question of why we would put our hope and faith into a single man or a government.

Based on the Rally (or Revival) in Washington D.C. Last summer, there are still those who have hope and faith. But, what about the future? I believe we are a very blessed nation, and that our trust in God is the reason for these blessings. My hope is that one day people will wake up to realize this fact.

Sent from my iPad

Is the head dead yet?

I don't know about you, but I have noticed a distinct difference (over the last decade) in the way "the press" presents information to "the people".

I was always taught that "the press" was supposed to be part of the checks and balances for a democratic system of government. Freedom of "the press" was envisioned as a means to keep the people of a democracy properly informed, so they can take action in the event their government starts to do things that are against the fundamental principles of their constitution. And, as such, "we the people" have (over time) developed a trust for "the press"; that they will keep us properly informed. In fact, I think the trust for "the press" is advocated in the earliest levels of public education.

I travel internationally for my job. And, from 2004 through 2009 I spent a considerable amount of time in Europe. I used to enjoy the different points of view I would get from the different media channels in Europe. I felt privledged and even enlightened to be exposed to such a diverse range of cultures. I began to consider myself a citizen of the world, rather than just an American citizen.

I can still remember the debates I had with my international friends over things like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, George Bush, and America's position as the hegemonic force in the world. I have to admit that some of their perceptions (or arguments) of American arrogance were beginning to gain ground with me.

Then, something happened. I can't put my finger on it precisely. But, I began to feel less enamored with the international media. I realized that things were being said that were simply not based on actual facts. I can still remember sitting in my hotel room watching one of the international media channels, and thinking to myself "are they seriously putting this dribble on television".

Then, it occurred to me: I was hearing "themed" messages. Messages within a message intended to plant impressions. And, the themes I was hearing were the themes I recognized from my discussions with my international friends. In fact, they were practically identical.

Of course, I went through the classic denial: why would the media want to manipulate the message? It just did not make sense. Then, it occurred to me that the media had been very effective in getting their message through to my friends, because my friends were parroting the message back to me and amongst themselves during our lunch time debates. And, it occurred to me that the media had been quite effective in shaping the perceptions of my friends.

Imagine: an organization you trust to give you accurate information is actually giving you a crafted message. So, why? Why would the media want to deviate from just giving the facts? Why would the media want to advocate a "position", by embedding messages within their reporting of the facts? Well, if the public trusts the media to keep them informed, then the public is likely to believe whatever the media says. And, if I wanted to manipulate or control public perception, what better way to do this; than via a media that is already trusted by the public at large.

Yes, I know that this is a classic conspiracy theory. But, before you stop reading, I'd like a chance to make my case. If you have been following my blogs, you know that I use a very logical approach to make my points. I'm not your classic conspiracy theorist - I'm an independent thinker. And, if you will allow me, I would like to share some of that independent thinking on this topic.

So, what would motivate a journalist in general, or the media at large to begin advocating specific themes? Have you read my "Masters or Servants" blog? In this blog, I talk about the psychology behind the elitist frame of mind. If you haven't read that blog, you really should (I'll save your place here for you).

Seriously, anyone out there that believes our current media personalities are humble servants of society? Well, maybe some of them are, but, what about the vast majority? What do you think motivates them to do their job each day? Money? Fame? The power of being able to shape the perception of millions (even billions) of people? Are our media personalities striving to be Masters or Servants?

For the purpose of proving our conspiracy theory, let's just say that we don't believe that the majority of today's media personalities are motivated by a sense of public service. And, I think it is safe to say that media companies are big businesses; which means they are likely motivated by money and power. Convinced yet?

What's your favorite football team? Basketball team? How dedicated are you as a fan? Do you watch every game on TV? Go to every game in person? Wear merchandise that advertises your loyalty to the team? Do you get into heated arguments about your team?

We all like to belong; it's part of the human psyche. And, we tend to manifest our need to belong in different ways. Some join gangs. Others join political parties. And, still others adopt a sports team.

We all need to belong. But, more importantly, we like for our memberships to be exclusive. And, even better, we like to be unique or elite within an elite organization. It's the rush of power, that only membership in an elite organization can deliver.

So, if I'm a member of a particular political party with a particular ideology, wouldn't I talk about my ideologies; much the same way I cheer for my favorite football team? Wouldn't I do what I could to help my party to gain influence; much the same way I wear clothing promoting my favorite team? In particular, wouldn't I want and strive for influence within my political party?

Who was it that said "I would not want to be a member of a club that would have me as a member"?

Have you noticed that our media personalities have become more "dramatic" in the way they present the news. They seem to particularly like to report on events where there's lots of human suffering; like the most recent tragedies in Japan.

I guess some of that is the public's fault, as we do like to slow down in traffic to see the carnage of an accident. But, the media seems to thrive on human tragedies - to the point were they will play the same clip over and over again, trying to come up with new ways to describe the visuals. And, of course, they have to be "the best", so they add a little drama to distinguish themselves from the other media personalities who are reporting the same story.

The entertainment factor in the news is becoming more prevalent. And, it would seem that the entertainers are not above using their fame to advocate their political positions. Personally, I miss the true journalists.

So, what do you think? Do we need to worry about journalists and a news media that are politically biased and/or motivated by money and power?

And, what about all the drama? I heard a song on the radio that inspired me to write this blog. The song asked: "is the head dead yet". I immediately thought about the current day media's lust for human tragedy, and their desire to dramatize everything.

I started to think about my experiences with my international friends, and I realized that the media is key to being able to manipulate public opinion. Thus, the media is a valuable resource for today's "Masters". If that does not convince you, I don't know what will.

Actually, I probably should mention how the media can manipulate public opinion. We humans have lots of fears. And, the media likes to exploit these fears. For example, we are so afraid of dying in a terrorist attack, "we the people" are willing to give up our liberties, and right to privacy, to gain some level of security. And, the media recently used these fears to advocate a position in support of the new virtual strip search machines we travelers now have to deal with every time we fly.

I might be unique, but I do not fear death. It gives me the ability to focus on what I am losing as a result of everyone else's fears. It also gives me the ability to be unemotional regarding the role the media is playing in the manipulation of public perception.

It seems to me that the media has become a tool for propaganda and entertainment. I miss the simple truth. And, I am really tired of all the drama.

Sent from my iPad

I want

I am writing this blog as I sit on a transatlantic flight. So, please forgive me if I use some metaphors that seem "testy". Each time I make this flight, I get to observe something new from one of my fellow passengers. And, in fact, this is why I am publishing this blog ahead of the two others that I have been working on for some time. Some things just bring out the worst in people. I am talking about selfishness.

What is selfishness? It's simply putting your wants above the wants or needs of another; even to the point of being rude or discourteous.

The last time I was on this flight, I was fortunate enough to get a bulk-head seat. This means that I got a seat in the front of the cabin. Imagine two aisles on the plane. And, imagine the seat on the left aisle of the middle section; as close to the front of the plane as possible. This particular seat was on the left side of the middle section. Now, on this particular plane, there's only one bathroom in this coach cabin; at the front of the aisle next to me. This is extremely convenient for the folks sitting on the same aisle. But, it is not so convenient or those who are sitting on the other aisle; basically half the plane's seats.

Let's role play. Imagine you are in my seat sleeping (as this is an overnight flight), when you are awakened by someone crawling across the space in front of you; literally trying to step over the feet and legs of everyone sitting in this section (three people). Do you get upset with the person, or do you simply move your legs to allow them to pass? Keep in mind that this person will need to return to their seat, once they are done in the bathroom. Now, let's reverse the roles. Imagine you are the person who needs to use the bathroom, and you realize that you need to walk all the way back to the next cabin in order to get to the bathroom. Should you crawl over the people to get to the bathroom? What's the "right" thing to do in this situation? Mind you: I am not just talking about the person doing the crawling.

While you are pondering this example, I would like to give you another.

Economies are made up of producers and consumers. Consumers get their goods and services from some form of market. Producers place their goods in the market, setting the price based on their cost to produce; plus some profit. So, based on this simple model, what do you think happens to the cost of goods produced by a producer, if that producer's labor costs go up? Well, either the producer's profit would have to drop. Or, the cost of the producer's goods would have to go up. For the sake of this argument, let's just assume that the free market will act to control the amount of profit a producer can put on the goods and services they provide to the market; I want to leave the topic of greed to another post. So, the focus here is on the impact rising labor costs have on consumer prices, and the root cause for the increasing labor costs.

Have you ever thought about the impact a raise in your salary would have on those who are consumers of the products and services you (or the company you work for) produce? Or, did you simply think about your self? Ever wonder where inflation comes from? Well, I admit this is a simplified model. And, I admit that this explanation does not take in to account supply and demand. But, the correlation between labor costs and consumer prices has to be obvious. Did you ever take the time to consider the impact a salary increase would have on the broader economy? It might be a bit euphoric, but, imagine if everyone's salary stayed fixed. Would you be willing to fix your salary, if it could result in stable prices? After all, aren't you a consumer as well as a producer?

Just in case you are wondering, I have the same seat on this flight as the last flight. So far two people have crawled over my feet to get to the bathroom. Come up with an answer yet?

So, is it selfish to take a salary increase, when you know this will likely have some kind of impact on consumer prices? It's a vicious cycle. Prices increase from inflation. This leads to necessary increases in salaries; in order to keep up with inflation. But, where does it end? It's a vicious cycle indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if instead of only thinking about ourselves, we could consider the greater good?

I've been following the battles over the unions. And, when I got on this flight, the parallels struck me and motivated me to write this blog.

Unions serve a purpose: to negotiate compensation for the labor force. The intention was good (as is most always the case). If unions where used as a checks and balances against greedy business owners or executives, I would not think twice about their role. But, unions have evolved into political machines; trading power for favors just like our political parties.

Who does the union really serve? It's members? Or, does the union provide political power to it's leaders, such that this political power can be used to manipulate our government representatives. If you've read my post on "Masters and Servants", you should be able to identify unions as yet another political organization, that is interested in maintaining their political influence.

I am seeing union members protesting because they are going to have reductions in their benefits, or, they are going to have to pay more for their benefits. Tell me, do these people think they are the only ones impacted by the state of our economy? Are these people so selfish that they don't care about the perpetual cycle we are in regarding compensation and prices?

Where, pray tell, should the money come from to pay for these benefits? I could understand, if employers where treating their employees poorly. But, is this really a case of employee abuse? Somehow, I don't think so. It looks to me like these union members are not thinking about the rest of us Americans. Isn't that the definition of selfishness?

Government employees have had unions for some time. And, these folks are per capita some of the best paid folks around. Automobile workers have been unionized for decades, and they are very well paid as well. Doesn't this indicate that we should endorse unions? After all, if we all join unions, we could all have nice big salaries. Then what? Who will be left to pay? The union today is being used to the exclusive benefit of their members, and to the potential deficit of everyone else. So, are unions the answer?

What happened to the auto industry in the last decade? Two out of three companies went bankrupt. Why do you think this is? Well, perhaps the price of cars has gotten out of reach of the average consumer. What do you think drove up car costs? Industry experts agree labor costs are the biggest factor in auto prices.

In fact, if the government had not stepped in, the auto industry would have been forced to make some serious changes. So, why did the government step in? Simple: they wanted to maintain their positions of power and authority. The unions helped the government folks stay in office, and the government bailed out the unions - er, uh - the auto industry out of bankruptcy. And, we the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. How is that not selfish?

Now let's look at government employee unions. Where are the checks and balances? If unions are protected by the government, and, the government is protected by the unions, where will we end up? Well, if government salaries keep increasing, then the cost of government will have to increase as well. Guess who pays when that happens?

So, whose interests are being served by unions? Is this really something for the greater good? Or, is this a "club" of people who are selfishly looking out for themselves.

Here's the saddest part: the number of people in this country, who are thinking "I want", is quickly outpacing the number of people who are looking out for the country at large. Instead of thinking about the country's future, these people can only think of themselves.

How long before there's no one left to pay the bills? After all, being selfish is about getting something for yourself - no matter the cost or who has to pay. Ask what you can do for your country; not what your country can do for you. We need to get our financial house in order. And, I for one think everyone needs to do their part.

I saw a poll that indicated people only want to balance the budget if the services they need are not touched. In other words, let someone else pay the price. "They want" to have their cake and eat it too. But what about very one else? I find this shocking and maybe even disgusting. Why can't we put an end to a government where we give entitlements to a group of people, in order to get something back from them - a vote. Not only is this a selfish way to run things, it will breed corruption and inequity.

If we cannot decide which special interest programs (entitlements) to cut, we should cut them all. And, if "we the people" don't start putting our "I want" attitudes in check, I'm not sure what America will look like a couple of generations from now. You think I am kidding, just take a look at other nations where the population has an "I want" attitude. This "I want" mentality is really the root of America's troubles.

Checkpoint: two more people have crawled over me since my last report.

I will be the first to admit that credit cards got my generation in trouble. When I was fresh out of college, I got my first credit card. And, I quickly became enslaved to my credit cards. It took me a while to figure out that my "I want" attitude was costing me dearly. But, I was young and stupid. And, I figured it did not matter, as long as I got what "I wanted".

I was lucky. I was able to curb my appetite for "stuff", and eventually I worked my way out from under a mountain of debt. Unlike the auto industry, I did not go crying to the government for help. I knew that I was the one who created the problem, and I knew that I was the one who needed to fix the problem. I bought less stuff, and worked more to pay off my credit card debt. I wish more Americans would do the same. Clearly, this latest financial crisis is proof to the contrary.

As I said earlier, America's "I want" attitude is a serious problem. Based on the polls, and my own observations of human behavior, I'm not optimistic. This is one time where I would really like to be wrong.

Sent from my iPad

Servants or Masters

Have you ever wondered how come we have Masters and Servants?

I think there are two ways to look at this. One can be a Servant by choice. And, one can be a Servant because they have no choice. Or, because they don't choose not to be a Servant; in other words they allow themselves to become a Servant as a result of inaction or not making a choice.

For me, I believe that when someone is elected into a position of authority over other people, they are choosing to act as a Servant to the people who elected them. In a perfect world, those who are elected into positions of authority would serve with humility. And, the elected individuals would keep in mind the trust that was bestowed on them by the people who elected them. That's in a perfect world.

Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect; simply because the people in this world are far from perfect. I'm not saying that everyone is evil or even bad. I think most people are good at heart, and I think most people want to do the right thing. But, we are still human. And, therefore, we still suffer from things like pride, jealousy and even greed. We all want what our neighbor has. In fact, many times we want to have something better than our neighbor. We are constantly comparing ourselves to our neighbor; and, even competing with them. It's the pride, greed and jealousy (among other things) that make this world far from perfect.

In a perfect world, a government of the people should in fact be Servants of the people. But, is this the case today? Do the people elected into public service today actually see themselves as Servants? Or, do they see themselves as Masters? Who is the Servant today, and who is the Master?

Can you imagine a Servant in the 14th century telling their king that they were going to take a bigger salary than the king? Can you imagine a worker in the 19th century telling their boss that they knew better how to spend their boss' money more efficiently? Think about this. Isn't this precisely what our elected officials are doing today? Of course, no one wants anarchy. And, of course, someone needs to work on behalf of the people - to make laws for the people. But, the examples I have given are not examples of elected officials making laws on behalf of the people they are supposed to be serving. These are examples of our elected officials using their positions for their own gain; establishing themselves as superior to the people who elected them.

So, what is the real motivation for someone to be elected into government today? Is it because they truly want to serve the people that elected them? Or, is it because they want a position of power and authority. As a person who wants to believe that all people are good at heart, I want to believe the former. However, this is not the behavior I am observing from my elected officials. I see my elected officials taking exorbitant salaries for themselves, while listening to political lobbyists and their own political party, instead of the people that elected them. It looks to me like my elected officials see themselves as my Master, and, that their true motivation for being elected is to gain access to power and authority.

This situation begs the question: can a government of the people, by the people and for the people ever really work, if the people being elected cannot be trusted to work on behalf of the people who elected them? I believe the founders of the United States of America found the answer: limited authority, and checks and balances.

If we make the hypothesis that our government can become corrupt (in a manner of speaking) for the reasons I have already outlined, then what should we do? We still need some form of government in order to maintain society; even more so as the population increases. But, what if we limited the authority each "form" of government has over it's citizens? What if we build checks and balances into our system of government?

In my world, we call this separation of concerns. Basically, this means governmental authority is divided up. For those "forms" of government that have influence over large portions of the population, less authority should be granted. The rationale is simple: corruption in a government with wide spread authority will have more devastating effects. Thus, a corollary can be formed: that as a government's population base grows, it's authority should decrease. This is to minimize the risk and effects of a government that does not work on behalf of it's citizens; rather, it works on behalf of political parties and groups of elitists.

I believe this is what the founders of the united States of America were trying to do: put a system of government in place that would protect it's citizens from corruption that will most certainly occur at some point. After all, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I also believe that the bill of rights was put in place as a reminder that the government should serve the people, and not the other way around.

My colleagues like to tease me about using the term "slippery slope". Well, here it is. As we the people cede more and more authority to a centralized government, we are taking more and more risk that a centralized government will ultimately become our Masters. Of course, this will all be rationalized and done over a very long time (boiling the frog). But, I believe it will happen, because it has happened before. Look at what has happened to every great society in the world's history? Do any of them still exist today?

This brings up an interesting side bar. What about the claims of progressives? Can a distributed government make social progress? Some will argue that if not for Lincoln and the civil war, we would still have states that allow slavery (of course Lincoln was not a progressive - he was doing what he believed was right for humanity). This rationale is used to push the agenda of the greater good. While I agree that in this case the centralized government needed the authority to ban slavery, I do not believe this should become a precedent for large, centralized government. Clearly, no system of government is going to be perfect. We the people need to remain diligent in the monitoring and control of our government. I think this is the real lesson. But, I digress

Our founders put in place a system of government whereby smaller government units (city, county, state) could have corresponding amounts of authority over citizens of the United States. It makes perfect sense to me: give the government with the smallest population the most authority. This way, if the people are subjected to a corrupt government, they can always move away from the corruption. And, the government will starve without citizens. This seems to me to be the true strength of a democratic system. The problem with this form of distributed form of government, is that it makes it more difficult for a small group of Masters (or elitists) to gain control over an entire population. But, isn't that the point? Again, I am not saying that everyone who is elected is bad. I am simply pointing out the risks of large, centralized governments; whether elected via democratic process or not.

So, why did I do this blog? What am I so worried about? Well, let me tell you. I've been just as frustrated (even disgusted) with my political leaders as the next guy. But, it was not until this last presidential election that I realized how close we (the citizens of America) have come to becoming Servants of our government. I mean, we were so desperate for "change", that we elected the first person who promised us "change". And, here is the really scary part: we did not bother to question what was meant by "change". Instead, we allowed the media to convince us that the "change" we wanted would be accomplished, if we elected the one promising the "change". It was at this point that I realized we the people had lost control of our government. It was at this point that I realized the elitists were able to manipulate the voters into electing who ever they wanted. And, to what end? Isn't it obvious: power and control. I fear that the worst fears of our founders are at hand. I fear that we are allowing a large, centralized government to become our Master.

Here is the bottom line: unless we want to become Servants to our government, we need to take steps to get back to what the founders intended. We need to ensure that all forms of government are structured in order to minimize and protect against corruption. And, we need to ensure that all forms of government understand and adhere to their role as Servants of the people who elected them. Remember, if we don't choose not to be a Servant, it's the same as choosing to be a Servant.

Sent from my iPad

What are the odds?

I am a poker player. For those of you who know me personally, you know this to be true. But, for those who follow my blog; you might not have figured out the hidden meaning behind my pen name. Well, now you know.

The game of poker is very intriguing to me. For those who have not given it much thought, there's a lot of probability and statistics behind this game. And, being a math and logic guy, I suspect this is what intrigues me about the game.

As a poker player, I have taken my fair share of what we like to call "bad beats". I can just see my fellow players rolling their eyes; imagining that this blog is a bad beat story. Well, not exactly. But, for those who do not play, a "bad beat" is when the odds of winning are in your favor, and you lose anyway. This can be the most frustrating part of the game. Particularly, when you realize that your opponent played badly, and won anyway. It just doesn't seem fair. But, most poker players learn to take these things in stride. And, they realize that over the long term, the odds will be in their favor.

Now, if a player was consistently losing when the odds were in their favor, one might start to wonder what was going on. After all, you would think that if your probability to win was 80%, then you should win 80% over a period of time - right? Well, so, if you lose 10 straight times in a row, when you had an 80% chance of winning each time, what would you think? Isn't it logical that if you have an 80% chance of winning for each hand that you should win 80% of those hands? At least, isn't it logical that you should not lose all 10 of those hands?

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's say you have a 20% chance of winning each of ten different hands. What percentage of the hands would you expect to win? For me, I would expect to win at most 40% of those hands. And, I would consider myself really lucky to win those, because I really only had a 20% chance of winning any one of those hands.

Let me switch gears here for just minute.

I was in Mumbai having dinner with friends and colleagues, and the subject of "intelligent design" came up. And, in the discussion, it was established that only two people out of the eight at the table believed in intelligent design. At the time, I remember being surprised by this statistic. But, I filed that away for later consideration, and we finished our dinner.

Later, I started to think about the Mumbai conversation. And, as my beloved wife will tell you, when I get stuck on something, I tend to dig until I find an answer. To be honest, I was surprised that 75% of the people at the table did not believe that God had created the Universe. So, I started my investigation. And, the more I read, the more disturbed I became. There were theories for everything - everything could be explained. I started to read more, and got even more disturbed. I started to have trouble sleeping. My mind was going crazy processing everything I had read.

Then one night I had a dream. In the dream, I saw probabilities; just like when I am sitting at the poker table trying to calculate the probabilities of my opponent's hand. Then I saw the probabilities lining up, and getting smaller and smaller. It occurred to me that this is the way probabilities work: If something has multiple things which must happen in sequence (in order to occur) the probabilities are multiplied with one another - making them smaller. And as the list of items grew in length, I saw the probabilities going to zero.

So, what are the odds?

The human body is very complex. Clearly, if we knew everything about the human body, there would be no disease or illness. People would live forever, because we would know how to make replacement parts. The point here is that we do not know everything about life. So, we cannot possibly know how long it would take to create life.

We do know, through science, that the universe has rules. There are rules that govern math. And there are rules that govern physics. Of course we really don't know if there are any other rules out there that we haven't discovered yet. Nor do we know if there are conditions under which the rules will change. The age of enlightenment has helped us (man kind) to work within the confines of the rules that we know and understand. But, what about what we do not know? What is the probability that we know everything? Well, we certainly still have a lot to learn in the medical field. And, we still cannot explain division by zero. I think it's one thing to work within the boundaries of what we know, in order to improve ourselves. I think it is something all together different to assume that we know everything, and to ignore the other possibilities simply because we cannot explain them. That seems to be arrogant - or ignorant - I am not sure which.

If you take a minute to think about cause and effect. That is, think about things that have to happen, in order for other things to happen. Now, take a minute to think about all the things that would have to happen in a precise sequence, in order to do something like, say, create the universe. I think that is a very complex thing to do; particularly since as far as I know, we still don't really know what happened. We have theories, stacked on top of theories. We cannot have facts, because we were not there. We cannot know precisely what happened. Yes, in the last 200+ years we have made fantastic technological advances. So, what? What does that prove? Does it prove we are suddenly smart enough that our theories become facts? What if we are wrong? We were certainly wrong about Pluto.

It's just like at the poker table: you are trying to make the right decision based on the information you have at that particular moment in time. There is a probability that you are right, and there is a probability that you are wrong. But, if you think someone has a hand, and when you fold the other player shows you a bluff, you have just lost out because the other player convinced you that they had a hand.

So, what is the probability that all the evolution theories are correct; as opposed to believing that God created the universe? Well, you have a number of things that would have to happen very precisely. And, according to what I was told, evolution says that life evolved based on defects becoming the new normal. And, that defects enabled the various species to adapt over time. I'm sure someone more enlightened than I has already thought about this; but, let me take a simple poker player's point of view. What is the probability that a specific defect occurred at the precise time that was necessary to survive? And, even if it happened, what is the probability that it continued to happen? And, even if it continued to continue to happen, how much time would it take? I know if time is not an object, anything can happen. But, the Earth has only been around a certain amount of time.

Evolution, is like thinking that a 1963 Chevrolet corvette would spontaneously manufacture itself. Yes, this car was manufactured. But, it was manufactured from parts. Those parts were also manufactured. How? Well, if you go back far enough in the chain, you are gonna get to a point where you either assume something (aka guess), or you take a leap of faith.

The odds are against evolution. For me, it makes more sense that the universe was created by someone (God) that knew what they were doing, and that was acting in a deliberate fashion (had a plan). To me, that makes more sense than a bunch of theories that could have accidentally occurred in a precise sequence, at a precise time, to create the universe. Think about it. Do you want to make a leap of faith based on theories from men who think they are enlightened, yet admit they don't know all the rules of the universe?

As a poker player, I would call to see the other player's hand - particularly if I was betting my eternal soul.