Government, society, politics, and media.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Best Posts of 2008

In 2008, the Associated Peace's inaugural year, I have published 65 posts. Sure, there have been some weak moments and a few jokes in bad taste, but overall I am proud to say that this blog has been committed to serious, balanced, and unbiased editorials.

Just look at the press I've been getting!

This strange couple put posters near their bed:

This is an actual poster I saw:
And these are actual bumper stickers:



This is a real photo of President Bush, no editing:

It's amazing what one little blog can accomplish in a few short months!

As a tribute to myself, here is a list of my favorite blog posts from this year, in reverse chronological order:

No, Not Fonzi - The Fonz weighs in on the SEC's fraud woes

Poll Trolls - Who knows what about the elections

Black vs. Red - A melodramatic essay on Thanksgiving

A Day Without Gays - My view on gay marriage

Obama Nation - Written about an hour before he won

Abomination - Going against my principals...as a matter of principal

Mad Libs - Crazy fill-in-the-blank fun with government

Greenfleece - Me ranting about GreenPeace

Democrats against the enviroment - Kennedy and Kerry and GE

Arousing Housing Carousing - Understand the economy

Frankly

Sixty Minutes did a nice piece about Congressman Barney Frank recently, and I recommend checking it out:

Barney Frank 60 Minutes Video

As much as I disagree with Frank's views on housing and the economy, you have to admit he is a sharp cookie. His no-nonsense approach to politics is really in line with my own. In the video, notice how Frank emphasizes compromise and criticizes Washington politicians who love to just waste time.

He may not share my views, but at least he is not full of B.S. Right on!

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

I lied, I'm a loser

I lied. I didn't think that New Hampshire Governor John Lynch would be seeking federal funding to help with the ice storm cleanup, but he is. Tisk!

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

No, not Fonzi

Ponzi scheme: A fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from the profit from any real business.

-Wikipedia
Was anybody surprised that the S.E.C. missed Bernard Madoff's multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme even when it had been under their nose for years?

Maybe somebody should tell them about Social Security.


Fonzi says:
That Ponzi guy is whack!
But Social Security is totally cool!
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Poll Trolls

A couple of weeks ago there was some controversy about a Wilson Research poll which tested 1000 McCain and Obama supporters on some basic campaign facts. The poll was originally conducted only on Obama supporters. Since the results showed a poor knowledge of campaign trivia, the supposition was made that Obama supporters were ignorant. However, Wilson repeated the poll on both Obama and McCain supporters and the results were identical.

As it turns out, both McCain supporters and Obama supporters had trouble on certain questions. Based on the full poll data and cross tabs, here is my analysis of the poll:

What McCain supporters knew that Obama supporters did not
  • 64% of Republicans knew that the Democrats already controlled the Senate before the election.

    Only 38% of Democrats knew that.

  • 50% of McCain supporters knew that Barack Obama had said his policies would bankrupt coal companies and make energy prices skyrocket.

    Only 14% of Obama supporters knew that. 24% of them though McCain had said it.

  • 48% of McCain supporters knew that Barack Obama had claimed to have campaigned in 57 states.

    Only 24% of Obama supporters knew that.

What Obama supporters knew that McCain supporters did not



What both Obama supporters and McCain supporters knew
  • McCain could not remember how many houses he owned (about three-quarters of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

  • The Republicans spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothing (about 80% of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

  • Sarah Palin has a pregnant teenage daughter (95% of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

  • Joe Biden said that Barack Obama would be seriously tested in his first six months in office (just over half of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

  • Barack Obama said the government should redistribute wealth (about 80% of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

  • Barack Obama reportedly started his political career at Bill Ayers' house (86% of McCain supporters and 68% of Obama supporters knew this)

  • John McCain was involved in a 1980's savings and loans scandal (about half of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

What neither Obama supporters nor McCain supporters knew

  • Sarah Palin did not actually say that she could see Russia from her house (about three-quarters of McCain and Obama supporters believed she had said so)

  • Joe Biden was forced to drop out of a 1980 campaign because he was found to have plagiarized a speech (only about one-third of McCain and Obama supporters knew this)

  • Barack Obama won his first election by getting all of his oponents kicked off the ballot (only 29% of McCain supporters and 13% of Obama supporters knew this)

Friday, December 12, 2008

Nice Ice

I've started to do some research regarding the ice storms that hit Western Massachusetts and Southern New Hampshire. Both Governors Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and John Lynch of New Hampshire have declared states of emergency and deployed the National Guard.

To begin, I'd like to commend the leadership of my governor, Deval Patrick, during this catastrophic storm. As is documented in the news video below, Patrick was on the scene today assessing the situation first hand. It is obvious that he has a good understanding of the needs of the area and is addressing them. Would Mitt Romney have trekked out there all the way to Fitchburg for the afternoon? You can decide that for yourself.





That said, I am upset that Deval Patrick will be asking for federal funding to aid with the storm clean up. The last newscast I saw reported that the total for the cleanup could be seven million dollars. Does the governor of Taxachusetts really need to go begging to our broke federal government for a few million dollars? I haven't heard any reports yet that tax-free New Hampshire will be picking Uncle Sam's pockets.

I am going to keep an eye out for this. It won't surprise me if New Hampshire doesn't seek federal funding at all. Still think Massachusetts needs income tax?

Monday, December 8, 2008

I lied, I'm a loser

I lied, I'm a loser.

I've been thinking about it, and I wish to revise the statement I made a few months ago in my post Watch the Debates.

Don't watch the debates next time.

After reading a few good books, I began to realize that presidential debates are just a stage where Democrats and Republicans pretend to disagree with each other.

Read Obama Nation for some more on this issue.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Black vs. Red

Have you ever wondered about the origins of the name "Black Friday"?

The media would like us to believe that the name was coined because it is the day when businesses earn enough revenue to be "in the black" as opposed to "in the red", meaning at a profit rather than at a loss. However, the origin of the word is much darker than most people think. It was first coined in the sixties by the Philadelphia Police in a comparison to Black Tuesday. To them, the frenzied traffic and overcrowded stores reflected the chaos of that day when the stock market crashed in 1929.

To me, it is neither. "Black Friday" does not symbolize earnings. Nor does it symbolize a revival of "Black Tuesday", a time of chaos brought on by forces which, by the day of the crash, were more or less beyond human control.

It is not beyond human control, for example, when crowds turn so savage that they literally stampede through store doors and kill employees and fellow buyers, as has become an annual tradition. The day may represent "black" versus "red" revenues for retail stores, but surely it does not for most Americans who celebrate the day. Most of them will be "in the red" by Saturday, after charging hundreds of dollars of gifts to their credit cards.

Maybe instead of wondering where the name came from, we should start thinking about what it means to us today. Will Americans someday forget the real meaning of Thanksgiving? More importantly, have we already forgotten the meaning of the American way?

To me, the most disturbing part about Black Friday is also the most disturbing part about the American economy in general: its reliance on the use of credit and debt. In fact, both our everyday shopping expenses and the foundations of our very country are based on the excessive use and abuse of debt.

At the highest level, consider the $25 billion bailout proposed for three of America's largest car makers. It goes without saying that if these companies kept cash reserves rather than operating on debt they would be able to survive a few weeks of depressed sales.

Car sales would not be depressed to begin with were it not for the recession. Let's not forget how that began: millions of Americans nationwide became unable to pay their debts (namely mortgages), causing crisis in one of the largest sectors of our economy. Isn't the fact that American debt markets can cause a global economic crisis evidence enough that debt is being overused and abused in this country?

Of course, the red does not stop there. In response to the debt crisis our government has turned to the most obvious solution: more debt. For years, we thought the war in Iraq was breaking Uncle Sam's bank. In the past month, the government has allocated double the expenses of the entire Iraq war in the form of two $800 billion bailout plans. In other words, the government wants to get into more debt so that companies like the "big three" car manufacturers can borrow money from the government and get themselves in more debt, so that we Americans can buy their products with loans and credit cards and get ourselves in more debt.

I say we call it "Red Friday".

Even better, I say we forget about the occasion all together and find something really worth celebrating. Instead of using the day after Thanksgiving as an induction of the Christmas season, we could show our thanks for the freedom we enjoy by going out in our communities and volunteering with our friends and family. We could continue our celebration of America by holding public parties and events like we do on the Fourth of July. Or--going out on a limb here--we could simply use the day to take some well-deserved rest from the stress of our work and everyday lives.

Obviously it is idealistic of me to make these suggestions. Maybe instead I could suggest something a little more realistic--a new Black Friday tradition that embraces the unchangeable modern trends. Go out early on Black Friday and go shopping, and then later in the evening sit back and unwind by watching Scrooge starring Albert Finney. That way you can get your shopping done, get some family time, initiate the Christmas season, get a perspective on the evils of debt and greed, and maybe become inspired to turn over a new leaf like Mr. Ebenezer Scrooge.

Thank you very much!

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Change #2: Reversal on campaign funding

During the presidential campaign, the Obama camp touted their large base of "small donors" and claimed they "changed the way campaigns were funded".

As it turns out, they lied. About 26% of donors to the Obama campaign were "small donors", as compared to 25% of donors to the 2004 Bush campaign.

Campaign Finance Insitute: Reality check on Obama campaign financing

Covered in the news:

ABC News Political Punch blog
USA Today
US News and World Report

So, the "change" here is really the unmasking of a fake "change" that Obama already claimed to have made. Stay tuned for more changes!

Friday, November 21, 2008

Update on Obama's lobbyist friends

My original post on Tom Daschle, the health care lobbyist being appointed as secretary of health and human services:
Change #1: Reversal on ethics promise

According to the International Herald Tribune (New York Times' international edition), the Obama transition team is rife with lobbyists as well:
Obama transition team lobbyists

As noted in an ABC news blog and on FT.com (Financial Times), Eric Holder, Obama's pick for attorney general is a lobbyist with a history of shady dealings in both the public and private sectors.
ABC News: Dicey Deals
Financial Times: Holder Controversy

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Change #1: Reversal on ethics promise

(Opinion alert)

I decided I would keep track of a few of the "changes" that will be happening during the next four years. I put "changes" in quotes not because I don't think the Obama administration won't make any good changes, but because I think many of the changes will really just be continuations of traditional Washington policies. Obama is so much more like Bush than most people realize.

One such traditional Washington policy is appointing cabinet members who are highly-paid members of the industries they will be overseeing.

(Fact time)

Although no cabinet pick has been officially confirmed as of yet, Obama officials have confirmed that Tom Daschle will act as secretary of health and human services.

According to the New York Times, Daschle has been a board member of Mayo Clinic, a large health care provider, for four years. The Mayo Clinic recieves research grants from the federally-owned National Institute of Health.

Daschle has also been working as a lobbying advisor to large health care clients of the lobbying firm Alston & Bird. The firm has lobbied on issues ranging from Medicare reimbursements to drug approvals.

One of Barack Obama's campaign promises included this exact phrase:
No political appointees in an Obama administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.
This was part of a general promise to not appoint individuals who have a conflict of interest.

(Opinion alert)

It is undeniable: if Tom Daschle is appointed secretary of health and human services it will represent a conflict of interest and a reversal by the Obama administration on this promise. Daschle would be unable to do his job effectively without working on regulations or contracts related to Mayo Clinic or any health care company that he worked with at Alston & Bird.

Campaign for Liberty

Why I joined Campaign for Liberty

A Day Without Gays

I just noticed an interesting Facebook notice about an upcoming boycott, Day Without a Gay.

To protest anti-gay laws, Day Without a Gay is encouraging those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities--along with their friends and allies--to "call in gay" from work on December 10th and go volunteering instead.

The idea behind the boycott is that since LGBT workers and citizens contribute over $700 billion to the U.S. economy every year, they should be given the same rights (namely marriage rights) as other groups that contribute just as much.

(Opinion alert)

This is a splendid idea and I wish boycotts such as this one were organized more often. It is a great way to protest for a specific cause. I hope that everybody who supports same-sex marriage will participate.

I figure this is a good opportunity to explicitly outline my views on same-sex marriage, as I'm not sure I've done so yet in this blog (damn the economy!).

My View on Same-Sex Marriage

One of my best friends is gay. Several more of my good friends are gay or have gay relatives. I grew up doing theatre, so suffice it to say that I've met my fair share of gay individuals. I have much compassion for the LGBT community and their desire for equal marriage rights.

In a way I support gay marriage and in a way I do not. In a way I support any and every marriage. In another way, I don't support any type of marriage at all. Let me explain.

I do not buy the theories about same-sex marriage destroying our country. Honestly, I don't think America will ever have a population problem caused by lack of procreation (if you do, you need to get out more, or watch some MTV). As for child bearing, I also do not buy the theory that a child needs a mommy and a daddy. Perhaps they did in ancient times, but things are different now. We are a modern society and children can be raised effectively by effective people. After all, if a child needs a mommy and a daddy, why should couples with children be legally allowed to divorce?

Therefore, in the sense that I have no problem with same-sex couples existing, I support gay marriage. Because of this, I think it's great that states like Massachusetts and Connecticut are beginning to realize that they have no right to deny marriage licenses to any two citizens and are therefore "legalizing gay marriage".

Obviously then, I do not support a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The federal government has no reason to define marriage and therefore no right to do so. Therefore, I also do not support a constitutional ammendment (or any federal law) legalizing gay marriage nationwide. In this sense, I do not support "same-sex marriage", as the term often refers to federal legalization.

Same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue. The problem is in the constitutional interpretation: does any branch of government have the right to deny two individuals from entering into certain types of contracts based on their sex? The obvious answer is no. Therefore, in a sense, same sex marriage is already "legal".

The fact that most states do not permit same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses is an issue for the courts. Since states are denying people a consitutional legal right, they need to be sued. A reasonable judge who makes decisions based on the constitution rather than on moral or Biblical trivialities would rule that no state has a right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This is how same-sex marriage needs to be legalized.

In an even more different and obscure way, I reject the notion of marriage as a whole. Why does the government need to recognize marriage at all? Are the special tax breaks and other perks really so vital to our society?

Americans (straight and otherwise) have become far too obsessed with these little rectangular pieces of paper that say we are married. Aren't rings supposed to be our society's traditional symbol of marriage? If legal marriage did not come with such an unnessesarily large load of goodies, the gay community wouldn't be so up in arms about it, nor would anyone else. Even if some strange person wanted to marry a cat, he could give that cat a ring and feel just as special as everyone else. But, as the government so loves to do, we have begun to annihilate the real meaning of marriage by making it into a piece of paper.

If the federal government didn't give unnecessary perks to married couples, same-sex marriage would not be an issue. If a same-sex couple wanted to grant each other the right to visit in a hospital emergency room, they could do so with a lawyer. Anybody can. As you hopefully can see, my point is that the real solution to legalizing same sex marriage is for the government to delete any existing marriage laws, get out of our private lives, and let people of any sex sign any legal contract they want.

Once again: I support gay marriage, I don't support it, I support every marriage, and I support no marriages at all. I love being complicated.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Please Understand This

I have been posting about the Community Reinvestment Act for quite some time now, even before the major news outlets were giving it any mention. Now they are catching on, and of course dismissing the act using bogus statistics and flawed logic.

I just read a great article from Mises.org, the most-read economics web site in the world. The article outlines exactly what I have been saying for weeks, but does it much more eloquently than I ever could.

The CRA Scam and Its Defenders - Mises.org

Please understand this, please. It is so upsetting when I hear people blaming the free market for the economic crisis it makes me depressed.

Please understand that big government is the root of the economic crisis. Please understand that we are not a free-market country anymore, not even under George Bush. If we were, these problems wouldn't exist.

In fact, I'd be glad if anybody could explain to me how the free market did cause these problems. If that could be done, I would become a liberal so that my friends would all leave me alone.

I'm not keeping my hopes up, though.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Commonwealth No Longer Aghast

(Opinion alert)

Remember that last post where I praised Deval Patrick's transit plan? Remember how astounded you were when you realized that his plan called for reduction of government agencies? Well, you can calm back down--things have returned to normal.

According to the Boston Globe, Deval Patrick is considering changing Massachusetts law to allow the Governor to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy rather than the people by a vote. Why? Because he feels like it.

Senator Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with brain cancer and Senator John Kerry may be accepting a new job in the Obama administration soon. Therefore, there is a legitimate concern that both of these positions will need to be filled in current months. However, this does not give the Governor the right to change the law for his own convenience.

This particular law has a history of being changed at the whim of the Democrats.

In 2004, Democrats in the legislature created a law under which an empty Senate seat is filled by vote rather than by appointment. The reason for this? John Kerry was on his way to the presidency and the Democrats (rightly!) feared that Mitt Romney would appoint one of his Republican buddies.

At least this law brought the decision back to the people. The law should remain the same. No governor should have the power to appoint a U.S. Senator whos job is to represent their voters.

Do we really want to allow whoever is in power to change the laws so it is convenient for them to do whatever they want?

Commonwealth Aghast: Deval Patrick has a good idea

In a recent letter to the Boston Globe, Deval Patrick outlines his new plan for the transit system in Massachusetts. Although the plan calls for temporary increases in tolls, it also aims to eventually eliminate most tolls completely. Also, the plan will consolidate different transit agencies and reduce their size! That's right, consolidate and reduce!

Read it for yourself: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/11/13/redirecting_our_transport_system/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

My favorite quotes from the article:

"The bureaucracy should be radically simplified"

"We have eliminated millions of dollars in waste and duplication"

"First, we will consolidate agencies"

"Long term, our goal is to eliminate all tolls except at the harbor tunnels and border entry points"

Finally, a politician who believes in real change! Deval, I am with you on this one.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Obama Nation

We are all packed into the entryway at quarter to seven, waiting at the door as eagerly as the trick-or-treaters from just a few nights before. Soon the gate will open and we will each stampede to a booth, frantically and secretly connecting line to line with the thick black pen. As we wait, the PTA arranges their baked goods on a folding table. The cupcakes and cookies are spangled with both red and blue; there is no campaigning in this place. The pins and buttons are hidden, bumper stickers prohibited, and jackets zipped tight over the t-shirts we have been touting for weeks.

But it is clear who is on the tip of everybody's tongue. The whispers amongst us resound just as loudly as the televised chants of the night before: O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma.

We are an Obama nation.

Before noon, the newscasters are already making predictions. These counties did this, those counties did that, this candidate should have done that in those states. By mid-afternoon they are having an orgy of colors, splattering red and blue on everything from digital green screens to ice skating rinks. The topic of government is still absent from our conversation, as it has been largely for the past two years.

We are an Obama nation and we want Change with a capital C. The mudslinging is finally over and tonight celebrations will abound. But in the morning, where will we turn our intensely focused attention? If we try to continue the conversations of recent months, winners and losers alike will be at a loss of words. There is nobody left to slander. There are no records to lie about, no statistics to make up, no funds to be raised.

Instead, we will really have to take our own message of Change to heart.

We are an Obama nation and we need to Change our focus. Let us start by discussing the future rather than the past. The evil Bush is dead. In January we will send him away and tell him never to look back. He is powerless now, so we shouldn't allow him to dominate our discussions as we did at every rally, in every commercial, during every debate. Let's talk about the future and how we can work together to solve our problems.

The Obama nation must demand this Change.

We are an Obama nation and we need to Change our economy. Let us stop pretending that we are entering depression just because somebody lowered taxes. Let us admit that there is a larger problem here. History shows that larger governmental intervention in the economy only causes problems. Our economy will always have sudden, violent fluctiations and bubbles unless we Change the way our country works.

The system is flawed. Our federal reserve is inflating our currency without restraint so that the government may benefit and maintain its rapid pace of growth.

We may start by gradually returning Americans to the gold standard. For millenia, monetary systems like the gold standard encouraged deflation rather than inflation of currency. Ever since the government abandonded the gold standard, inflation has ruled. The practical impilcations of these two economic trends contrast starkly. Under deflation, the prices of goods decrease with time, allowing a higher standard of living for everybody. This encourages the rapid advancement of technology and countrywide prosperity for rich and poor. Under inflation, the prices of goods increase with time, always staying slightly ahead of wages, which struggle to keep up. What this means for Americans needs no explaining: we have been living it for decades.

Recently, politicians have pinned our current economic troubles on the evils of the free market. There is only one problem with this theory: we have not lived in a free market for decades. Republicans and Democrats alike have lead us further and further down this road of big government and now present us with false choices: shall we make the government bigger the way the Republicans want it or the way the Democrats do?

This generation, the Obama nation, must for once demand a real Change.

We are an Obama nation and we must Change our foreign policy. Our problems in Iraq have dominated discussion in the past two years, but again this has been a false choice. Iraq is ending soon. One side admits this fact, one side attempts to mask it. Both have known for months that the war in Iraq will end within one year.

The real Change we must seek is a far more general one. At this moment American troops are stationed in over 130 countries around the world. Over 75,000 are stationed in Germany alone. The government must stop trying to control the planet. We need to return to our own roots and take all of our troops home. Perhaps the government could use the hundreds of billions of annual savings to gracefully phase out social security (which, by either party's admission, is on it's way out the door). We must no longer be fooled into thinking that our security depends on the government tramping around the world and meddling in the affairs of others.

This generation, the Obama nation, must demand this Change.

We are an Obama nation and we must Change the government. We have listened now, for two years, to criticisms of the evil Bush. It is time that one of his greatest evil doings be taken to task by a generation of revolutionaries and the candidate they elected.

Every president since the beginning of the twentieth century has used signing statements to practically nullify legislation passed by congress, or at least pieces of it that he dislikes. George Bush has been one of the worst abusers. When a president signs a bill into law, he often accompanies it with a signing statement which states his intent to ignore certain pieces of the legislation. We must bring this to an end. We must limit the powers of the president to what they once were and restore our system of checks and balances.

This generation, the Obama nation, must demand this fundamental Change.

The Obama nation has many great things to look forward to. This new government will be more open and honest and it will deny lobbyists the chance to affect unfair influence. It will Change the course of global warming and will spurr a revolution in green technology. It will reform immigration. Most importantly, this new government has a better chance than any before it to energize and revitalize a forgotten class of people--people who have started at the bottom of our economic and educational food chains. Our new leader was once one of these people.

We are an Obama nation now.

Our time has come for real Change, Change we can believe in. It is not up to Barack Obama to Change this country, it is up to his nation. It is up to us to demand these real Changes, not the artificial Changes that we have been force-fed our entire lives. It is up to this Obama nation to look towards the future rather than dwell on the past. It is up to us, the Obama nation, to educate ourselves to the greatest extent on the affairs of the government so that we may decide for ourselves whether we approve of its actions.

Most importantly, it is up to us to question ourselves and our own conventional thoughts. A new president and a new government bring the hope of a new age, an age of Change. Many things will Change without us raising as much as a finger or casting as much as one more vote. But we ourselves will not and can not Change if we do not take the initiative to do so. If we do not take that initiative, we will fall vicitim to the whims of policies we do not support and a country we do not control. Tonight, we have proven to ourselves that we can take at least one step towards such a movement, but it must not end here. We must continue to listen and watch. We must continue to discuss and debate. We must continue to stand up for what we want, what we believe in, and what we truly know is right.

Our generation, the Obama nation, must Change.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Hoover

We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty
than ever before in the history of any land.

-Herbert Hoover
August 20, 1928

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Them Dems

(Opinion alert)

You can't deny that John McCain's over-enthusiasm about Joe the Plummer is a little funny. Especially the multiple times he brought it up in the final debate on Wednesday.

However, the democrats have been just as enthusiastic about smearing Joe the Plummer as much as possible. What this accomplishes, I'm not sure. However, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I just heard on a radio newscast.

(Fact time)

The Obama campaign claims that Joe the Plummer isn't registered to vote. He is. He isn't registered under the name Joe because that is his middle name. Unlike some people, Joe likes his middle name.

The Obama campaign claims that Joe the Plummer is not, in fact, a licensed plummer. Surprisingly, that is the truth! Not surprisingly, they leave out this fact: in Ohio, you don't have to have a plumming license unless you are doing enterprise-size jobs. He really is a plummer, Obama. Get over it.

Quick note: I will get verifiable sources for these two facts ASAP. I'm in a rush this morning so I don't have the time. I don't imagine it will be terribly hard to find, though.

(Opintion alert)

Obama supporters, please understand who you are voting for. This man is willing to smear a plummer. He is smearing a plummer. Let me say it again: Barack Obama is smearing a plummer. A plummer.

Isn't this supposed to be the guy that's for the people? Oh, I forgot. Barack Obama isn't really for the people. He is tricking you! What he really cares about is growing the government more, like George Bush did.

I think my next post will be on negative campaigning.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Abomination

The purposes of this opinion post are:
  1. To convice Sparky that if he is going to classify one candidate as "too corrupt to be president", that candidate must be Barack Obama.

  2. To discuss the legitimacy of news sources, in particular the New York Times.

  3. To reiterate my position on mudslinging.
Introduction: Why this post is wrong (in defense of those on the left)

Let me begin in reverse, by reiterating my position on mudslinging. It is not needed. It doesn't even matter if it is true. All politicians do bad things. Barack Obama has done them and John McCain has certainly done them (though I can't find many bad things done by John McCain that compare to Obama). We should discuss issues and policy (government), not rumors, theories, and mistakes from the past.

That said, I write this post and many other posts on this blog specifically for the purpose of mudslinging Barack Obama. Why do I go against my own principals? As a matter of principal, of course! I must get Sparky to drop his antics (his latest line is "F John McCain, Andrew. F Him!") and start discussing policy. The only way I see to convince him of this is to prove that, by his own standards, his candidate is unfit to be president. If I can prove this, maybe he will change his standards and think about government for once.

Barack Obama: A concise campaign history

The following are Barack Obama's responses (generalized by me, of course) to all allegations against him:
  1. I voted "present" 133 times in less than three years because....JOHN MCCAIN IS GEORGE BUSH WITH A MASK ON!

  2. It took me twenty years to realize that Reverend Wright is a racist who thinks that God should kill whites because....he seemed nice enough to me!

  3. I launched my campaign from the house of an admitted, cold-blooded terrorist because....he seemed nice enough to me!

  4. I only ever worked with Acorn because....they seemed legitimate enough to me!
Some people turn it around and say that Obama is just as racist as Wright, that he condones terrorism and cop-killing, or that he encouraged voter fraud. None of these are true! He is simply a politician! He does things that work to his advantage, no matter what those things are! By all definitions, Barack Obama is just a slimy politician.

Of course, it would be easy for me to take all those wrong stances, given the evidence. That's why talk radio hosts do it. The evidence is there! So Sparky (or anyone who mudslings McCain on a regular basis), please take this into consideration. Whenever you start a tirade on John McCain's evil corrupt doings, just remember that I love to play the devil's advocate when it comes to mudslinging Barack.

New York Slimes

Speaking of slimy.

The media is not covering the Acorn voter fraud issue accurately. The New York Times in a recent article defends Barack Obama rather than listing all the facts. They list facts all right, but I don't think they've heard the term "selective" before. NYT - On Obama, Acorn, and Voter Registration

Funny, the Slimes was glad to crucify Acorn back in July, before Acorn was connected to Barack Obama. NYT - Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups

CNN, a bastian of balanced news coverage, covered the story in detail, listing all the facts. CNN (YouTube) - Acorn and Obama

What an obamanation!

Notes

If you are one of those people who never clicks the links I post, click that last one. The video is only five minutes long. Please watch it and understand how corrupt Acorn is.

The Wall Street Journal (a real newspaper) published a transcript of this video written by the Republican National Committee. (I know, Sparky, Republicans. I checked the transcript, okay? It's legit.)

Clarification: The Republican National Committee did not write or sponsor in any way the CNN news story I link to above. CNN did. The Republican National Committee just wrote down all the words in the video in the form of a transcript.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Mad libs

I will be coming out with some statistics for last night's debate, as I did with the previous two. However, this is an opinion post.

Something hit me last night. At one point, the moderator asked the order in which the candidates would address the problems of health care, energy, and entitlement (social security).

The assumption is that health care and energy are issues that are in dire need of large-scale help from the government and that social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.

The part that hit me was that last note: social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.

Again, social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.

If you haven't just had the same light bulb go off that I did, let me fill you in. We'll begin with some history.

In the 1920's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to prohibit the use or possession of alcohol. That never went smoothly, and after thirteen years of crime-ridden black markets, the prohibition was repealed.

In the early 1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. That went smoothly for less than a year, and drove the economy into the great depression.

In the mid-1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to (basically) insure the income of retirees. That went smoothly for less than a century, and now social security (and the future of some retirees) is on the brink of destruction.

In the 1970's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose windfall profits taxes on big oil companies. This went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now America has dangerously increased its dependence on foreign oil.

In the 1990's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to greatly strengthen Affordable Housing requirements on banks, giving them quotas to meet on loans to less-fortunate communities. That went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now the entire housing market (and economy) is on the brink of destruction.

In 2003, the government (parts of it) deemed it necessary to invade Iraq. That went smoothly for less than a year, and only now are American forces beginning to make a real difference. And now, because of this misplaced and mismanaged war, thousands of Americans have lost their lives and the United States' debt to foreign nations has been dangerously increased.

Of course, the above is common knowledge. Let's play some mad-libs and figure out some more interesting things. Try and fill in the most witty, zany, wacky government ideas you can! Just make sure it makes sense given the government's history of helping the American people.
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to _____________. That went smoothly for _______________ and now ______________.
Try this one!!
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to universalize health care. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now everybody's health is perfect.
It's obvious!! How about this:
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to reinstate the windfall profits tax on big oil. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now America is completely energy-independent and global warming is gone.
History proves it!! Another logical one:
In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to ban hand guns. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now there is no violence.
Come on people, it is only logical! Big government works!

Enough fun with mad libs and sarcasm. Let me return to my original point.

The moderator asked the candidates which they would address first: health care, energy, or social security.

Social security is the failed government program of that trio. If government takes over health care, it will be the failure-to-fix for presidential candidates in the 2050's.

Nobody is under the illusion that social security will be "fixed". "Fixed" means deleted. It means people will have to save money for retirement. Bill Clinton once famously said that more people under thirty believe they will see a UFO than believe they will ever receive a social security check. He was right. They are right. Social security bombed.

Let's not do this with health care.

As for energy, both candidates propose aggressive spending in the energy sector. My stance is and has always been that this is good, until the day that the government decides to take over the energy sector and own it. Once that day comes, I will protest it just as much as I protest universalized health care.

The problem with capitalism is that some people prosper and some people don't. Some people get great health care and some people don't. There is suffering involved.

The problem with socialism is that the suffering culminates in a big disaster down the road, after years of ignorant bliss. Human suffering cannot be removed from any equation, only shoved to one side or another.

For years, affordable housing has delayed the suffering of people who don't like living in apartments. They are suffering now.

For decades, social security has delayed the suffering of seniors who couldn't manage to save enough. They will be suffering soon.

Now, Democrats want to delay the suffering of people who can't afford good health care.

If you're one to delay suffering, go ahead and vote for it. Me? I recognize that life is ugly because it must be ugly. If someday it is not, we will cease to be human.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Computers

I haven't graduated yet, but I know a thing or two about computers.

The Government did not invent computers, you ass.

http://www.maxmon.com/timeline.htm

Friday, October 3, 2008

Follow Up 2: Debate 1 Analysis

In my last post, I promised that I would repeat my debate statistics experiment for a third time. I did. Once again, as with the second time around, I used my debate tracking tool.

The results were the same.

Presidential debate statistics (2)

Refer to my last post.

It has now been verified twice! Please, correct me where I am wrong.

Follow Up: Debate 1 Analysis

A few days ago, I posted some approximate statistics and some factual generalizations about the first presidential debate. After receiving some feedback on the reliability of my statistics, I decided to improve the experiment and do it again. (Original post here)

So, I programmed a debate tracking tool. Although the tool is still in its infancy (and quite buggy), it works. It allows me to generate verifiable statistics regarding any debate. I now have a set of verifiable statistics to back up some of my original statistics.

Verifiable debate 1 statistics

In fact, I am so happy with how the tracker works, I will be repeating this exact experiment once again to guarantee accuracy. I encourage you to do it as well! Watch the same YouTube video that I did and track the same statistics. Please!

To wrap it up, this experiment verified the following generalizations:
  • McCain talked about his own record about twice as much as Obama talked about his own record.

  • McCain talked about Obama's record more than Obama talked about McCain's record.

  • Obama mentioned George Bush seven times more than John McCain did.

  • McCain talked more about his own record than he did Obama's record. Obama talked more about McCain's record than he did his own record.
Again, I will be re-verifying these same three statistics using my tracker. You may think I'm obsessive. You're right. I am obsessed because it makes me very, very mad when people blame fact on inaccurate statistics. It makes me mad, for example, when people tell me that I am not right about Obama focusing on Bush and blathering more than John McCain rather than making actual references. The only 'proof' that they have is that I am not an objective observer, so my statistics must be made up.

In your face.

To New Blog Readers

New blog readers, welcome! Thanks for reading. If you are new to my blog, please just read the following points:
  • Please leave comments! At the bottom of each post there is a link that says "0 comments". If you click that, you will be able to leave comments on my blog.

  • Please check out my posts from September and August! To do this, click on the dark grey arrows located on the right side of the screen.
Thanks! Rock on.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

VP Debate Stats

The VP debate has just ended.

Literally minutes before the beginning of the debate, I finished programming a version of a debate tracker which I will be using to generate statistics on all the debates (as well as to verify my statistics on the first debate).

Here are the results: http://andrewpeace.com/debate-tracking-tool/results.php?id=1

Note: For "Referenced their own record" I only included instances where the candidates referenced themselves. For "Referenced their opponent's record" I included instances where they mentioned their opponent or their opponent's principal (the opposing presidential candidate).

Please, verify any of the events marked in the log. Here is how you do so:
  1. Find a video of the debate (try YouTube)
  2. Find the moment when the moderator begins the first question (my synchronization event)
  3. Look at the time the event occurred in my log and add that time to the time on your video source where the moderator begins the first question.
  4. Once you have added the times, skip forward to that time on the video to see the event happen.
Of course, my tallies are subject to human error. They may be off by one to seven seconds. If you find an event in the log that is off by more than seven seconds, TELL ME! I will admit I made a bad tally. I will shout it from the rooftops. I will post it on this blog in bright red lettering. Please, verify.

Peace!

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Greenfleece

GreenPeace is a backwards organization.

Like all backwards things (mirror images, cabooses, Democrats) GreenPeace does benefit the world in some ways. However, like some backwards things (Democrats), GreenPeace could be doing so much better.

Literally minutes ago, I spoke with the Boston City Coordinator for GreenPeace. I can't remember her name right now, but I will work on finding that.

I ran into her at Northeastern, where I go to school. I have also frequently run into GreenPeace volunteers at Porter Square in Cambridge as well as on Newbury Street. I worked near Porter Square for about six months and saw GreenPeace volunteers there at least five times. Yet, I have been living full-time in Jamaica Plain for over a year and have never seen a GreenPeace rep there. Not within five miles of my apartment. Not on Center Street, not near Jamaica Pond, not on Washington Street.

I will let you draw your own conclusions on that, but I will also draw for you the conclusions that were given to me by this young lady of whom I speak.

When I told her what I have just told you, she told me that she had just moved here from Iowa three months ago and didn't know the city and surrounding areas very well, so that was why she didn't have anybody posted in Jamaica Plain.

So I asked her why I had never seen GreenPeace volunteers in Jamaica Plain before she took charge three months ago. She told me that they have to place volunteers in places where they can interact with one person every thirty seconds, which is why they are most often found in popular places like Newbury Street, Northeastern, and Cambridge.

I informed her that both Centre Street and Washington Street are very busy during summers in Jamaica Plain.

"Well", she said, "GreenPeace has tried that before and they had some problems with that. So, unfortunately I just kind of have to go with what GreenPeace says. If I had more volunteers maybe I could put some in places like that."

Mhmm. Maybe.

By the way. Here is the qualification for being a GreenPeace city coordinator:

A minimum of 1-2 years of experience in face-to-face fundraising, direct marketing or customer service and a strong interest in environmental issues.
GreenPeace.org

What was that last thing? Strong interest in...huh?

GreenPeace is not interested in affecting social change. They are interested in getting your money, throwing it at things, and keeping some of it.

This lovely lady (who, admittedly, was very nice) talked to me about a campaign that GreenPeace is working on right now involving Kimberly Clark, the parent company of Kleenex.

GreenPeace Kimberly Clark campaign

This campaign is better than nothing, but it is backwards.

Rather than educating you about using less tissue (or conserving in general), GreenPeace simply asks you to sign up for their club, pay them monthly, and hope that they do things you think are good. This is why they don't volunteer in busy poor areas, only busy wealthy areas. Their main interest is money.

Instead, GreenPeace should focus on busy poor areas. Rather than collecting money, they should give out free handkercheifs. In case you are a GreenPeace member and don't know, a handkercheif can do the same things that those evil Kleenex things do, but they are washable and reusable. GreenPeace wouldn't even have to spend money on this! Don't you think there would be some company somewhere that would spend a couple million bucks if their logo was splattered all over everyone's handkercheifs??

But of course, GreenPeace is full of liberals. Liberals do not expect you to change and become better. They expect you to give them your money and hope they can solve your problem for you.

Doy!

Monday, September 29, 2008

Debate 1 Analysis

I just re-watched the debate on YouTube. While I watched, I kept tally scores on each candidate in several categories. Here are the results:

Mentioned George Bush:
Obama: 14
McCain: 2

Mentioned their own proposed policy:
Obama: 64
McCain: 70

Mentioned opponent's proposed policy:
Obama: 12
McCain: 21

Mentioned/alluded to their own record:
Obama: 20
McCain: 38

Mentioned/alluded to their opponent's record:
Obama: 23
McCain: 33

Mentioned a specific piece of legislation that they proposed:
Obama: 0
McCain: 2 (League of Democracies, 9/11 Commission)

Please note: These numbers are not intended to be exact. I watched the debate in real time and made tally marks along the way. These numbers do not represent exact statistics. However, I will maintain that they give a fair representation of what really happened in the debates. Each number is surely off by a few tallies, but no numbers are off by magnitudes and any mistakes towards one candidate were surely repeated against the other candidate equally.

Factual Generalizations

Whether or not my numbers are perfect, any count or re-count of the same statitics will reveal the following true generalizations:
  • McCain and Obama both talked about their own proposed policy about equally.

  • McCain talked about Obama's proposed policy about twice as much as Obama talked about McCain's proposed policy.

  • McCain talked about his own record about twice as much as Obama talked about his own record.

  • McCain talked about Obama's record more than Obama talked about McCain's record.

  • McCain mentioned legislation that he proposed. Obama did not talk about legislation that he proposed.

  • Obama mentioned George Bush seven times more than John McCain did.

  • Obama mentioned George Bush's policy more than he mentioned John McCain's proposed policy.

  • McCain talked more about his own record than he did Obama's record. Obama talked more about McCain's record than he did his own record.
The Conclusion

This debate turned out exactly the way that any reasonable person predicted. Obama talked more about nothing than John McCain. John McCain talked more about actual records more than Barack Obama. Barack Obama focused on Bush because he knows that John McCain is stronger and better than Bush. He knows John McCain is a maverick and he must hide that fact.

More notes

I counted George Bush references by making a tally every time a candidate mentioned Bush's administration directly and did not relate the actions of the Bush administration directly to their own actions (both candidates did this at least once). If I had counted the number of times a candidate referenced "the last eight years" or "the last four years", Barack Obama's score assuredly would have been over twenty and John McCain's would have remained the same.

I started out with also counting the number of praises and criticisms issued by each candidate. I stopped doing this when it became too difficult to keep track of. However, when I stopped (about midway) Obama and McCain had criticized each other equally. Obama had praised John McCain several times, and John McCain had praised Barack Obama zero times.

So, I'm making it up, right Sparky?

Ok. Go ahead and do it yourself. Produce your own numbers. I plan to do it again sometime soon and come up with a new set of numbers which will assuredly be different than these but will also assuredly produce the same patterns.

Great Video

Very good video from sixty minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/28/60minutes/main4483612.shtml

The 60 minutes team stayed with Henry Paulson through the ongoing bailout negotiations. Fascinating!!

The most fascinating to me: Henry Paulson literally did get on one knee and ask Nancy Pelosy and the Democrats not to blow things up. Pelosy said, "It's not us, it's the Republicans." And he said, "I know, I know".

Just because I will most likely vote for one, doesn't mean I like 'em!!

Up next: Debate analysis.

Also, I will be going back (for the fifth time!!) to the economic crisis. A revealing debate with Sparky the other day as well as a few other things have brought me to the realization that I am definitely right about the economic crisis. Read on!!

And by the way, if you are new to my blog, read the post entitled "Please Please Me". It gives some good info.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

I am not the only crazy one!

Regarding my theories on the economic crisis, Sparky told me yesterday that I was wrong because nobody else has the same idea. Housing post 1, Housing post 2, Housing post 3.

First of all, Sparky, we do not look to the news media for a fact-based, logical discussion of any issue or historical event. We wait until people with brains think about it and write about it in credible articles and books.

Second of all, I am not the only one! I just Googled Community Reinvestment Act, and I found a good editorial in the Boston Globe and a bad editorial in the National Review Online that both agree with me. The Community Reinvestment Act forced lending institutions to give loans to people they knew would default.

Boston Globe editorial
National review online editorial (this is junky...but mostly correct!!)

I might not be right, but I am certainly not crazy!!

...I am right, though.

Debate commentary coming next!!

Friday, September 26, 2008

Vexing Texting

Me: Hey do you know if the debate is on tonight?

Sparky: It is on but mccain aint going lol at 8pm

Me: Of course. Obama is at his best when He's unopposed

Sparky: Um im sry that obama stays 2 his word and doesnt pull out 2 days before

Me: In the midst of the largest crisis in years. Of course He's not really any help anyways i'm sure so he'd rather blab to himself for an hour

Still waiting on another response...

Yes, I am an instigator!! Sorry!

[CORRECTION: We were both wrong. As of two hours ago McCain is participating. And it's at 9PM. NYT]

Idiotic Republicans at it again

The Republicans are wrong, again.

The morning news indicates that Republicans in congress have proposed a new plan that wouldn't involve spending the $700 billion tax payer dollars.

New York Times link

I don't even have to explain the details of this plan for you to know it is wrong. For once (or for twice) George Bush is right. We need to bail these companies out to avoid a depression.

The Republicans have the right idea, in that they want to enact legislation that will not only stop the bleeding but also act preventatively. However, now is not the time for that. The time for that is a few weeks from now, when people aren't considering running the bank anymore.

John McCain was stupid to put himself in the same room as these people. Now he has an impossible choice. Should he support this silly legislation that is only causing trouble, or should he make the right choice and go with Bush? The only problem is that if he goes with Bush, the media will be all over it and it will fuel Barack Obama's silly anti-maverick ads. Just get outta there Johnny!

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Why this is happening

No alliterations or puns today. I'm not in the mood.

Excessive use of credit is going to destroy this country.

Right now, the Bush administration and congress are rescuing us from Bill Clinton's mistakes. I just published a post full of facts on the economic crisis. In that post, I point out that George Bush and the Republicans have repeatedly tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's bad practices in their tracks. They were thwarted by Democrats. I also pointed out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the government. They never should have been. The government has no business giving people houses. I also pointed out that Bill Clinton forced banks (large and small) to give loans in poor communities to people who would never be able to afford to pay them back.

Liberals in government have gotten America addicted to credit.

I hope that every American understands what has happened here.

Tutorial: What the hell just happened

For a long time, the prices of homes continued to rise. Starting around 2005/2006, their prices stopped increasing and started to fall. This is known as a bubble. Popping.

This would have been fine, if the people in those houses actually owned them.

But most people don't own their homes. They have mortgages.

Consider this. A family lives in a home and is paying a $300,000 mortgage on it. Their payments are too high to afford, so they want to refinance. However, their home is now worth only $280,000, so there is no equity on which to refinance. Therefore the family can't pay the mortgage and they default.

Of course, this means that the lender loses money. They could kick the person out of their home and try to sell it, but now that the house is worth less than it was before they will still lose money even if they do manage to sell it.

Since the housing bubble had popped nationwide (in fact, worldwide), this exact process recently occurred thousands of times over, which meant that thousands of mortgages became worth negative money.

Mortgages have long been traded by companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now all the mortgages owned by companies like Fannie and Freddie are worth negative money, and unless someone helps these companies out they will be bankrupt.

Of course, that is what the government is doing as I type. They are giving these companies money so that the companies don't have negative money anymore.

This is necessary, because without companies like these the American way of life would abruptly halt and we would be in a depression.

In summary, the government (Clinton) forced banks to give loans out to people who could never pay them. Now, the people aren't paying the loans (duh) so the government is paying them instead. In effect, the government bought thousands of people their houses. Actually, I paid for their houses. We paid for their houses.

Stop Credit

Everyone on TV, the radio, in the White House, and on Capitol Hill are talking about "solving the root of the problem". The root of the problem is credit. It is evil.

Yes, it is unfortunate if a person cannot afford a house and has to live in a dingy apartment. However, those people should be encouraged to work hard, save, and buy a house with cash as I intend to do. They should not be given a house. If everyone in the country were given everything on a plate, everyone would stop working and we would all die.

Please, tell your government to stop encouraging credit. Tell Democrats to stop earning their votes by promising people free things. It doesn't work. It hurts us. It fails. It's bad. Why don't people get this?

My life is over

The debate scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled (postponed?). [CORRECTION on 9/26/08]: It appears the debate is ON! Although...McCain won't be there, so it will be Obama debating himself. NYT

Initially, Barack Obama was opposed to canceling the debate. John McCain offered the initial suggestion because he feels he can be of more help to Americans by returning to Washington and working on the economic rescue legislation. Democrats (including Obama) criticize McCain's move, calling it a "Hail Mary". “What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?”
New York Times article

That's disgusting. As always, the Democrats are trying to spin a good thing and make McCain look bad. The fact is that McCain obviously does want the congress to work past their bed time in an attempt to save the country from Bill Clinton's mistakes (more on that later). I guess if Barack Obama is elected president we can expect anarchy after 9PM, when he will be having his TV time.

Grow up!

Facts on the Economic Crisis

Before, I posted an editorial on the housing crisis. Now that the housing crisis has grown into an even larger problem, I will post again. This time, there will be no opinion. This is a factual post. Facts only.

Please note that I link to a few Wikipedia articles here. Although I do not believe Wikipedia is as reliable a source as newspapers and video, I do believe its articles can serve as a good overview of some issues as well as a place to find informative links. So, read the Wikipedia articles at your own discretion.


Facts about the housing crisis

In 2003, George Bush recognized a problem in the mortgage lending industry. In response, he proposed a plan that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and determined whether the two mortgage lenders were properly managing the risk of their investments. The Bush administration also wanted to eliminate the power of the president to appoint the two companies' directors, since this practice can produce ineffective leadership in the companies.

For the most part, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both endorsed Bush's plan. The industry encouraged congress to pass this legislation in a timely manner.

Democrats strongly apposed Bush's plan. Barney Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, New York Times, September 11, 2003

Wikipedia explains Bush's proposed changes


In 1995, the Clinton administration enacted legislation that forced lending institutions to prove that they were lending to enough lower-income people. Under this legislation, the government limited the ability of financial institutions to grow if they did not give enough loans in poor communities.

As a compromise, the Republicans tried to reduce the extent to which small- and medium-sized banks were forced to make loans in poor communities. Democrats opposed their attempt.

1993 Clinton press conference

Republicans Seek a Cutback in Lending Rules for Banks, New York Times, March 31, 1995

Wikipedia explains Bill Clinton's changes


Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938 as a part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
Wikipedia explains about Fannie Mae


Freddie Mac was created by the government in 1970.
Wikipedia explains about Freddie Mac

Monday, September 22, 2008

Democrats against the environment

Saturday, the Boston Globe published an excellent editorial on leadership in environmentalism. Read it--really!
On climate, who will lead by example? Boston Globe

The editorial points out the shaky environmental leadership from John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts senators. Although both scored a 93% voting-record rating from the League of Conservation Voters, they are far from environmental role-models.

Kennedy has always opposed the first offshore wind farm in the United States.

Kerry refuses to take a stand on the first offshore wind farm in the United States.

Kerry and Kennedy supported paying $96,193,715 to General Electric for helicopter motors.

For decades, General Electric has resisted PCB cleanup projects for the rivers they pollute.

...and they still do.

GE is also an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear energy, since they stand to make millions from building nuclear power plants.

It's not surprising, though, that Kerry is a political supporter of GE. In 2006 alone he had over $3 million invested with them.

Speaking of investments, Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell, and James Oberstar also each have up to $100,000 invested in GE.

This Globe editorial is so spot-on, I won't continue to paraphrase it. Here is its conclusion:
Kerry also had investments totaling between $81,004 and $215,000 in ExxonMobil and BP. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has investments in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips totaling between $66,003 and $168,000. The top congressional investor in ConocoPhillips, at $500,001 to $1 million, is Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and self-proclaimed "leading advocate of farm conservation programs."

The Center for Environment and Population report asked, "What are we willing to change, or give up? . . . Is it the world's climate, as we know it? Plentiful water supplies? Land? Species? Or do we have to make different policy, lifestyle, business, or industry choices?"

From the private choices of our eco-warriors, we might as well give up.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

I am a liar and a loser

A few posts ago I said I was going to focus on Iraq soon. I lied. I'm a loser.

The truth is, I know so little about Iraq that anything I post on it will just be blathering.

I know I overuse certain words, including "blather". There are two reasons for this. For one, I have a limited vocabulary (it happens when half the books you read contain the word "programming" in their title). The second reason is that I come across blathering so often, it is hard not to mention it.

Blather (v.): to talk or utter foolishly; blither; babble: The poor thing blathered for hours about the intricacies of his psyche.

Exactly.

After reading a horrible editorial in The Huntington Ruse and then a few excellent editorials in the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal, I decided I should raise my own editorial standard. And that means not writing about things I don't know a damn about and can't seem to really learn a damn about.

Instead of blogging on Iraq, I will leave you with one sentence about it. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong about Iraq. Think about it.

In the news: Universal health care troubles?

(Opinion)

There was an excellent article in The Boston Globe yesterday. The article explains that Governor Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) is seeking "widespread emergency cuts in the state budget" because tax collections "plummeted by $200 million in the first two weeks of September". Here is my favorite quote:
The state also faces rising costs associated with its universal healthcare law, which has led to higher-than-expected enrollment in state-funded insurance programs. Patrick proposed a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/09/20/patrick_ponders_big_cuts_as_state_revenue_tumbles/
(unfortunately, The Boston Globe requires you to sign up for a free account in order to view the second page of this article)

I won't blather on about this because I know very little about it. I just wanted to note the simple logic which has been clearly proven here: when the government offers an easy way out, people take it. Universal health care seems to bring "higher-than-expected" everything.

Also, I like how they call it "a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law". Again, I do not know this, but I bet that means TAX!

From the other side of the issue, the fact that higher-than-expected numbers of people have enrolled in state-funded insurance is a good thing. I can buy into the claim that more people with health insurance is good, but I won't claim that more people on state-run health care is. First of all, this means that more taxpayer money is supporting these people's health care (as the article mentions). This is communist. Ideally, I should not be paying a dime for my neighbor's health care. Second, this is sure to encourage more interaction on the government's part in the medical field. And we all know that when the government gets involved, things get ugly.

Friday, September 19, 2008

A Huntington Ruse

The Huntington News, formerly known as the Northeastern News, published a falsity in their paper.
...abstinence became part of the national dialogue with the news that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. Palin is a supporter of abstinence-only sex education, but that doesn't seem to be working, even under Palin's own roof.

...Whether it's Bristol Palin getting pregnant or college students getting drunk, authority figures need to recognize that just saying "don't do it" doesn't do any good. Plenty of people will choose to abstain, but it's naive to think they will do it just because their RA or their governor mother says to.


-The Huntington News, 9/15/08


Although I do think the Huntington News should correct this and apologize for it, I do not blame them for publishing it. Most people believe the propaganda about Palin.

In fact, Sarah Palin supports education about contraception with an emphasis on abstinence.
LA Times link

Her daughter Bristol once attended Wasilla High School but now attends Anchorage West High School. A summary of West High School's sexual education policy can be found at the link below. It stresses abstinence, but also includes information about condoms and other contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, breast and testicular self-exams, and STDs. That doesn't sound like abstinence-only sex education to me.
Anchorage West High School Sexuality Education guidelines

As far as the sex education at Wasilla High School, it isn't abstinence-only either. They don't have the curriculum posted online, though. Their policy stresses abstinence, but also covers contraception.
Boston Herald link

So, to sum it up, here is how Wasilla High School, Anchorage West High School, Matt Collette of the Huntingon News, and I think that sex education ought to be taught:
Now Johnny, I want to talk to you about sex... I think you know that the only way to completely avoid getting genital herpes or knocking up your girlfriend is to abstain from sex. But if you do decide to visit Boom City, use a condom.

-Huntington News, 9/15/08
The most ironic thing, though, is not that the Huntington News made an error. I find it ironic that the very type of sex education that we are all recommending is actually the type that "doesn't seem to be working", not the abstinence-only type.

Of course, I don't believe that the sex education in Alaska "doesn't seem to be working" just because one girl got pregnant. She made a mistake. We don't condemn a mathematics curriculum just because a few students fail, so neither should we condemn a sex education curriculum just because a girl gets pregnant.

Of course, we could go on condemning parenting practices...but that is another story.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Watch the debates

Please watch the debates. They have been scheduled for the following dates:

Friday, September 26th, 9PM Eastern time
Tuesday, October 7th, 9PM Eastern time
Wednesday, October 15th, 9PM Eastern time

No person should decide which candidate to vote for before watching all three debates. The debates are a time when each candidate defends his policy in his own words with no media bias. It is an opportunity for candidates to change peoples' minds. I plan to open my mind to change should a particular candidate give a convincing argument.

That said, the debates are going to suck.

It is arguably true that the Republican and Democratic party have conspired to keep third-party candidates out of the debates, as is noted in a recent issue of The Liberator. The Liberator is run by my favorite party, the Libertarians.

Liberator online vol. 13 num. 15 (scroll down to where it says Phony Presidential "Debates")

This is outrageous. Although I am not idealistic enough to believe that a Libertarian like Bob Barr would win a presidential election, it is detrimental to the debates to eliminate input from third parties. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was not a choice candidate, but his input during debates gave a strong libertarian influence to the national discussion. In the same way, having only two candidates in the presidential debates will limit the scope of the national discussion to two points of view.

If both McCain and Obama disappoint in the upcoming debates, I will be voting for Bob Barr (just for fun).

Dear God

(Opinion alert)

Last post I said I was going to focus on issues again, but Sparky has been texting me avidly about some Sarah Palin quotes involving God. Since it does have to do with my next issue, Iraq, I'll post on it.

First, let me be clear. Sometimes I use poetic license when I describe conversations between Sparky and me. For example, I will say, "so Sparky called me up and started jabbering..." when what I really mean is, "In recent conversations when this subject has come up, Sparky started jabbering...".

However, this is not the case right now--no poetic license here. Sparky has literally been texting me one or two times a day giving me Palin quotes and telling me she is a religious wacko.

Religious wacko she may be, but I want to set the record straight on at least two Palin quotes that have been circulating and that I have recently stumbled upon.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

...that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there's a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So, uh, bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers, and speaking of...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA&feature=related

I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline--about a thirty billion dollar project that's gonna create a lot of jobs for Alasksans and we'll have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that. I...
If you simply read the quotes and didn't watch the videos, I suggest you do so. To any reasonable person, it is painfully obvious why Sarah Palin brought up God in these two quotes. She is speaking at a church. She is trying to work God and prayer into everything she says, because that is supposed to be the focus when you are in a church. I'm no expert in linguistics or speech, but I don't have to be. This is truly, truly obvious.

Secondly, Sparky, Sarah Palin does not claim that the Iraq war is a "task from God" or that an Alaskan pipeline is "God's will". To a reasonable person, both of these quotes (when not taken out of context) are Sarah Palin telling the churchgoers to pray for good things. She tells them to pray that God watches over our soldiers. She tells them to pray that America will become unified over the cause of alternative energy. Yet, according to Sparky, this is wacky, insane, evil stuff.

Again, let me reiterate this point for the billionth time. We should not be talking about this. Sparky shouldn't be talking about Sarah Palin sound bytes. I shouldn't be talking about Barack Obama being out of touch. If Sparky would allow me to, I'd much rather debate with him on governmental policy.

Please, Sparky! Stop allowing me to prove that I am right when I say that all politicans are slimy and we should get over it! Please allow me to prove to you instead that Barack Obama's policies are worse than John McCain's!

And another note, Sparky. It would be very, very easy for me to respond to your Palin argument with a simple list of links. I could link to an out of context sound byte of Barack Obama calling Sarah Palin a pig with lipstick, to his former reverend of twenty years ranting about the white enemy, to video of Barack dancing in jubilation at one of these sermons, to pictures of Barack launching his campaign from the house of Bill Ayers the terrorist, or to a host of other fun-filled media clips that make the man look bad. But I won't. Because it doesn't matter how bad he is. He is a politician. We compare politicans by their policies, not by the dirt the media can dig up on them.

Again, Sparky, please stop. You are my best friend, but when you talk about this stuff you only make a fool of yourself.

About Me

I find it's best to avoid filling in these "about me" things. You never know who's watching. And anyway, how would I decide which of my many personalities to portray? I wouldn't want to anger any of them. I WILL HARNESS THE POWER OF THE GOOGLE BLOGGINGS. Quiet, Pavlo. The point is that these things are dangerous. If I'm not careful, I could come across as a weirdo. Or boring. Also, I believe that every photo of me steals a little bit of my soul, so no profile picture.