Bailouts

I was digging around the archives looking for a post I thought I'd created, but it must have just been an email I sent to the die hard fans on my mailing list.  It was my proposal for the banking industry bailout and it went something like this: 

If you want my money, these are the rules: (for PUBLICLY OWNED/TRADED COMPANIES)

1.  Salaries of all "c-level" employees (CEO, CFO, CIO...) are not to exceed 20 times the average salary of your full-time employees, or, if you prefer, not to exceed 30 times your lowest paid employee including part-timers.

2.  C-level benefits packages must be available to all full-time employees at similar proportions of their incomes.  

3.  No other form of compensation (options, parachutes, trusts) may be provided to C employees that are not also available to and resonably attainable by all other full time employees.  

4.  You can return to your ridiculous pay structures as soon as you've paid back all principal and interest.  

If you don't like these terms, don't take the money.  Four rules.  Simple as that.

Remember,  it's you bastards who got rich while the rest of us lost our homes and our jobs over the last seven years.  Don't wait too long for us to come to your rescue.

These rules were part of my proposal for publicly-owned and traded companies, but especially for those financial companies who sit at the top of the funnel, up through which all of America's money passes.  

To that I'd like to add that it's time the people on top of that funnel, where the entire nation's wealth is concentrated should be subject to THE MOST scrutiny and REGULATION of any other industry in America.  That's ALL of OUR money up there.  They skim the most of it off and keep it for themselves as it is, and that's fine as long as their practices are sound.  You don't have to be a financial genius to know that naked short selling isn't sound and shouldn't even be legal.  WTF!?

But what pissed me off the most about the whole deal was that these are the same people who call welfare, adequate public education funding and universal healthcare "socialism" but when the money goes the other direction it's "vital to our economic stability."

These bailouts are welfare.  Plain and simple.  The only difference is that the tax money is going straight to the top... as if even the welfare must now trickle down to save us.  Our money just wasn't getting funneled up fast enough -  Bush's plan to sell out middle Amercia to Big Corporate wasn't working fast enough, so now we'll print more money than we have, hand it directly over to those at the top of the chain and put the bill on the middle Americans who actually manage to keep their jobs... and their kids and grandkids.  The dollar goes down, the debt goes up and the guys who got us into this mess walk away with fat wallets, as usual.  That's the only "economy" we're saving.  The pressure and the deadline (fear tactics) for the billions we handed over to the banks came straight out of the "we must invade Iraq" playbook.  And though raising taxes is a horrible idea, every man, woman and child in America is now strapped with an additional 3-grand to pay back at some point... but it's not a tax, so that's cool.  We don't want to raise taxes 'cuz it would kill the economy!

So now we're contemplating bailing out the auto industry as well.  There are certainly a lot of perspectives from which to approach this.  As an Ohioan, whose household income has been comprised in parts varying from 2/3 to 1/2 from the auto industry over the years, it's a tough line to walk.  The funny thing is, the employers providing that income have been either German or Japanese since the early 90's.  Those German and Japanese employers' biggest customers have been Ford, GM, and Chrysler, but they've also made parts for Honda, Toyota, Nissan and a few others here and there.  My wife and my brother both currently work for German companies whose primary customers are the Big Three.  Fortunately for both of them (and me) their companies also supply the OTHER American auto industry, so while their business has slowed with the economy, their fates don't rest solely with the Big Three.

Having lived in the shadow of the Honda Engine plant in Anna, OH, I'm amazed at how many large companies and mom and pop shops spring up to support that operation.  What's so amazing is how so many jobs can be ignored by so large a segment of America.  Whenever I hear someone tell a Honda driver to "buy American" I wonder what they're talking about.  I don't know if it's true anymore, but the Ohio-built Honda Accord was for a number of years the MOST American of any car "made in America."  Show me a car company that has invested more in Ohio jobs in the last 20 years than Honda?  Show me a plant newer than the Marysville assembly or Anna engine plants.  My point is, the auto industry in America, and especially in Ohio, isn't dead, there are just a few new names.

There are plenty of viable automotive manufacturers employing thousands of Americans across the U.S.   They don't need bailed out and sales of some of their models have even increased.  Their business model is slightly different than the Big Threes' models. They anticipate and build to the market (what a novel idea to let the market dictate) rather than just building cars that won't be bought to satisfy ill-advised union contracts accepted when times were good. They pay decent wages in a clean, safe environment, and best of all, they pay taxes.  Their employees pay taxes, and they and their employees are likely to survive this recession. That union part is a whole other post, but the business model is a key part of my plan for the auto industry bailout... so now that I've told that story, I can tell this one:

I will add only one modification to my bank bailout rules for the auto industry and it is this:  auto industry execs need not apply.

Don't patronize me with your $1 annual salary offers.  And don't bother telling me you'll now do what Jimmy Carter warned you about in 1977.  We probably shouldn't have done it for the banks either, but two wrongs won't make it right.

Ford says they can weather this storm, having finally acted on Carter's pleas about 28 years later.  Yep, they started building a more fuel efficient product line about three years ago.  They can meet payroll and suffer through until about 2011 according to them, so they don't need it.

Chrysler already had their chance.  I don't know what their prospects are and I've given up trying to understand how much of it belongs to Mercedes, so someone will have to enlighten me on that, but they're out anyway.

The best thing that could happen to GM is to declare bankruptcy and start over.  I'm not sure what effect that will have on the entire U.S. economy, but it's a long time coming.  This is a company who had a production electric car on the market more than ten years ago.  Do you know how many of those they could have sold had they continued to work on that and have, say 100,000 of them perfected and ready to go last spring when gas prices topped $4 a gallon?  Gas will cost that much again, and how much closer to having that old idea ready to go will GM be? They put their money into Hummers, full-size trucks and SUVs not because that's what they predicted the market would bear next year or five years from now, but because that's what was profitable right here and right now.  Now that moment has passed and they find themselves in a bit of a pickle.  Well, you get what you pay for... and what we've paid for all this time.  Don't ask us for more.

My advice to GM is to stick to the small government manifesto that they preached to congress 30 years ago:  let the market run its course.  (actually, they said what's good for GM is good for the nation, but the point was "leave us alone")  So we should heed that point now.  If your business plan accounts for that market, you'll be just fine.  If not, the market will correct itself and you and in the long run we'll all be better for it.  Maybe they should ask their buddies in Big Oil for some extra cash.

I'm sure it will cause quite a ripple if the big G really fails and I'm not sure how comfortably my household will survive it, but like the evil drill sergeant always said during PT, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later."  Might as well pay him now cuz it sure looks like we're all screwed anyway.  Why prolong it?

It doesn't make much sense to offer loans to a company we know can't pay us back when we can buy a majority stake in that company for about 10% of what they seek in loans.  I was an English major, but that's not tough math.  I have to agree in part with Michael Moore - Detroit born and raised, former UAW employee - when he says the best plan for GM would be for the gov't to take it over, convert its facilities to start retrofitting America for mass transit, and when it turns a profit, pay ourselves back and sell it off the highest bidder.  (I know, I know, his arguments are usually just the left version of Rush Limbaugh's... oversimplified, etc. but hey, why not start up a New Deal kind of CCC - Obama's been talking about it anyway.  As soon as we're done in Iraq, we've got a couple a billion a week to pour into it!)

I've heard the argument that cities like LA, who needs it most, were built before true, efficient mass transit was a real concern and that it just won't work there, but I have only one thing to say to that: Rome.  It may not have been built in a day, but it was around a long time before the first commuter train ever appeared.  There's no reason we can't line every major commuter path in American with light rail, skyrocketing the economy and reducing our dependence on so much oil all in the same public works/GM project.  How many frickin jobs will that create?

All right, it's way past my bed time and I've covered more than enough topics for one post.

Laters

Luth

 

Abortions, movie reviews, big government

Well, you couldn't have avoided it on the news. A baby born in Saudi Arabia was pregnant with the fetus with whom she'd previously shared her mother's womb. The Saudi doctors interviewed for the Pravda article I read weren't sure how common, or uncommon this was, but they were sure it was the first time they'd seen it.

Turns out, according to that same Pravda article, it's more common than we might think. By that, I mean the article listed a few other examples of it happening in the recent past - which makes the phenomenon more common than I thought, anyway!

So the natural question that follows, on this blog anyway, is whether or not aborting this "baby" is murder. It's been conceived already so it's a life, but that's not how the medical experts in the Pravda article describe it. Here's a paragraph from the article:

A fetus in fetu can be considered alive, but only in the sense that its component tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. Thus, the life of a fetus in fetu is inherently limited to that of an invasive tumor. In principle, its cells must have some degree of normal metabolic activity to have remained viable. However, without the gestational conditions attainable (so far) only in utero with the amnion and placenta, a fetus in fetu can develop into, at best, an especially well-differentiated teratoma; or, at worst, a high-grade metastatic teratocarcinoma. In terms of physical maturation, its organs have a working blood supply from the host, but all cases of fetus in fetu present critical defects, such as no functional brain, heart, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or urinary tract. Accordingly, while a fetus in fetu can share select morphological features with a normal fetus, it has no prospect of any life outside of the host twin. Moreover, it poses clear threats to the life of the host twin on whom its own life depends.

It's alive, but only in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated. In addition to posing a threat to its "twin host" it is described as a tumor. Which leads me to wonder... how different is that "tumor" from a single fertilized egg in a normal pregnancy? (alive, in the sense that its tissues have not yet died or been eliminated) How about in a pregnancy resulting from rape... in a 12 year old? It poses very similar immediate physical threats in addition to the lifelong less physical threats of raising the child.

It's been explained to me by some very intelligent Catholics that the miracle of conception is the precise moment at which this mass of cells becomes a life worthy of protecting. That's when the soul is... well, whatever... you need faith, not science to follow that part of the explanation. Prior to conception, no problem, but once conceived, whole new ballgame. So the doctors who saved the pregnant Saudi baby's life are murderers. Likewise the doctors who removed the very human remains from a 36 year-old Indian farmer or the 6 month-old Indian boy noted in the same article... murderers all. Well, actually the farmer was the murderer in that case since his body refused to host his former twin for 36 years. His doctors can only be accused of removing the "still-born fetus" from the farmer's abdomen after he finally complained of stomach pains. But enough about that from me... for now.

MOVIES

Took a break from Christmas shopping/holiday travels to see Four Christmases with the Mrs. Luth this weekend. This in spite of a review that said something like: "their difference in height far surpasses their chemistry" referring to Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon's characters. This kind of blather is exactly why I continue to spew my nonsense here. At least I don't expect to be paid for it. While I will agree with that particular reviewers 2.5 of 5 stars overall, I have to wonder if the the reviewer even watched more than about ten minutes of the movie.

Initially, the two main characters offer little more dialogue than the practiced lines about why they've been together for three years but have no plans to get married or have children. They've delivered the practiced lines so many times that it's clear neither of them really believes them anymore. They're just reading from the anti-marriage script and flaunting their selfish crap about not wanting to get bogged down in the legality or the labels. Mistaking that for a lack of chemistry was a pretty clear indication to me that this reviewer didn't know what he was watching.

Two of the four Christmases portrayed could have been shortened considerably, but they had their moments and the other two were downright funny. One in particular relied too heavily on a ridiculous send up of a mega church Christmas eve service. (the warm up music was Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll part 2) That's only funny if you don't already find all that pomp and circumstance ridiculous to begin with. Vaughn is the guy you expect - funny, vulnerable, macho, stupid, clever, tough and wimpy at the same time. Witherspoon is pretty much the same character from Legally Blonde without so much over-blondeness, which is to say, mildly attractive and funny too, so what else did you expect or want from them?  I mistakenly assumed Jon Favreau cast himself in a larger role than usual in the movies he directs, but he was hilarious as the not quite professional cage fighter brother in two of the Vaughn family Christmases.  The scene where he and his equally red-throated wife dominate a game of Taboo was a highlight, but the actual director was Seth Gordon, who, unlike Favreau, resisted the temptation to insert himself as a character.

As a break from the holiday hustle and bustle, it was well worth the money and it made for an enjoyable and rare night out without the kids. I'm not sure it would have fared too well had it had any real competition though. I wasn't really surprised to hear that it took in nearly 40 million in its first weekend, beating out only a kids movie and a vampire movie.  Although it did manage to top a James Bond movie and a third installment of Transporter!! for the weekend take anyway.  

We went, partly to see if it might replace National Lampoons Christmas Vacation among our holiday traditions, but alas, Vacation remains unseated at the top of the Luther Family Christmas traditions.  This reviewer's recommendation: it'll entertain you, but it'll wait for the DVD too.

BIG GOV

My boss is retiring. While cleaning out her office, she ran across the summary report Al Gore prepared for Bill Clinton before they left office that detailed their efforts to reduce, revamp or eliminate government positions, agencies and in general both the size and the scope of federal government. Backed by OBM dollar figures and OPM body counts, it was a pretty amazing look at the party of big government's largely successful efforts resulting in a budget surplus and the smallest gov't since well before the Reagan years. Which begs the question, on this blog anyway, how in the heck can anyone claim to be a Repub these days because they want smaller, more efficient government? I'll try to remember to dig around for a link to the summary report somewhere cuz you have to read it for yourself. But given the cost of gov't over the last 8 years, the price we paid in interest rates, unemployment and inflation after the Reagan-Bush years, and the numbers in the report, it has to be obvious to anyone not blinded by party loyalty that, just like the Party of Lincoln, the roles and goals of the parties have changed quite a bit over the years.

It's stuff like that that helps me justify true independence. I may be liberal, but liberal ideas can be found on both sides of the aisle if you're willing to look with your eyes open. Allowing them to be closed by the blinders of strong party affiliation is what, IMHO, has led us into the quagmire politics has become.

I want better. If they're gonna hook me for 25% of my income, dammit, I want better. I don't care what party brings it as long as it gets brung.

Luth

Out

Illini

It's been over 20 years since I've been in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois. Or is it Champaign-Urbana? Either way, it was about what I remembered... overcast, cold, windy. But it was a lot colder in Memorial Stadium for Illini fans on Saturday since the Buckeyes stomped them to win back the Illibuck (a wooden turtle substituted after the live one expired)(oh yeah, and the Illini juniors won't actually hand it back to their Buckeye counterparts until next year... kind of a weird trophy/ritual, eh?)

Anyhoo, had I given much more thought than I did to this trip when I first learned I was invited back in September - when it was still quite warm and the 5-hour bus ride after my 3-hour drive to Sidney was still months away - I probably would not have gone, but it turned out to be pretty cool.

I went with two brothers- and a father-in-law and though we were all rather tired after beginning the bus trip at 5 am, and all pretty much passed out by (some of us, like me, well before) 9 pm Saturday night, it turned out to be a good time thanks to the Buck's victory and that team from up north's loss. A hatred of that team up north seems to be universal throughout the Big 10 as the entire stadium cheered in unison when the Northwestern score appeared on the scoreboard.

There were at least as many people in scarlet and gray on our side of the field as there were in orange and blue, and most of us were civil, even cordial with each other throughout. There's always that one fan though... and this poor guy got paid back in spades when he left with 2:30 left on the clock. He had just announced loudly an Illini fumble recovery for a huge gain, but when the play was reviewed, overturned, and the ball returned to Ohio State so we could just run out the clock, he and his buddy (who apologized for this guy's behavior all day) got up and left as though no one would notice. That was the loudest the crowd got throughout the game. Cracked me up... the guys next to me too, and they were Illinois fans! I really didn't think the guy was being that obnoxious. I was entertained, but apparently he'd pissed off a lot of others and they were glad to return the favor when he left.

Anyhoo, it was a great game, the rain held off, there was beer for breakfast supplied by our hosts on what was billed as a "non-alcoholic trip," I got my picture taken with a Woody Hayes impersonator, I slept for about 12 hours before the long ride home Sunday morning, and life was, in almost all respects, good.

Except for one thing that's bugging me. I hear Obama has made it clear that he won't support so-called "sagging pants ordinances" like those made famous in Florida. He considers them a waste of time at a time when our nation has bigger fish to fry.

I'm disappointed in his judgment. If we as a nation won't enforce laws upholding common decency, it won't be long before everything goes to hell in the old basket. There will be guns, drugs, crime, unemployment, witches and all kinds of evil overrunning us. For the love of Bob, man do something about the PANTS!

Luth,
Out

Yes we can

I wonder if the way I felt last night and this morning is what people felt when Kennedy was elected. I've never been as excited, and a little scared, over a presidential election in my life.

I remain amazed that people whose parents were born into slavery were able to vote for America's first black president. I was alive to see that. I participated in that. I am proud of my country today... proud in spite of the vitriol Rush Limbaugh is already spewing about the 50 million voters who didn't vote Obama. Rush needed to pay a little more attention to Senator McCain's speech last night.

The fear I feel is the same kind of fear when I take on something new at work... something I'm not sure I can do. It's that fear that makes we want to try it. Without that fear once in a while, I'd be looking for another job. That fear is what gets me out of bed in the morning. The work part is just beginning and I hope that we are ready for it.

For some the hardest part will be throwing away the old model - this is not to say that everything W has done is wrong. He actually got some things right in the second term, quietly, without ever admitting they were wrong in the first term, but what I mean is the model that says government is meant to be tolerated rather than is supposed to serve. Perhaps that's why the line about "government that governs least governs best" is so popular. I don't disagree, necessarily, but if government was really helpful (say, for instance, like VHA!) wouldn't we want it to do more? Anyway, that old model... the fear mongering, the divisive party sniping, has got to go if we're ever to solve the large and complex problems facing us. I'm not saying Obama can lead us through this any better than any other candidate... well, OK, maybe better than Palin, but rather, the enthusiasm, the turnout, the depth of involvement in our political system that he inspired in so many people CAN bring about change that we never imagined possible. We've got to start believing that.

If all we expect from our government is that it doesn't interfere too much with our lives and it doesn't screw up too much, then why would we be surprised if that's all we ever get from our government. I truly feel that Obama's history-making win is a sign that we're ready to expect more... that we believe something better can and should come from government. I believe it means we've decided it's time our government worked in a way that makes us actually want more of it.

I admit I'm not a history buff, but I don't ever remember hearing of a presidential candidate who energized people the way Obama and his campaign did. He is often criticized for having never lead anything bigger than a senate staff or the Harvard Law Review. Not that those aren't impressive credentials, but they pale by comparison to the campaign he pulled off. The money he raise, largely in small contributions, the numbers he motivated to turn out, the absence of game-changing mistakes and the 50-state effort should put to rest the idea that he is not ready to lead a nation. He already has.

Now if that nation is ready to be lead, to believe that we can once again be what our dreams tell us we can, and if Obama can do in office what he managed on the campaign trail, then I don't think we can be stopped. There was a lot of talk during the last few years about how every empire eventually falls and that our time seemed close, but I don't think we're ready for that just yet. I think we've got a little more of a run.

For such a relatively young nation, America often comes off as arrogant... arrogant beyond its years. But so do naive kids. The upside of this is that the same youthful naivete also makes youngsters quick learners and less resistant to change. Kids learn fast because they don't worry as much about embarrassing themselves. (and they'e not afraid of bumps and bruises) They can adapt more readily because they aren't trapped in ruts. I believe the results of this election prove our young nation has exhibited those positive youthful traits. I think we're ready. I think change is beginning. It'll be a little scary. It will take some work. It will probably involve a little arguing, but I think we're worth it. I also think what we can offer the rest of the world once we get back on track might erase some of the years it would otherwise take to fix our reputation outside our borders.

Dropping the old model will be tough for many. Creating a better replacement will be even tougher. But it's worth it.

I think it's an exciting time to be alive. Who's with me?

Luth,
Out

Tomorrow's the big day/Luth's tax plan

Will we decide we're ready to get on with our lives, that government should serve us and not just be tolerated by us? Who knows. I'm sure the changes we're all holding our collective breath for are beyond the reach of any one president, but I'm also pretty sure another rich white guy who doesn't seem to know what he stands for and who's running mate is less qualified than my father-in-law (seriously) to run the country ain't the answer.

I had hoped to discuss a lot of things on here before now. I had hoped to give a brief lesson on the Laffer Curve, made most famous outside of economic circles in Ferris Beuhler's Day Off by Ben Stein's character... and how even conservative economists all but shot it down within its first year in public light because, among various other problems with it, one interpretation is that if it's true, and if we haven't reached the peak point of taxation, then MORE taxes are the answer to economic growth, not less. Another problem is that there was never enough data to suggest this wasn't the case. Turns out it's almost impossible to follow up on the theory of such a dynamic issue using only static data. That's why the theory is discredited among economists but works so well in a campaign wherein the greatest virtue seems to be being just like Joe the (insert trade of choice here)rather than having some complex vision for our future. If you don't have to think it through, it sounds great. It's Limbaugh Logic and it polls all too well with Joe Six Pack!

I had hoped to talk more about how or why John McCain somehow escaped the scrutiny faced by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or John Edwards. I still don't get that. Since the primaries started, I've been amazed by what I've learned about Senator McCain. As I've made abundantly clear, I really thought he was one of few congressmen earning his keep, but looking back over his career (military and political) now makes him look a lot more like someone who simply latched on to what would gain him some ground for his next election. And I get that you have to win before you can do anything else, but if his plan is different from W's, then he hasn't really proposed anything else yet... except a McCain victory, which, based on his career history, is about all he's planned.

I don't know if a president has the ability to truly shape our economy, but I know that the guy who turned the place over to W left him some extra money, a warning about Bin Laden, and a rolling economy. Eight years later we're back in the extrapolated Reagan era - big business is rolling in it while the rest of us are wondering what we'll have to cut next... still waiting for the trickle. It didn't work for Reagan in most senses and it isn't working now.

I have an economic theory that those of us in the bottom 95% really make up more of our economy than we're given credit for. Even in these economic times, we still have to fill our tanks, buy groceries, pay the bills. That day to day spending IS the American economy. Yacht, mansion, and Bentley orders may be down, but we still have to get to the store weekly to keep the cupboards full, even if the economy means they're full of peanut butter, jelly and store brand bread. The bottom 95% of income earners in America are the ones who buy the products that the top 5% are selling. The last eight years have proven that they can only rob from us for so long before we don't have any money left to buy anything anymore. That's when the economy collapses. That's where we are. That's why a progressive tax makes at least as much sense as the Laffer Curve as an economic principle.

A progressive tax plan says simply that those who benefit most from the resources government provides pay the most for those resources. Is it really that crazy? Is that really socialist? (maybe in the sense that FDR, Warren Buffet, Allan Greespan and John McCain are, well used to be, socialists) I drive one car on the road, have one house that needs fire protection, draws electricity off the public grid, etc. and so on. Should I really pay a larger portion of my income for those roads, power, etc. than Sam Walton (for instance), who as a result of using the entire country's roads, power grids, sewers, etc. also pockets more profit than I ever aspire to? There's nothing wrong with him making as much money as he has, but it comes with a tax liability equal to if not in excess of my own. Is it really crazy to think otherwise? I'll share that burden with him in the form of sales taxes and abatements to defray the cost of him opening up a new store, but after that, he's on his own. Is that really too much to ask? Is that perspective so crazy?

Look at it this way: I have a house, he has a house. I have an income, he has an income. I have a job, he has a job. So far we're equal and we're taxed equally. but Sam also has a fleet of trucks spread out across the American highways. He's got stores and warehouses scattered over every state. Each one requires government funded roads, power, water, sewer, police and fire protection. Given that I don't profit from all of those assets, why should I share the tax burden they require?

Jobs you say? Sure those assets of Sam's provide jobs... for people who also pay income taxes, shop at Wal-Mart and pay sales taxes. The only guy left out of the picture here in the Laffer Curve model is the owner of that vast network. The burden is his. It is NOT a penalty for his success, it's his responsibility. Let me repeat that, it is NOT a penalty for his success. It is his RESPONSIBILITY. It is the part of the American dream that begets future American dreams. If Sam's stuff sucks up more of those services we're all paying for, then Sam needs to pay more than those of us who aren't sucking up more of the services. It is selfish to think otherwise. It is unpatriotic to think otherwise. It is greedy to think otherwise. It is illogical to think otherwise. That burden is Sam's. That burden can only be shouldered by the bottom 95% of American taxpayers for so long. We're reaping the results of the flawed Laffer Curve model being the basis of our economy for 20 of the last 28 years. How much longer must we test a theory we know to be flawed. How much more of "the wealth" must be redistributed from the bottom 95% to the top 5% before we can no longer afford those roads, power grids, services any longer?

Redistribution of wealth isn't some abomination of a libertarian tax plan in a capitalist society, it's one of the primary reasons for taxes. Taxes fund government and government provides the basic services that would be unreasonable for individuals, including individual corporations, to provide on their own. Asking those who use and benefit most from those services to pay the most for them isn't socialist. In fact little could be more American. We all pay our own way here... except for all those things we share the cost of that government provides. Why shouldn't Sam pay his share of that?

I doubt anyone who would be swayed by my ramblings will read this before they head to the polls tomorrow, but there's always 2012.

Here's to a bright new America, starting Wednesday!

Luth,
Out

What it really boils down to

I know I promised to plagiarize more of the Tom Dickinson article that lays out why one more rich white guy shouldn't be president, but I'm tired of playing the game of arguing over things as presented by the two party system that most Americans actually agree over about 99% of the time between elections.

So here it is: I want a president who is thoughtful, intellectually curious, even-tempered, firm in resolve, but not afraid to admit he (or she) doesn't know everything and who is not ruled strictly by ideology or party politics. That's it. I'll deal with just about everything else... party, issues stance, you name it. I just want someone who can and has made sound decisions as opposed to someone who fancies himself "the decider."

Given those requirements, I obviously have to be willing to accept things about that president that I may not agree with. I'm OK with that. I guess that's the liberal in me. But it's worth it to me to buy off on a few issues in exchange for someone who considers more than one option before stubbornly choosing a path the rest of us must follow... and pay for.

There's only one candidate in this race who fits that description. His past performance is a long list of evidence of this mild mannered curiosity both in his personal and public lives and he's demonstrated it throughout the campaign as well. His opponent, on the contrary, has made of career of just the opposite, which, contrary to his claims, makes him exactly like the president we've lived under for that past two terms. How's that workin' for ya. But this post isn't about him.

I wonder if being a self-made man (or woman), acquiring one's wealth and fame (or notoriety) in one's own generation, by one's own efforts is what makes this kind of candidate? Now that I think about it, Bubba Clinton fits that part of the description. Few other candidates have. Most rich white guys that we elect come from legacies they didn't have to earn. In fact, the most recent, if left to their own decisions, would likely have squandered those legacies guaranteeing that no good came of them and that their offspring didn't get the benefit of them.

Barack Obama knows better. He's made his own way. He knows that this nation provided him the opportunities he's taken full advantage of by his own efforts - the definition of the American dream. If he were a Republican, I'd vote for him. If he were pro-life, I'd vote for him. I think too much has been made of his faith, but I'm going to vote for him.

I like the fact that his financial support comes largely in $10 - $100 amounts. Sure, he has the same big contributors that all candidates of his stature have these days, but he's got more grass roots, small contributors than anyone in our era. He's won hearts and wallets one citizen at a time. That may not mean much to everyone, but to me, it means he's beholden to citizens from all walks, not just the big time contributors. He's kind of like the NPR of candidates. They've got their big sponsors, but they can't survive without the little guys too, and they deliver based on that understanding.

I expect the same of my president. Four years from now, we'll check in and see how things went, but I'll put my money on the thinking man (or woman) any time.

Luth
Out

I am not George Bush

That's a pretty good line, and while it may be true in most respects, like, say, the names on the birth certificates, much of their lives, political and otherwise, are so similar that they could both be the same character in Oliver Stone's largely fictionalized new movie about W. Or is it about McPain?

Both are political opportunists whose platforms change with what they think it will take to get elected. Often, McCain's sole purpose in distancing himself from Bush (though he backs the war and the tax policies he once voted against) is purely where the polls say such a stance will put him.

Both spouted the "we will be greeted as liberators" crap, but now say they knew all along it would be a long, difficult process.

Both have associated with - and McCain was even reprimanded for it - shady, convicted fundraisers.

Both have defended contributing CEOs who run their companies into the ground, bail out under golden parachutes, and then deny any accountability to their shareholders. (and both like to use the term "accountability" when it comes to $28,000/year teachers!)

Both are third generation prodigies who squandered every opportunity provided them by their privileged births and yet, in spite of the failures in their wake, always seemed to end up better off than they were before the screw-up, due not to their own abilities to land on their feet (neither of them usually did) but rather because of their fathers' and grandfathers' stature.

Both have histories of drug or alcohol influenced, occasionally violent, womanizing episodes they rarely speak of these days. In fact, McCain lost all favor with the Reagans when he divorced his first wife, although that didn't stop him from invoking Uncle Ronnie on the campaign trail. Nancy's endorsement of McCain, long after he was named the party's candidate was a brutally limp, "Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party." (and he STILL claims he's a Reagan Republican!) (and to be fair on this aspect, Bush seems to have at least put his marital life in order)

Both have, at least at some points in their careers, alternately spoken out against and in favor of campaign finance laws, negative campaigning, deregulation of industry, smaller government and balanced budgets.

Both used their fathers' influence to map out their military careers. McCain used his father's influence to actually participate in a war that Bush used his father's influence to avoid. But both were self serving motivations. McCain saw his quickly fading chance to gain command in the Navy rapidly slipping by unless he somehow parlayed his less than stellar flying record into a combat mission in Vietnam. (At that point, he'd succeeded only in destroying two U.S. Navy planes, and, to be fair, he would later even that record out by destroying two parked Russian MiGs) Most pilots lose that privilege after destroying the first U.S. plane. McCain got two chances and a shot at some medal-worthy missions after that.

To be fair to Bush, he was apparently a better pilot than McCain, but (and to be fair to McCain) due to Bush's cushy assignment to a plane that would never be deployed in Vietnam, we'll never really know) To be fair to McCain, he fulfilled his enlistment and has the paperwork to prove it... a rather long, though undistinguished Navy career compared to Bush's prematurely-ended-without-documentation Air National Guard Career. So yeah, there are some significant differences when it comes to military records to balance out some of the striking similarities. In fact, McCain's record almost makes Bush seem like the honorable one.

Both got into grad school - McCain to War College and Bush; Harvard - in spite of very poor academic performance, due to their pedigrees. In spite of these privileges, both would always suffer the Oedipal curse of never living up to their fathers' examples. And both would parlay their mediocre (at best) military histories to a base of voters who will believe anything the right candidate tells them as long as it sounds macho and especially if it involves fighter planes or Alaskan babes who shoot large animals.

McCain's Navy history really sheds some light on his true character. If you ask him, or listen to his campaign, he is a hero for having ignored protocol, getting shot down, and having been taken prisoner. I'll give him all due respect for surviving the prisoner part, but his previous flying record shows a history of bad decisions in the cockpit consistent with many of his colleagues' stories about how he probably should have (and his aircraft could have) avoided being shot down.

Then there's his story about how he refused the offer of early release, a story McCain has used to build his hero status. Again, all due respect for having survived that ordeal, but so did 600 fellow captives (as well as thousands of others) refuse the offer... in accordance with the Code of Conduct which forbids making deals with one's captors or making statements against the U.S., which was one of the conditions of his early release. This deal was most likely offered to all of McCain's fellow captors and all refused. Yet only one of them is touting it as a qualification to become president. (It should be noted that only one of them received medical care when his captors realized - somehow - that he was the son of a top admiral in the U.S. Navy) McCain himself admits that his POW experience provides him with "a good story to sell." Says retired Air Force Lt. Colonel John Dramesi, also a Vietnam POW, "McCain says his life changed when he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man, but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

Dramesi's memory of McCain includes a conversation they had shortly after finishing their stints in military graduate school. (McCain the National War College thanks to dad, Dramesi; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, without a dad's influence) Both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for graduates so they can gain a little shadowing experience with more experienced military officers on duty overseas. Dramesi told McCain he chose the Middle East because he expected it would play into the nation's future. McCain told him he was crazy... that he was going to Rio where he'd "stand a better chance of getting laid."

Yep, just like he said at the convention...service above self, honor, duty, country... you know, that old chestnut.

I must disclose the source of all of this revelation - Tom Dickinson's article in March 29's Rolling Stone. And I must tell you that I'm disclosing it because much of Matt Taibbi's recent stories for the same magazine about McPalin include tons of unverified reports that come from the likes of liberal versions of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and which were later destroyed by FactCheck.org... but only after being spread throughout the liberal blog world like documented Alaskan history. But where Taibbi is fun to read due to his blatant, but spot on editorializing about how stupid we are as voters, that same editorializing warns you fairly that he's writing a column, not a hard news story. Dickinson's piece warns you fairly that if you've fallen for McCain's "I'm not George Bush" bullshit, you should really watch something besides Fox News for just a few minutes per day. Start slow... maybe with Sesame Street, and work your way up. Maybe even read a few lines from Faith of My Fathers... who am I kidding, like their president, these people don't read books!

I must also disclose that Dickinson's main source was McCain's books (Faith of My Fathers and !! (since McCain's camp never returned Dickinson's calls) in addition to interviews with former colleagues.

Over the next few days, I hope to hit on some of the other sections of Dickinson's article in order to provide his take on McCain's "character" before election day.

Dickinson cites quite a few Republicans who feel McCain simply is not suited to be president... some even question whether or not he should be a senator. My purpose in posting this is to pass on some information I've never seen before regarding a man's career I once looked favorably upon. I didn't blame Colin Powell for not seeking the presidency in 2000 cuz I wouldn't want to subject my family to this kind of scrutiny, but McCain apparently has no qualms about it even if it looks like he won't stand the test of it.

Now where is the liberal media on this seemingly easy to hit hanging curveball?

Hey, come to think of it, McCain has something in common with Obama too - they "pal around with terrorists." McCain not only co-chaired a committee with Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, he named him his foreign policy advisor.

That's not all he shares with Obama. In 1993, McCain opposed US involvement in Somalia and, get this, sponsored an amendment to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR US TROOPS there! (I'm pretty sure he said that was unpatriotic when Obama refused to vote for a bill that lacked a timeline... which is a far cry from sponsoring an amendment!) Oh, and they've both been against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" (McCains words... Obama's vote, though, to be fair, McCain has apparently changed his mind about this too)

Oh man... this is HUGE! I can't wait until the liberal media gets hold of this stuff. It's going to be all over CNN, MSNBC, the networks, all cable except Fox. Those liberal bastards are going to be all over this. It will destroy McCain in the polls and they won't even have to bring up his womanizing like they did with ol' Bubba. When the liberal press finds out about this stuff, most of which is covered in McCain's books or has been a matter of record since the 70's.... hey, wait a minute. What the hell has happened to the vast liberal bias of our press?!

Luth,
Out

Christians, please consider the unborn in your vote

Given the actual issues facing our nation, to even be reminded that presidential elections in this country have come down to this philosophical tail-chase makes me want to move to Canada, or some other place where folks outscore us on those achievement tests on which we keep falling so far behind.

NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT has ever had an abortion and given the candidates we have now, that will be true for at least another 4 years so his stance on the issue is moot. Irrelevant. Not likely to come up in the next Iraq summit. Not likely to come up in the next bailout hearing. Not likely to come up in the next energy policy development session. Not likely to come up in the next "what will replace our auto industry" discussion. Not likely to come up in the N. Korea... well you get the point.

Look people, I think we can all agree that to even be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion means you're in a horrible situation. For it to be the favorable choice, it's probably even worse. No one WANTS to have an abortion. No one sets out to be in that position. But there ARE circumstances under which... no, forget that. Let's not even talk about it. It's not the point. The point is, it's NOT presidential selection material by at least 10 or 1000 more pressing, day to day national issues. This is indisputable for many, many reasons, but I'll list just a few.

1) It doesn't matter. Given Bush's track record in his first term, I have to assume that a large number of folks voted for him the second time purely on the abortion issue. He's probably the most outspoken anti-abortion candidate we've had in a long time and yet what has he accomplished for those folks in return for that vote? Nada. Zip. No change whatsoever. So what did that pro-life vote get us? (here you should list: the war, the economic crisis, the failed response to one national disaster after another, the largest deficit in our history, the largest sale of that debt to foreign nations ever)

2) Economic policy has a far greater impact on the number of abortions than a president's personal views. Check back through CBO and Catholic Charities stats... the numbers of abortions go down when social program spending goes up. (note: this includes jobs programs as well as flat out welfare, so we're not just talking handouts and note that on this issue in particular, jobs programs have a far more dramatic effect than trickle down theories, but that's only based on the stats - I'm no economist) I'll venture a guess that our current economic situation will end up having an adverse effect on Bush's ability to curtail abortions. (it almost sounds ridiculous to say that, doesn't it? "Bush's ability to curtail abortion..." You're right, it's not part of the job description. It's not up to him. That's another reason why it's a stupid factor to consider anywhere near the top of the list.)

3) A true sign of leadership is one's ability to put one's personal views aside and consider the needs of all first. Now I obviously feel that this means stopping the abortion discussion before it starts and tackling the national issues that are the most pressing. You don't have to agree with me on that, but you have to admit, the inverse of what I'm saying here is that leadership = selfishness. I know it's a fallacy to try to prove a point by disproving it's inverse, but given the number of folks who believe Palin is a legitimate candidate to be president, I figured I'd offer an easy to follow, Limbaugh-esque argument. Besides, W has proven what happens when you get the inverse, so I don't really have to rely on the fallacy.

4) see the last two sentences in #2

5) Often, the selection based on this particular non-criterion is deeply religious based. That's fine for an individual, but don't try to impose that irrational motivation on the rest of us. Believe or not, there are folks in the world (religious and otherwise, pro-life and otherwise) who like to apply a little bit of rationality to their important decisions. I'm not saying faith should never play a part in an individual's decision, but faith, by definition is irrational, so don't try to invoke it as part of a rational argument when attempting to convince others. If you want religion to play a greater role in your government, move to southwest Asia. They're big on that kind of thing. We have a constitution designed to make rationality the basis of our laws. It's reasonable to discuss the issue in legal terms, compare it to murder, etc. but don't just tell me it's wrong, especially when it will save the life of an underage rape victim sentenced to death by an ectopic pregnancy she had no say in creating.

That's enough of that. I wanted to shed light on some of the other crazy-assed things I've heard from McPalin backers:

"Clinton sold us out to China" (not sure what the basis of this one is, but I know our debt became real easy for China to buy AFTER Bush spent the last of Clinton's surplus and began spending us into the place where we are now. We're cheaper and easier to buy today than we've ever been and it's true... China's doing the buying, but Clinton ain't at the helm.)

"I like her (Palin) she seems real." (I agree... a real girl next door... a real Miss Alaska... a real totally unqualified to lead the country neighbor. I'd probably like her too, but not as the leader of the free world. Doesn't anyone remember where the old "I'd rather have a beer with that one" standard got us?)

"Obama's an Arab/Muslim" I hope Colin Powell put both of the reasons why this is idiotic to rest: 1. He's not. 2. So what if he were? Saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists is as crazy as saying all Christians are David Koresh or Jim Jones or Rev. Wright Carter was a Baptist. Kennedy was Catholic. If this argument holds any weight, it's an argument in favor of electing an atheist. After all, if A religion can be wrong, then ALL religions can be wrong. Ironically, atheism is probably the only "spiritual" denomination that CAN'T get elected in this dumbass country.

"McCain's the true Christian" Not only is the idea of a religious litmus test strictly prohibited by our constitution, but this idea isn't supported by his actions. Obama is a Christian as the result of a lifetime of searching for his own spirituality, which included having observed a number of varying faiths. He asked a lot of questions and continues to search for answers. That's faith. That's a spiritual journey. That's believing in something. McCain, on the other hand, is a "Christian" by virtue of something he wrote down on a congressional bio a number of years ago. This is no secret... the church-going only seems to come out when cameras are around prior to an election. McCain all but admits to this... the news hounds have the evidence making the admission unnecessary, but those liberal bastards are keeping all this to themselves! This is actually one of the reasons I liked the pre-party-mind-melded McCain.

So anyway, yeah, consider the unborn in your vote, but only if you're Christian... that's what the signs say. I guess everyone else is free to consider where we want to be as a nation in four years.
Luth,
Out.

Another disappointing debate

Now that the Clintons are firmly in the Obama camp, Bill needs to give a few lessons to Obama on how to poke the bear with a smile on his face. On several occasions during this week's debate, McCain was clearly on the verge of exploding. All it would have taken was just a little stirring of his boiling pot and he would have lost it. I kept having day dreams of McCain tearing off his lapel mic, throwing it down on the desk and stomping off, but instead, Obama remained cool and calm, as always, and took the high road most of the night.

I'm torn, because this is one of the things I like most about Obama. I look forward to our nation being lead by a calm, educated, rational (for the most part) thinker who actually listens, considers, seeks input, and is clearly willing to admit he doesn't know everything before flying off and firmly declaring his next stubborn intention.

But just once I'd like to see McCain lose it and show his true colors. His temper is no secret and as long as we're deciding our next president based on ridiculously irrelevant factors, one's ability to maintain self control actually sounds pretty important. Why won't Obama just push him a little closer to that edge?

I mentioned this to a colleague the morning after the debate and he noted that Obama can't risk appearing to be "the angry black man." I hadn't thought of that, but it sure made sense once he said it. After all, look at what the media (yeah, those dirty liberals) did to Michelle! People still think she's angry and I suppose this is what scares me the most... that the "Bradley Effect," a euphemism for racist ignorance, will render the actual election a lot closer than the polling shows. The special edition of SNL tonight noted this rather succinctly when a Jesse Jackson character on "SNL News" quoted a poll saying 87% of Americans said they would, in fact, vote for a black man. The follow up question was, "Really?" and the numbers were almost a reciprocal... with only 25% saying they would. Under the cover of the voting booth curtain, I'm afraid we're still a lot more racist than we like to believe.

But back to the debate. There were so many easy pitches to hit that Obama just laid off of I almost wanted to scream. Seriously... that question about why you think your running mate is more qualified to run the country? If I were McCain, I would have asked if I could just pass on that one! Obama had the perfect opportunity to note how his own experience (which makes him seem like a seasoned old pro when compared to Palin) was a favorite topic of McCain's up until Palin was selected, but instead he simply replied with "we'll let the American voters decide."

PUHLEASE!

And how many times do we have to go over the Bill Ayers thing? If you get your news from anyone other than Hannity, you must know by now how ridiculous McPalin's claims are regarding the work Obama did on a bi-partisan committee that just happened to include Ayers as well as several noted Republicans. Why aren't the Republicans on that committee included as having run around with terrorists?

And ACORN? Apparently they're a real patriotic organization when they register Republicans, but when they register Dems, they're cheaters and liars. McCain was their keynote speaker at an immigration event in Florida in 2006 and has supported the grass roots organization fairly consistently up until very recently. Perhaps his newest backers don't like the organization made up primarily of low and middle income American citizens. The membership apparently isn't patriotic enough these days.

Then there's the Palin record that McCain spoke so much about... her tax cutting record?... that's not how most Wasilla residents who are still paying for the hockey arena that seats more people than live in the town see it. And what was that bridge going to cost taxpayers?

Which brings me to another question I've been pondering... Republicans often accuse Dems of saying "trust us to spend your money." And with that, I've often seen the point. But after the last seven years... and throughout the Reagan-Bush era, the alternative seems to be "trust our rich friends with your money and maybe some of it will make it back down to you." That too has some theoretical validity, but practice has proven over and over again (a 12 year stint for Reagan-Bush and now nearly 8 more) that it just doesn't work. Under Republicans, not only has government expanded, but it's cost more than ever. That's not technically a tax increase, but we're paying for it no matter what you call it. Over the last 7 years we've seen that the true difference between Repub and Dem economic policy is that while Dems tax and spend, Repubs just spend. The fact that all that spending will somehow have to be paid for by taxpayers will be ok as long as it's not called a tax increase.

Call it what you want - if it feels better for you, I'll pretend it's not really a tax increase - but when the American public pays off the debt this Republican administration has racked up, it's a tax... on us and our kids and their kids.

And finally, Joe the (not a) plumber. I don't care if the guy's got a license or not. What really pisses me off is the idea that a real guy and a purely hypothetical problem were all presented as actual as though Obama actually yanked the American dream from this guy who apparently didn't even take high school accounting. If a two-employee business is really clearing $250 grand a year, then they should be taxed at a ridiculous rate. The tax will teach them to hire a better accountant or give themselves better salaries (you know, expenses that reduce their profit) Every small business with half a brain knows the business itself never makes a profit, let alone $250k.

And speaking of distorted interpretations of tax plans, Parade magazine ran an article this weekend headlined "How much will you pay?" Note the last word in that headline: PAY. The most prominent text in the article was a table that actually listed how much taxpayers in each category would SAVE, not PAY. Most folks (those making less than $250k a year) make out far better under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan, but if all you read is the headline and the table, just the opposite appears to be true. Is this the kind of LIBERAL media trick folks are always talking about? Yep, for 95% of Americans and even a slightly higher percentage of small businesses, the Obama plan represents a tax cut. So if that's what you're looking for and you don't earn McCain-type money, O's your man.

I don't think I'm done quite yet, but I'm tired of this again.

Luth,
Out.

Liberals and Conservatives

I had planned for this post to be a sort of return to erudition after that last rant. Sadly, that would require more discipline (and erudition) than I have. But I will offer this endorsement of the latest fascinating TED video I've watched:


(I can't get the $#%@! link to work so paste this in your browser and smoke it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/
jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

I don't know if I've ever actually gotten around to sharing how wonderful this whole TED thing is on here yet... I know I've meant to on several occasions when I've vowed to try to post something more than once a month, but I don't know that I ever did it.

Anyhoo, in this particular video, psychologist Jonathan Haidt gives a scientific explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives. And get this, there's no screaming or name calling and he explains that BOTH have morals!! I know, I know... it's crazy. Anyhoo, I can't possibly do justice to his prepared 19 minute talk so you'll just have to watch it on your own. All I will say is that it gave me immeasurable insight into my own sort of multiple personality leanings. In fact, if there's any merit to his explanation, I'm probably not alone. His most salient point (IMHO) was that while liberals might be the ones who embrace new ideas, NO new ideas can be exchanged when either side assumes groupthink and fails to acknowledge ideas from the other. It's the teaming up that makes both sides stupid! Ain't it great how we minimize this weakness during election season?!

OK, now on to the real poup.

I was entertained by the morning's speech returns from McPalin, who derided Obama for "sitting on the sidelines" rather than getting involved, like McCain, in solving our current financial crisis. What was really entertaining was when this second attempt at getting involved failed. There are a couple of points here that McPalin seems to have missed, but first I have to instill my own false logic into the picture with one little reminder. McCain, suspending his campaign, except for about a day's worth of appearances in his "rush" to DC to solve the problem, arrived shortly after what seemed like a deal had been struck. Then the deal went sour.

That's a post hoc ergo proctor hoc there... it happened after so it must have happened because of. (It's a fallacy... not really logical to assume that McCain's presence shot the deal down) I know, I know, but I had to do it. It's what people do during the campaign season!

Anyhoo, this morning, McPalin was all "I got in there and rolled up my sleeves" and he was like "Obama was all sitting on the sidelines."

But then another deal went sour and the speeches changed a little. After the news that the latest version of corporate welfare had failed, leaving us precariously teetering on the edge of financial failure, McPlain was all, "Obama and his Democrat allies are playing a dangerous game in blocking this bill... toying with hard working Americans' money by calling Paulson's bluff." See how they did that - they pulled Obama off the sidelines, put him into the game, and then blamed him. Touche... no one will see through that!

But then the news broke that it was actually House Republicans who felt the deal was a little too pro-banker (which in this case was deemed "fiscally unconservative") and McPalin was all, "oh... now what?"

I can understand their shock. House Republicans voting against making the rich richer? Since when? Isn't that what this administration is all about? Where's the executive influence on the hill? Where's the Newt when we need him to put another contract on America? Has the world shifted off its axis?

While we're on the subject, let's call this bailout plan what it is: welfare. Remember how universal health care was called "socialist" or "too expensive" and any social program, hell, taxes in general were labeled a redistribution of wealth rewarding non-producers? Now why would it be called anything different when the money flows the other way? More importantly, why are we just now realizing only this latest round of it when it's been the MO of this administration since day one... corporate tax breaks, oil royalties forgiven, CEO's hiding behind corporate law ("no individual was to blame") and avoiding prosecution while accepting their golden parachutes funded by looting the savings of their middle class investors... how are we just noticing this full-on sell out of 95% of America to the wealthiest 5%? Oh, yeah, it's because the 5% gambled with their winnings and lost!

What Bush/Paulson have proposed to fix it is the largest single tax hike in American history. They are about to tax every single man, woman and child in the country to the tune of about $2500.00. (that's 700 billion/300 million with some rounding in my favor) That doesn't sound like much, but it makes their cheesy little "economic stimulus" checks sound like a really lame idea. Never mind that about half of those folks didn't report any income, or that this is about twice the amount of actual welfare in the 2006 budget. ("Means Tested Entitlements FY 2006")

It's welfare... only it's cool when it's for the rich, even if it's only necessary because their latest gamble didn't pay off. Not one penny of this will put a lower middle class family back into their foreclosed upon home after they missed one payment. And the real real shitty part is that we HAVE to do it! It won't make life any easier for those of us who have been paying the giant corporate salaries or whose money these guys have been gambling with but since Wall Street is on the verge of missing a whole bunch of payments - though no fault of the American taxpayer or investor, as a result of that gamble, WE have to cough it up. Because if we don't we'll see exactly to whom Bush has actually sold America: China, Japan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia...

Remember all that debt that Republican economists keep telling us isn't real money? I'm thinking the folks who hold the notes for it think it's pretty real and I'm thinking they'll want to cash out when AIG gets a taste of their own medicine. So yeah, we have no choice now. We have to pump mass cash into the "level playing field of the open market." And we will, but next time around, let's not forget the high water mark of this debacle.

As of now, it's only reached a few feet into the middle class, but by McPalin's standards, that middle class extends into those households that earn $5 million a year. If you're not in that top 5% to whom this welfare is being handed, you're not safe either. Who knows how high the water will actually reach before a bailout bill is finally accepted. I'm only cocky because all I own is debt. (of course, unlike naked short sellers, my debt is in the form of a house) Either way, when it's called in, I'm a free man... homeless, but free! I don't have much to lose. And I don't expect anyone to bail me out.

It certainly calls to mind one of my favorite bumper stickers: If you're a Republican and you're not rich, you're stupid." (don't go there, Ray, there are some good Dem stickers too, but they don't fit this particular rant)

Maybe stupid is too harsh a word, but for those of us firmly in the middle class who are one illness or one downsizing away from bankruptcy, this one comes dangerously close. Do you still think only Democrats tax and spend? Do you still think government shouldn't regulate industry upon which the national economy rests? Do you still think the war in Iraq was a good way to spend our money? Do you still think abortion is the most important issue facing the nation? I only mention abortion here cuz everyone's familiar with China's stance on it. Since they own a ton of our debt, we could soon be one of them! Your last pro-life vote could result in us being subsumed by the second largest pro-choice proponents in the universe!

Back to the point: The bail out is a tax funded welfare program. The biggest of it's kind in history. We either suck it up, or we become Chinese. Once it's in place, we'll be closer to socialism than we've ever been. We've become the French. At least our flag has the right colors!

Luth,
Out

Still only a few points difference, seriously?

I felt an urgent need I could no longer ignore for this short, sweet post. I'll warn you right from the start that it's a rant, nothing more.

First, I must repeat it once again, I used to like this McCain guy. If he remains a senator I probably will again AFTER this election is over, but COME ON. How can anyone seriously be considering voting for this guy after the last seven years, the nasty campaign, the lessons learned over a similar 12-year experiment under Reagan and Bush 41 that resulted in a triple double (inflation, interest rates and unemployment) and the initial steps toward the deregulation that dumped today's economic crisis in our laps on top of everything else right now?

Does an attractive VP who says the right things on TV REALLY wash away her career that flies in the face of those TV promises? Wasn't her selection so blatant and obvious an attempt to inject gender and age (Hillary voters) to the ticket that even the most right-leaning Repub HAS to see through it? Even long-time Repubs are asking if there wasn't someone more qualified he could have picked... some congresswoman or governor. And how does family values now include pregnant, unwed teens? Isn't that what the family values folks always told us they'd do away with? Doesn't it strike anyone else as disingenuous at best that "at least she didn't abort" has become the standard to replace "just say no?!"

Are a few TV promises that are clearly contradictory to the pair's track record really all it takes to leave us in the complacency... now downward spiral where we don't even care about the issues as long as we get the party right? Are folks so bent on their party loyalty that the BS of the campaign is all it takes to make us forget our jobs, our homes, our health care, our children's futures, our common sense?

Look. If you don't like Obama or the Democratic Party that much, then vote for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, or just don't even vote. I never thought I'd say that, but how can you seriously consider McCain-Palin? Sure they're NOT the SAME as W, but they HAVE based their campaign on supporting his two favorite issues: the economy and the war. On those issues, they may not be the same, but they're certainly in the same camp and where has it gotten us? After choosing the candidate with whom you'd rather have a beer, can't we agree that being just like us isn't the best reason to choose the guy in the top post? Hell, if that's your criteria, then I want to be your president. I'm fun to have a beer with!

Yes, this is a challenge for someone to convince me that McCain is still the guy I thought he was as a senator who got the job done. It's the second time I've issued this challenge. If you bother to read more than the one little detail you came here to either agree with or rail against, you'd know that I'll consider just about any argument. I'll defend my position, but I'll also listen intently to and seriously weigh those of others. I've listened throughout the campaigns believing, at least at the beginning, that it would be the first in my lifetime that actually offered us two good choices as opposed to the lesser of two evils. I no longer believe that and given the lunacy of the McCain campaign, I can't believe anyone is still falling for it to the point that it's even remotely close.

Look, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent with a little "i" because it's not a party. I vote for the best candidate regardless of party and I've voted for more Repubs in the last 10 years than I have Dems. I'm liberal in that I expect others to consider new ideas and to bear some responsibility for the welfare of others when they can. I'm conservative when it comes to personal responsibility, including that responsibility to occasionally be my brother's keeper when I have the means and he has the need. And I really think that my fellow voters have a responsibility to give me something better than the party line to explain why this guy is still a viable presidential candidate. I really tried to find it on my own and I'm simply stunned that it just doesn't seem to be there when you strip away the party trappings and yet, the polls have it as just a few point difference. Somebody explain that to me.

Does anyone out there honestly believe McCain is backing out of the debate in order to save our economy after he worked so hard to do away with the kinds of regulation we're now considering imposing? C'mon. He's got no chance to come out of that debate with anything but lost support and he knows it. Like Obama or not, he's going to clean up... or maybe not. Maybe the debate is what I need to change my mind, but without McCain involved, I won't get the chance, so somebody's got to help me see what half of our polled voters see in this ticket. Broaden my perspective before the debate... or before McCain ducks it.

W is talking legacy still and it's time we all consider what that might actually be... first and foremost there's the war. No matter how you feel about that, the legacy of how it was sold to us and how it's gone thus far is not going to be pretty. Then there's the nationalizing of the banking industry - the closest move toward socialism we've had since the Depression all while telling us out the other side of the face that nationalized health care is a bad idea and government should keep its hands off industry. Then there's the growing divide between the top 1% of wage earners and the bottom 99% which was supposed to materialize into/trickle down by creating all kinds of economic growth but instead resulted in all kinds of foreign ownership and record unemployment. And finally there's what all of this luxury will cost us: yep the national debt! Now that's a legacy our great grandchildren can share!

Thus far, McCain has promised to shore up that legacy by augmenting it. He wants the war to continue to be the biggest drain on our economy indefinitely with no objectives to signal its success or failure or completion. He'll make up for that, apparently, by admitting that his laissez-fair economic policy for the last 26 years was wrong then borrowing even more taxpayer money to bail out the campaign contributors who benefited most from those policies and whose golden parachutes are apparently not enough to sustain them while the rest of us fall farther and farther into the hole supporting them by running their plants and building their products for paychecks that buy less and less and benefits that are all but extinct.

Does anyone out there still think that someone's stance on gay marriage or abortion means more than a rat's ass compared to the issues the next president must solve? Are those two issues and gun laws REALLY what we're voting on this year? Does a label like conservative or liberal or Dem or Repub REALLY factor into any of this anymore? Have we become that dependent on sound bites and empty rhetoric? I've read more articles on how the candidates are handling the press than I have on what the candidates actually intend to do.

I usually love the freedom to ignore the stupid "never talk politics or religion" rule during the campaign season. I enjoy little more than getting all fired up in a lively debate, but I'm getting nothing this year. No one seems interested in telling me why $700 billion to bail out spoiled bankers and insurers couldn't have been better spent on alternative fuel technology or why $2 billion a week in Iraq for the last five years couldn't have put electric or hydrogen cars on the road or at least bought a little health insurance for a few folks. Speaking of that, no one seems to want to apply the deregulation model (that did SO well with our mortgage institutions) to the insurance industry and predict when we'll have to bail them out as well once they finally price the rest of us out of their system and offer very little actual medical care in return.

I don't even bother explaining why I'll put up with some of Obama's bad ideas in exchange for a level-headed, intelligent, buck-stops-here type of leader with proven management ability anymore. It's so easy to support, it's not even fun. I mean, compare his opportunities and successes with the achievements W racked up before the White House... seriously. How does "failed baseball team" compare with "turned down top law firms after graduating at the top of my class at Harvard Law?" Or how about "failed Texas oil company bought out by the Saudis" against "successfully reclaimed dead neighborhoods" Or what about "awol from the Guard(and Vietnam) to pursue failed senate campaign" vs. "successful senate campaign" Or even "rehab, dui, sealed coke arrests" vs. "yeah, I smoked pot"

I know, I know, O's not running against W. How about the Repub convention rallying around their "service" signs one night, then picking on Obama's service to his community the next. (are slogans and chants really more important than actually doing something?) And if we must inject religion into the debate - though it should have even less relevance than the other non-issues I've mentioned, then O's definitely the man. We know what church he's attended consistently at least since his early Chicago days. We used his pastor against him! His opponent listed himself as one religion on his senate bio but didn't attend any church until he showed up at a "competing" venue one Sunday before the campaign began in earnest, but I guess his VP more than makes up for his lack of spiritual conviction.

And how about the family values as representatives of character and integrity? One guy's still married to his first wife. The other... well, I think it's all out of my system by now. I need to get to bed.

Thanks for listening.
Luth
Out

Two Thumbs Up for Obsession

The sweetie and I were discussing what kind of movie we might watch Friday night when I noticed that both she and my mom got copies of a movie in the mail. At first I thought it was just some chick flick trailer, but the closer I looked, the more I realized it said it was the whole movie inside the very professionally printed envelope so I suggested we check it out.

The movie was called Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. It didn’t sound like anything we’d normally pick from the list available on cable or the local movie rental, but we like to mix it up a little every now and then so we decided to give it a shot. While sweetie finished up some to-do list items I read some more of the info on this weird envelope. I learned that the movie inside would teach me about a very serious threat that few Americans take seriously enough. I learned that the movie was paid for by the Clarion Fund and that it wasn’t rated by the MPAA.

That wasn’t much to go on so I Googled “Clarion Fund” and visited their web page. Turns out they’re “a non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to educate Americans about issues of national security.” Says they're a 501c3. Wikipedia told me a 501c3 is an organization most recognized as a religious non-profit, but that non-religious organizations can claim the status as well as long as they don’t “conduct political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.” This still didn’t tell me anything about the movie, so I clicked a link on the home page that took me to RadicalIslam.org. The logo of their header uses the twin towers as the “l” at the end of “radical” and the “I” at the beginning of “Islam.” The page is copyrighted by The Clarion Fund. Buttons on this page led to “Shari a Law, Radical Islam Overview, Fueling Terror, and Vote 2008.” I clicked on the "Vote 2008" button, not 'cuz I thought it would tell me about the movie, but because I'm kind of a political junkie. (perhaps you've noticed)

Links there took me to either McCain’s pages of anti-terror policy or to Obama’s or I could watch a short video called “The Stakes” which just showed a bunch of pictures of Muslims in traditional garb with angry expressions and ended with a picture of McCain and lots of text floating in and out bearing ominous warnings. I clicked a few more links from the Google search results and learned that this movie we were going to watch had been included as “paid advertising” in newpapers delivered to 28 million U.S. homes this week, but only homes in swing states. The “advertising” was paid for by the Clarion Fund. Strangely, I couldn't find out much more about The Clarion Fund or about the movie.

I gave up on learning any more about the movie and sweetie had finally made it to the couch so we fired up the DVD. Two disclaimers came first. One warned of the graphic nature of the movie. The other noted that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving people and that this movie was not about them. The movie then opened with video of the second plane hitting the twin towers followed by a series of other terrorist incidents and interviews with journalists, think-tank researchers, former terrorists and a few others interspersed with footage, often poorly shot, of radical Islamic fellows yelling hateful things (subtitled in English) to variously sized crowds, and scenes from terrorist strikes throughout the world.

15 minutes was about all we could stand, but we did skip to the beginning of each of the remaining chapters, sampling them to see if this pattern would change. We'd stop and read the chapter titles like "understanding the jihad culture" then watch for a while hoping we'd actually see some Arab culture, but instead it was just more video of some radical televangelist performing for a crowd of loyal followers.

Five minutes is all it took to convince us that instead of a free razor, pack of laundry detergent, or the other advertising items that often come in unsolicited mail or along with the Sunday paper, this particular delivery was pure propaganda. Then it occurred to me that it was clearly the propaganda out of the Carl Rove fear tactics playbook. That's when I went back and read the 501c3 restriction again about not campaigning for an elected official. Hmmm. Sounds like the IRS will be after someone soon!

As you might suspect, I couldn't wait to sign on to Poup where I would quickly tear Obsession a new one. I was going to talk about how un-subtle this endorsement of McCain really was... about how all this fear crap was clearly designed to retro-fit a legitimate reason for the invasion of Iraq... about how the comparisons of unnamed terrorist groups to Hitler's Reich were cheap, emotional appeals, but then I thought, "That's awfully narrow-minded of me. I must step back for a moment and see the bigger picture. Perhaps I've missed some detail that would make this film actually live up to the non-partisan claim of its sponsor." After all, my writing has been good therapy and has really helped me deal with those previous episodes of reactionary off the handle flying I used to do so frequently. It's time to grow up.

I was shocked at the results of this stunning display of maturity. Suddenly the scenes of the movie began to gel into one of the most powerful, non-partisan, rational statements I've ever seen in a free mailing arriving unsolicited to my mom and my wife. (I wonder why I didn't get my own copy?)

I was so ready to believe this secretly funded, produced, and covertly delivered piece of propaganda was the work of the Red Right Radicals that I almost missed the true, totally obvious message of the film. You'd think I'd learned not to do that anymore.

So yeah, there I was replaying the Hitler scenes in my mind when I also thought, don't trust your mind... you know where that's gotten you before, watch the damned movie again. So I replayed the scenes where Neville Chamberlain returns triumphantly with the accord Hitler signed bringing peace to Europe. And the scenes where Hitler's followers in Africa and Palestine met with him and promised to deliver nations of people ready to help him exterminate the Jews. Hitler was a big fan of the Muslims I guess. And, you have to admit, it would be an easy mistake to simply associate all things Muslim with all things Nazi at that point.

Somewhere in the middle of these scenes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who makes quite a few contributions to the movie, notes that it takes more than just desperation and brainwashing to get people to act like this. Hitler may have been charismatic, but that alone doesn't move people to genocide. Shoebat says, "the secular fascism of the Nazis was far less dangerous than the Islamofascists of today because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it. It says God, the almighty ordered you to do this, not just the fuehrer."

And therein lies the real message of the film. I'm afraid; however, that it will be misinterpreted, so now I'll give a chapter by chapter translation of the film's main points:

Chapter 1: The Culture of Terror
Nonie Darwish, daughter of Palestinian suicide "martyr" explains that hers was a childhood of terrorism.

Translation: My father gave his life while taking the lives of others for his God. That was our (religious) culture.

Ch. 2: The Culture of Jihad
Several experts explain that the most accurate translation of Jihad is "struggle" or "personal struggle" or "inner struggle" proving that Muslims are not to be feared... followed by footage of radical Muslims doing frightening things.

Translation: Religion allows many irrational interpretations of its word leading to many frightening things.

Ch 3: The Culture of Hatred
A series of radical clerics tell stories on TV mostly based in one way or another on the blood libel that Jews (or any Westerners) use the blood of children or the elderly in various recipes. OR motivational films depicting all Western symbols as Demonic or Satanic.

Translation: Religious leaders use deceit to build and then manipulate their congregations. They create enemies with lies and proclaimed partnerships with the Devil. (your flock will only fight if they believe there is a threat)

Ch 4: The Media of Terrorism
This one's pretty funny actually. It starts with two kaftan-wearing folks in the Sunday political talk show format discussing the idea that Arab media pushes kids to terrorism, or at least violent fanaticism. They're subtitled in English. It sure looks like the interviewee is actually complaining, NOT bragging about this, especially when he goes on to say that starting suicide bomber training so young robs the youth of their childhood... that we "teach them how to die for Allah, but we don't teach them how to live for Allah." I'm not sure why this "evidence" that they are evil was included, but I'll still attempt a translation. (anyway, then the movie jumps to a series of bad MTV-like videos both humorous and frightening made my radical groups)

Translation: Any argument that stems from religion is, by definition, irrational. This particular argument is SO irrational that it fails to separate out that which does not make its case, but rather, seems to prove otherwise. By the way, it struck me as funny whenever the movie broke to its interviewees who then decried the Arabic media for doing exactly what they were doing. Let's face it, if I flipped the channels through the televangelist series, I could pick out some equally radical sounding footage of Christian "clerics" doing the same thing this chapter accuses ALL Muslim clerics of doing. Americans have heard a good 3 minutes of one Rev. Jeremiah Wright sermon and we've made up our minds about his 40 years as a preacher, right?

Ch 5: Jihad in the West
The "infiltration" of radical Islam in the West is described as the spreading of seeds. Hints of denial are included as foreshadowing for the next chapter, but the best scene is an interview wherein Dr. Ahmad Dwidar, Islamic Cleric (according to the footage) says he once heard a sermon that predicted that Muslims would march on the White House. When the interviewer asks what this means, Dr. Dwidar says, "through the domination and distribution of Islam, the White House will be changed. It will become a Muslim House." It's one of the most quiet, rational sounding pieces of footage featuring a "cleric" in the whole movie. It's such an obvious nod to the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein that I almost laughed out loud.

Translation: The religious right in this country will stop at nothing to get their boy into the big house... including subtly hinting that his opponent is a seed being spread by radical Islamists - a thought they KNOW the ignorant among us already believe in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In other words, folks who claim to know more about what's right, largely due to some religious claim of a direct connection with God, as opposed to observing anything like evidence, are the same all over. They'll lie, they'll cheat, they'll steal in their own form of Jihad if that's what it takes to put their chosen people in power.

Ch 6: The Culture of Denial
Basically, the world is being taken over by radical Muslims and we're denying it.

Translation: The world is being taken over by religious fanatics of all types and we're denying it. The longer we hide behind "religious tolerance," denying the irrationality of religion and perpetuating the one remaining mythical god we've chosen to keep while recognizing all the others for the myths they are, the longer we subject ourselves to the violent actions of irrational people who believe they're doing the work of this god and will thus stop at nothing until all of that work is done.

Ch 7: The Common Denominators
The movie draws many comparisons among the Nazis and today's Radical Muslims (as though that were a fixed, definite group like the Nazis.

Translation: Dictators, especially those bent on destroying all those they don't like, are always justified by some higher power. (Just as Mien Kampf is similar in meaning to Jihad, so were the religious justifications of the Nazis to today's religious radicals) Christians destroying pagans in Rome, Muslims in Spain...

Ch 8: Hitler & the Mufti
Hitler quickly befriended radical Muslim leaders because they shared the goal of getting rid of the Jews.

Translation: Hitler quickly befriended radical religious leaders because he knew no reasonable people would buy his irrational bullshit.

Ch 9: What do Radical Muslims Want?
The same as Hitler wanted: to destroy the Jews, bring down the West.

Translation: What do all religious groups want: world domination... their brand of irrationality to be the entire world's brand of irrationality. Granted, some are happy to try to accomplish this by more peaceful means, but you can't deny that's what they want. Except maybe, for the Masons... cuz they don't come after you. (2B1Ask1) Though I've been subject to some coercion to "ask1" before just like all the others!

Ch 10: We've Been Here Before
History repeats itself.

Translation: No shit! (Ancient Rome, Christopher Columbus, The Crusades, St. Patrick, Salem Witch Trials, the Red Scare, Church of England, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, pretty much every major war ever fought, you name it, we've seen it all before and yet, here we are again, tolerating the same irrationality in spite of the growing body of evidence against it.)

By the way again, the movie lists 13 chapters, but I didn't figure I needed to translate the intro credits, title scene, and I've already mentioned the disclaimer.

One more thing worthy of note: the movie begins and ends with the Edmund Burke quote:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Isn't it strange that they should quote a guy from a land where Christians ran off, converted, or killed all the pagans several hundred years ago and yet the land is still racked by the memories and lingering violence and hatred resulting from that invasion. It reminds one of a time when Christians played the role of today's radical Muslims. Hmmm, I guess history really does repeat itself... only the names change. You'd think that by now, the good men would have had their fill of this so-called source of all life, knowledge and morality they refer to as religion. You'd think by now we'd stop doing nothing and start calling for people to put aside their irrational beliefs and step into this modern world where physics, chemistry and biology really can shed light on most of the important questions.

So the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise, but what's most surprising is that a work of the Right (and let's not pretend that it is otherwise) does such a great job of calling for the end of faith.

Bravo. Perhaps my loyalty really has been misplaced.

Luth,
Out.

It's been a while

What's up kids? Miss me? Yeah, me neither. I just got back from a whirlwind tour: a week in DC, a weekend camping at Camp Perry Air National Guard Station, and a week in Memphis. I enjoyed all of it, but this has been my first week back, it's already Thursday, and it feels like three weeks of my life disappeared in a blink. At this time next spring, not having that Guard weekend in the middle of it will make all the difference!

I took the fam to DC with me - their first time there - and that was nice, although sharing a hotel room that is usually silent after 7 pm with 4 women (my niece joined us) presented a level of noise until all hours for which I wasn't completely prepared. (I was the only one who had to be to work by 7:30). It was an entirely enjoyable trip though.

We began our visit the Monday before my work started so we did the monuments/National Mall walking tour that day. We were lucky that the forecasted 95 degrees never materialized. It never topped 90 so it wasn't too bad, but we walked our butts off starting at the Smithsonian Metro stop, north to the Mall, then west down the Mall to the Washington Monument, north around the White House, only stopping for a brief break in the White House visitor center air conditioning, west again to the Vietnam and Declaration Signers memorials, the Lincoln Memorial, back east along the south war memorials (Korea, DC War, and JP Jones) and then we finished up that evening at the WWII Memorial before eating dinner back near the hotel in Alexandria.

We did another night at Arlington Cemetery watching two guard changes, a night walking up and down King St. in Old Town, and the ladies spent their days in the hotel pool, the Pentagon City Mall, and the Hirshorn Museum. Then we headed back home after I finished up my program on Friday. I headed off to Guard Saturday and Sunday, then caught a plane to Memphis Monday morning. I didn't make it to Graceland, but I ate a lot of barbecue, and spent my Thursday afternoon (after finishing up work) in the Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel.

I was there by about 1:00 and figured I'd breeze through and maybe even get to Graceland before I had to be at the airport by 6. Though I'd seen most of the video footage on display, the level of depth of the other displays was completely engrossing, and for a white guy who is rather fond of his homeland, more than a little embarrassing. One video I hadn't seen was of the treatment of black diners protesting by sitting in a whites only diner. How those folks remained as passive as they did amazes me. That's strength, courage, and a payment made that most of us never even think to repay. The big names have been immortalized, as they should, but the names of a lot of other courageous folks are long forgotten.

Another exhibit that caught my attention was a recording of the phone call between President Kennedy and Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett after Ole Miss refused to admit James Meredith. Not only did Barnett flat out lie to the President, he sounded like some spoiled teenager speaking disrespectfully to a parent.

I'll admit to all the Bush bashing I've done on this stupid old 'blog, but if he were to call my office on the phone, you bet your ass I'd be calling him "sir" and trying to find a way to do whatever he asked. Barnett didn't seem to grasp who he was talking to or what he was arguing about. I was in the main building for almost 3hours. Standing between the rooms MLK Jr. occupied that day was more than a little creepy, but nowhere near as creepy as what came next.

The self guided tour ends after you go across the street to the boarding house where James Earl Ray rented a room. The display there turns all CSI on you, which helps wash some of the embarrassment from your brain after being reminded of just how stupid we can be as a group. I'm not much of a conspiracy theory guy, but the collection of details, evidence, and information on display there aroused more than a little doubt about the idea of Ray as a deranged loner acting completely on his own.

If you claim to love this country, you have to spend some time there. Beale Street takes some of the sting off of wondering which side of the civil rights movement you'd have been caught up in if you had been alive back then. It's easy to see how stupid people were back then, but times have changed significantly and I'm afraid I'm not so sure how I would have acted without 40 years of hindsight between me/now and society back then. I'd like to think my sense of fairness and justice is inherent and would have prevailed had I been born a generation earlier, but I just don't know. It was a great lesson in the importance of history lest we repeat the same mistakes.

Anyhoo, it's past my bedtime. Type at ya later.

Luth