A Judicious Perspective

Social Media & the Protestant Reformation

2011-12-20T22:37:00.000-08:00

The rise of social media has been a popular topic for pundits of all stripes to pontificate and speculate on. As in all new and unfamiliar communication advancements we see experts clamoring for attention with claims such as email's "reign is over" (link is from a 2009 article) to professional athletes asserting "social media is ruining the world."

The truth of the matter is the human experience has a rich and diverse set of experiences from which to draw upon when attempting to analyze the impact disruptive communication technologies have on societies. The Economist, one of my favorite magazines (or, as they prefer, newspaper) has an excellent article in their annual double issue entitled "How Luther Went Viral".

The delivery of news is changing from an oligarchy of content providers to a diverse, plentiful and fragmented group of producers -- namely you and I. For instance, while the NY Times still plays an outsized role in establishing the news narrative the public receives (local newspapers, TV stations and radio programs taking the Times led) it no longer has nearly the clout it once had.

From the article:

The media environment that Luther had shown himself so adept at managing had much in common with today’s online ecosystem of blogs, social networks and discussion threads. It was a decentralised system whose participants took care of distribution, deciding collectively which messages to amplify through sharing and recommendation. Modern media theorists refer to participants in such systems as a “networked public”, rather than an “audience”, since they do more than just consume information. Luther would pass the text of a new pamphlet to a friendly printer (no money changed hands) and then wait for it to ripple through the network of printing centres across Germany.

With increasing decentralized avenues for the public to receive information it is more important for communicators to understand not only where target audiences receive information -- they have to taylor content to ensure it is relevant and interesting.

Winning the Battle, Losing the War: Part I

2011-02-23T22:23:00.000-08:00

The current political dispute between Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the state’s public employee unions is the first battle in a struggle that will dominate the public policy arena at all levels of government in the next 10 years -- how to pay for public employee retirement benefits, what role public employee unions will play delivering government services and their role in the future of the Democratic Party.

I seek to explore these ideas in a series of forthcoming posts. My initial post will cover the cost of retirement benefits to state and local governments (SLGs). Future posts will cover what Walter Russell Mead calls the blue model, the problems of federal deficit spending and the how these disputes will change the political environment of America. Although I expect battles between Republican governors and public employee unions to energize the base of the Democratic Party in the 2012 elections, helping Obama secure his second term, the core public policies in dispute threatens to tear apart the Democratic Party – and will force a substantial political realignment.

Pensions & Unfunded Liabilities

Unlike the federal government, every state in the union (except for Vermont) has a legal requirement of a balanced budget. Although this can be offset in deficit years by relying on the bond market to cover shortfalls SLG’s don’t have the luxury of printing the world’s reserve currency to keep interest rates low, much less pay back the loans.

The wretched standing of SLG budgets has been a victim of the Great Recession. California alone saw revenues fall from $103 billion in 2007-08 to $83 billion in 2008-2009, and will only recover to an expected $94 billion in 2010-11. Revenue figures will improve as our nation’s economic recovery continues. Nevertheless, larger budget problems have been exposed during the crisis and loom ominously in the future.

Rather remarkably, the money discussed in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is just a mere fraction compared to the amount of money needed to right SLG pension obligations. Originally estimated to cost taxpayers $300 billion, recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures estimated TARP will end up costing taxpayers $25 billion. This does not include bailing out Fannie and Freddie Mac, which has cost $153 billion so far with the potential of an addition $68-$210 billion needed by 2013.

Estimates on the unfunded liabilities of the states vary. The Pew Center recently estimated the total to be $1 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2008, yet this study used the accounting standards of state pension boards. Using standards required by the private sector the total could be as much as $3 trillion – and this doesn’t even include local governments! These unfunded liabilities has been recognized from figures across the political spectrum, from Reason to the Heritage Foundation to Washington Post progressive pundit Ezra Klein.

As the daunting dilemma has revealed itself investors and public officials have taken notice. Moody’s, the rating agency that rated junk housing derivates as AAA, recently announced they would factor in pension obligations into their credit ratings – even though these figures are not listed on their audited financial statements. This will certainly lower state credit ratings, increase interest rates on state issued debt and augment the strain placed on state budgets. An additional long term issue SLGs will have to confront is increasing health care costs for retired employees; not only will the number of retirees increase, so has the inflation rate for health care.

The same New York Times article linked above revealed states already have $2.8 trillion worth of outstanding bonds. This set of financial realities doesn’t paint an appealing picture for the future of state government budgets.

What in the World to Do?

Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: "We have no expectation or intention to get involved in state and local finance.” The states "should not expect loans from the Fed."

Felix Rohatyn, the longtime advisor to the Democratic Party and legendary financier who helped save New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970’s, recently told the New York Times “it seems to me that crying wolf is probably a good thing to do at this point.”

Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan: “throughout the country, 90 percent of cities and states are going to go bankrupt within the next five years, many of them sooner.”

SLGs are looking at financial armageddon in the next 10 years and the Fed won’t bail them out. What we are about to witness is best describe by astrophysicists as an “Impact Event.” The governance and political alliance structure of SLGs will never be the same after the dust settles.

Losing the 60th Seat

2010-01-19T18:47:00.000-08:00

Imagine if the ghost of Election Future told Teddy the day after the '08 election that he would die soon and that the fate of health care reform depended on the results of the special election to replace him. I'm quite sure the lion of the Senate would've slammed down a scotch in celebration (or equivalent)!

It is absolutely remarkable how the Democrats have revived a completely disorganized, dysfunctional political party. It really comes down to the "economy stupid". Three major mistakes were made by the Obama administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party:

1. pushing health care ahead of economic reform, including financial regulation;
2. trusting that Keynesian economics work; and
3. realizing, because of the branding efforts by the Obama Presidential campaign, voters projected their own interpretations of him, and often times with radical different results.

Obama and his campaign made a very conscious effort to prevent the brand of Obama from becoming labeled by traditional political definitions. Although he had a perfect liberal rating as a U.S. Senator and was known for advocating rather liberal beliefs such as expanding the rights of Americans to health care and other social justice issues, he avoided being categorized as a traditional liberal through advocating for a "realist" foreign policy, a more efficient, results oriented approach to government services, charter schools and praising Ronald Reagan.

While this was a brilliant campaign strategy that was incredibly effective, it was extremely vulnerable once public policy was made and the vision of brand Obama was clarified by American voters. This vulnerability was further compounded by, frankly, the arrogance of the Obama administration. We saw this after Iowa, when team Obama was overly confident about New Hampshire. This overconfidence led to numerous mistakes and nearly cost him the nomination.

I would speculate team Obama became enamored of their poll numbers early on and sought to strengthen the depth of positive sentiments towards Obama by continually keeping Obama front and center of the media cycle. What ensued was overexposure. Press conference after press conference, announcement after announcement... it was soon all Obama all the time... even more that it would already naturally be as the first minority President that was the hope of saving the country from the previous administrations seemingly disastrous policies.

Furthermore, this overexposure was compounded by an apparent supreme confidence that his policies would turn around the economy and unemployment rate. This is where mistake #2 enters.

In many ways Obama is extremely fortunate to even be where he is at right now. Imagine if that jihad advocating cat from Nigeria had actually succeeded in blowing up that plane during the holidays. Obama's rating would be in the low 30's and next November would be a complete bloodbath at the polls.

At the end of the day I'm still quiet stunned how Obama managed to destroy so much of the good will he accumulated with the American people.

BusinessWeek Worth $1?

2009-07-15T21:43:00.000-07:00

A report out of the Financial Times indicates that McGraw-Hill will essentially be forced to give the venerable news weekly away for free due to BusinessWeek's $77.8 million loss in the first of 2009 and the realities of the print news distribution model.

Palin Leaves Office

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

To "fight for what is right." Whatever Sarah. Her speech was the most cringing, insincere, bullshit and painful political speech I have EVER heard. I was actually laughing it was so embarrassing -- she made herself out to be the savior of America using horrible public policy puns. Seriously, it sounded like she hired Kim Jung Il's speechwriter.

Whoever is in her political team has consistently given her some of the worst advice I have seen in the modern political era.

American Right Holds It's Own Hostage

2009-02-26T05:00:00.000-08:00

Interesting article on CQpolitics online relayed to me yesterday by a friend.

Shortly after Arlen Specter and two other centrist Senate Republicans struck their deal with Democrats and the White House on the economic stimulus package, Specter was approached in the GOP cloakroom by one of his colleagues.

“ ‘Arlen, I’m proud of you,’ ” the second senator said. Specter declined to say who the lawmaker was, but he recounted the rest of their conversation this way: “‘Are you going to vote with me?’ I said. He said, ‘No, I might have a primary.’ And I said, ‘You know very well that I’m going to have a primary.’”
That brief encounter clearly illuminated the position moderates hold in the ranks of the Senate Republicans these days — weighing their ideological inclination to find common cause with President Obama against the political risks and rewards of such dealmaking, both for themselves and for their party.

My friend David Amerikaner narrowed the list down to ten names, all male, up for reelection in 2010: Bennett (UT), Bunning (KY), Burr (NC), Coburn (OK), Crapo (ID), Grassley (IA), Gregg (NH), Isakson (GA), Shelby (AL), Vitter (LA).

Good place to start. I'm going to throw out Bunning (already facing primary challenge) and Coburn (known anti-government activist) off the top of my head. This leaving Bennett, Burr, Crapo, Grassley, Gregg, Isakson, Shelby and Vitter.

Bennett: While I know (from personal experience) politicians do not always believe their own rhetoric, I think this statement from Bennett in a Huffington Post article rules him out:

"We have a very, very clear model, because we passed a stimulus package in the last Congress -- bipartisan. Republicans voted for it. Democrats voted for it. It didn't work," said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who led financial-industry bailout negotiations for the GOP.

Bennett argued that the last plan "was based on economic analysis of past recessions and past problems and not the depth and seriousness of this one. We saw personal income spike up as a result of the stimulus we put into the economy, and the economy was stimulated not at all."

For Bennett, the plan failed because high debts and the dire economic outlook persuaded people that they should save their money or pay down loans rather than spend. "When you're having an economic crisis, whether you're a company like General Motors or a bank like Citi or an individual, you do what you can to pay down your debt. That's what was done with the last stimulus package. That's the rational thing to do."

Burr: Not only did Obama win his state, Burr just saw Liddy Dole lose reelection by 9 points. Furthermore, his favorables are under 50 points. However, Burr has not ventured against conservative orthodoxy in his time in the Senate often. I doubt the GOP would want to further weaken an already weak candidate (see Arlen Spector). Plausible candidate.

Crapo: Won 99 percent of the vote in his reelect in 2004. It has been rumored that he's a candidate for GOP leadership in the Senate. Popular back home, doubt anybody takes him on. I'll rule him out.

Grassley: Although he got the Obama Administration to move a $69 billion AMT patch into the stimulus bill, I doubt he is the one in question. A weekend hog farmer who visits all 99 counties in Iowa every year, a viable primary challenge is not in the cards here.

Gregg: Interesting candidate here. Gregg abstained for a cloture vote when deciding on whether to take the Commerce position. That aside, he is popular with conservatives in New Hampshire. Considering the changing dynamics of the state I doubt Gregg is worried about a primary challenge from the right in an open primary system. I'll rule him out.

Isakson: Isakson is fairly conservative but has taken some moderate steps here and there (ie. the bailout and immigration). His ridiculous amendment that would have done little else than put money in realtor's pockets showed he was at least willing to play ball. No primary challenger has announced, yet there have been rumors of it happening. Strong candidate.

Shelby: Originally elected as a Democrat from Alabama to the US Senate. Shelby is now questioning Obama's citizenship (seriously?!?!). Shelby has a $13.4 million war chest (the biggest of any incumbent on the board for 2010). Doubt he is concerned with a primary challenge.

Vitter: Extremely worried about a primary challenge (voted against HRC for State as a result). His track record is ridiculously conservative, so I doubt he would even contemplate voting for the stimulus bill.
------
My best guess: Isakson.

On Octo-Mom

2009-02-25T22:35:00.000-08:00

My friend Lindsey Horvath recently published an article at the Huffington Post regarding Nadya Suleman (aka Octo-mom). My thoughts below:

I think Miss Suleman has been an easy target for our society at large to blame for being irresponsible. America has been angered at the current state of affairs engulfing our country and our personal lives -- our troops are still in Iraq, the worst financial crisis in 80 years, surging insecurity regarding one's job, etc. -- and while we blame failed politicians, bankers and variuous corporate shenanigans for these massive issues, our search for solutions defies simple explanations.

Thus we turn back to Miss Suleman. Her circumstances are essentially of her own choosing, and has resulted in her own personal government bailout of sorts. While this story would be a media sensation in any news cycle, it has gained greater prominence due to external cultural and economic difficulties.

Anytime a woman decides to bear a child society must support her decision -- not necessarily for the mother's sake but for the child's future. However, I believe a financial test for fertility treatments is not against the goals of feminism, and would actually provide incentives for woman to better gauge if they can provide for a new life's well-being.

In regards to the matters of feminism, I think it is essential for woman's groups to be pushing for greater financial literarcy with women. I'm not sure if this would have helped Miss Suleman all that much, yet -- thanks in large part to the previous generation of feminists -- as women increase their financial earnings they need the tools to empower themselves to be more responsible for the lives of their children, family and their own personal future.

Small, but Needed Step, to Greater Government Transparency

2009-02-24T06:00:00.000-08:00

In a significant step towards greater government transparency -- and how our taxpayer dollars are being spent -- the stimulus bill requires government agencies to report disbursed monies via an optional RSS feed.

For each of the near term reporting requirements (major communications, formula block grant allocations, weekly reports) agencies are required to provide a feed (preferred: Atom 1.0, acceptable: RSS) of the information so that content can be delivered via subscription.

Real time reporting of how money is allocated will provide advocate organizations greater ammunition to push for a more effective, productive use of government resources -- and our tax dollars. I fully expect this development to create a few firestorms in the blogging world... which will consequentially be covered by radio, broadcast and print media outlets.

Hat tip: Steve Rubel

The Newspaper are Dead... Long Live the Newspaper

2009-02-17T16:43:00.000-08:00

It is no secret the Gray Lady is facing serious financial difficulties. Just 18 months ago The New York Times Co. had a market cap of $2.7 billion -- it is only $542 million today. While the Times motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print", their business model/plan is best summarized by their debt rating -- junk. The Times's financial difficulty is epitomized with the fact a share of the The New York Times Company costs less than the Sunday edition of the New York Times.

Newspapers across the country are facing a similar financial problems. Their content is in demand by consumers -- google major local events and the local print stories almost always appear first -- yet they have lost their monopoly of delivering information on demand (before the Internet one could not pull up a radio interview or TV newscast whenever/where ever one desired).

Warning: Wild Speculation

Perhaps the best business model for the local established media would be for television stations to buy out and merge with local newspapers?

Government litigation/regulation, once again (see federal government anti-trust cases against IBM and Microsft -- it wasn't the litigation that ended their monopolies... it was the firms failure to innovate), has failed to keep up with the technological advances in the marketplace and this time threatens to destroy the 4th estate. If this issue sounds familiar, recall the contentious ideological battles in the last 30 years over the concept of "cross-ownership". The "progressive left" has fought any attempt to lift this restrictions claiming it would place too much media power in too few hands, increase media layoffs and therefore reducing the quality of local news coverage and stiffle local democracy. As Amy Goodman wrote in a 2007 article:

The problem facing Martin and his big media friends isn’t that newspapers are unprofitable; it’s that they are simply not as profitable as they used to be. This is in part because of the Internet. People no longer have to rely on the newspaper to post or read classified ads, for example, with free online outlets like Craigslist.

The media system in the United States is too highly concentrated and serves not the public interest but rather the interests of moguls like Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone, who controls CBS/Viacom. Media corporations that will benefit from Martin’s handout are the same ones that acted as a conveyor belt for the lies of the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We need a media that challenges the government, that acts as a fourth estate, not for the state. We need a diverse media. The U.S. Congress has a chance to overrule Martin and the FCC, and to keep the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban in place. It should do so immediately, before the consolidated press leads us into another war.

While I agree it is in the American public interest to have "media that challenges the government, that acts as a fourth estate," I simply do not see any other way to ensure the survival of local media outlets other than consolidation. Two ideas that have raised to address the financial difficulties of local newspapers have been government subsidies (horrible idea for very obvious reasons) and establishing local non-profit trusts (sounds good, yet I doubt this actually works + who is going to subsidize the entities... rich local elite who do not want negative press coverage).

The viability of local news coverage depends on increasing the efficiency with which local news is produced and distributed. Breaking up existing "cross-ownerships" or preventing further consolidation does nothing to address this fundamental reality. The "progressive left" needs to come up with better arguments than demonization of MSM to argue against the repeal of the "cross-ownership" rule and come up with realistic, viable solutions to save local media outlets.

A Possible Solution: Repeal "Cross-Ownership" Regulations

Although my prediction of four daily newspapers by the end of Obama's first term may be a bit aggressive, their is little doubt that an unprecedented number of daily newspapers will cease publication in the next four years. Newspapers have seen their two sources of income (advertising and subscriptions) massacred by the combination of the Internet and recession (esp. the collapse of the real estate and automobile industry). Significant job loses are inevitable. The daily print newspaper model is dead -- and the income from an outlet's Web site is not nearly enough to sustain current news operations.

Consolidation with local TV stations may offer the best opportunity to preserve as much journalistic talent and reporting as possible. Unlike newspapers, local TV stations income stream is far more stable than newspapers. While local TV news broadcasts have seen advertising and audience share drop, their core income stream is far more reliable long-term than print and has not fallen nearly as much.

Like all firms in any sector, newspapers are going to need need to innovate, to adapt -- and many are. Numerous print reporters are already filing video along with the written story to enhance the effectiveness of the piece on the Internet. Local televisions stations are now posting written news stories on the front page of their Web sites without a produced news clip. The delivery mechanism of these two media genres is rapidly merging -- and they are competing with each other for SEO rankings and an increased online readership.

I fear if "cross-ownership" regulations are not removed many daily newspapers will cease publication. The quality of local news coverage will be greater if the remnants of the daily newspaper are allowed to merge with local TV stations than simply go online as a shell of their former selves. In the aggregate local news coverage will be greater if consolidation allows for increased efficiency in news gathering.

The People's Republic of Santa Monica

2009-02-13T07:23:00.000-08:00

One would think if you were going to subsidize social services for the homeless and mentally-ill woman you would look to minimize costs not related to the service to maximize outreach. This basic logic apparently does not exist with the public policy makers in the city of Santa Monica.

In 1973 the city purchased a mixed-use building a block away from the Santa Monica pier with ocean views. Since then the building has been used by nonprofits to provide services to the homeless and mentally-ill woman. One would think if the city sold this property they could use the proceeds to find a building that is not in a prime commercial real estate area to increase the center's size and scope of reach. Not in Santa Monica however:

More than 35 years after purchasing a mixed-use building on scenic Ocean Avenue, City Hall is preparing to lease the property for affordable housing.

The City Council is expected tonight to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a lease with OPCC and allocate $100,000 to the nonprofit homeless service provider for architectural, legal and consulting purposes...

City Hall purchased the 19-unit property at 1614-1616 Ocean Ave. in 1973, leasing the rent-controlled spaces to residents and OPCC's Daybreak Day Center, which offers social service programs to homeless and mentally-ill women. About seven units are currently vacant to make way for future building rehabilitation.

Taking the merits of the program aside, is it really in the best interests of taxpayers to be subsidizing ocean front views for the homeless?

Is Santa Monica the only city in the state not to face a budget crisis?

But if You Ask Really, Really Nicely They May Stop!

2009-02-12T07:15:00.000-08:00

The federal American government has spent more than $1,500,000,000 in taxpayer dollars since 1996 in abstinence-only until marriage sex education.

On one side of the debate we have Derek Dye the Abstinence Clown (the video is absolutely unreal -- and paid for by your tax dollars!), Sarah Palin and the Pope; on the other side we have the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association. Hmm...

The hypothesis we can "educate" teenagers to go against their fundamental primordial drive is fairly ludicrous to begin with. No surprise then that the evidence reveals abstinence-only sex education fails to reduce teen pregnancy, STD or the proclivity of teenagers to explore their budding sexual desires.

From global warming to the Big Bang (seriously!) to this it is clear science played a back seat to ideology and political gain in the George W. Bush administration.

---
Thanks for e-mailing me the Derek Dye the Abstinence Clown story Kaner.

End the "War on Drugs"

2009-02-11T07:58:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, I do not expect American public policy makers to come to terms with the absolute fact that the "War on Drugs" has been a colossal failure of epic proportions any time soon. Although the "War on Drugs" has resulted in:

$49 billion spent per year by local, state and federal agencies -- money that could have been going to education, health care, etc.;
80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population was due to drug convictions between 1985 and 1995;
somebody getting arrested every 17 seconds for violating a drug law (for cannabis alone its ever 38 seconds);
more than half of all sentenced federal prisoners are drug offenders; and
17 percent of State prisoners and 18 percent of Federal prisoners committed their crimes in order to obtain drug money.

The only winners in the "War on Drugs" are criminal enterprises and politicians who appease public sentiments (I'm looking at you Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, Joe Biden, Ronald Reagan (for increasing mandatory sentences) and essentially the entire GOP/American Right). While these costs are relatively hidden to the American public and media outlets, the disastrous consequences are very apparent in Mexico.Here is just a taste from a blog post at Cato-at-Liberty:

Mexican soldiers are being killed and beheaded, and police officers are being assassinated (warning: violent content)... For more on this topic, click here, here, or here.

More recent evidence from the Washington Post:

After a long, controversial career, Brig. Gen. Mauro Enrique Tello Quiñones retired from active duty last month and moved to this Caribbean playground to work for the Cancun mayor and fight the drug cartels that have penetrated much of Mexican society. He lasted a week.
Tello, 63, along with his bodyguard and a driver, were kidnapped in downtown Cancun last Monday evening, taken to a hidden location, methodically tortured, then driven out to the jungle and shot in the head. Their bodies were found Tuesday in the cab of a pickup truck on the side of a highway leading out of town. An autopsy revealed that both the general's arms and legs had been broken.
The audacious kidnapping and killing of one of the highest-ranking military officers in Mexico drew immediate expressions of outrage from the top echelons of the Mexican government, which pledged to continue the fight against organized crime that took the lives of more than 5,300 people last year. Military leaders, who are increasingly at the front lines of the war against the cartels, vowed not to let Tello's death go unsolved or unpunished.

The underlying problem here for Mexico is simple; their isn't a damn thing they can do to address the root cause of the violence -- demand from American consumers. As America pumps in billions of dollars to cut off supply chains the money to be made from the drug trade is increasingly found not necessarily in producing the stuff -- it is in getting substances across the border.

Their is a full on war going on south of our border. One that CANNOT be won. The question we must ask ourselves is what is it going to take for our country to wake up and demand real change.

The New Newsweek

2009-02-10T07:31:00.000-08:00

I commend Newsweek for revamping their magazine in light of their recent and projected subscription losses. Details per the New York Times article:

"'If we don’t have something original to say, we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable,'" per John Meachem, Newsweek's editor...

"Newsweek loses money...it has to try something big...
'Mass for us is a business that doesn’t work,' said Tom Ascheim, Newsweek’s chief executive. 'Wish it did, but it doesn’t. We did it for a long time, successfully, but we can’t anymore.'
Thirteen months ago, Newsweek lowered its rate base, the circulation promised to advertisers, to 2.6 million from 3.1 million, and Ascheim said that would drop to 1.9 million in July, and to 1.5 million next January...
Starting in May, articles will be reorganized under four broad, new sections — one each for short takes, columnists and commentary, long reporting pieces like the cover articles, and culture — each with less compulsion to touch on the week’s biggest events. A new graphic feature on the last page, “The Bluffer’s Guide,” will tell readers how to sound as if they are knowledgeable on a current topic, whether they are or not.

"The Problem with Socialism is that you Eventually Run Out of Other People's Money"

2009-02-07T21:43:00.000-08:00

The title of this blog posts is one of the best quotes from Margaret Thatcher. The market economy is far more efficient than government at allocating resources and identifying investments in a cost-effective manner. When government grows as a percent of GDP it crowds out the true engine of American society -- entrepreneurs -- to the detriment of future economic growth.

The forthcoming cover story for the February 16, 2009 edition of Newsweek declares "We Are All Socialists Now." Key passage:

Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is an extremely alarming trend. Politicians, in my experience and perspective, are far more concerned being viewed as "doing something" to address perceived problems than actually solving them. An incredible amount of money is wasted and misallocated by government bureaucrats. When firms fail they go out of business. When firms stop being competitive they lose market share to competitors. Entrepreneurs and businesses thus have powerful incentives to continually look to innovate, increase productivity and seek creativity ideas and solutions. The largest incentive for government bureaucrats is to protect their turf and budgets.

Furthermore, these figures only add to my firm belief George W. Bush was by far the worst President in the history of our republic. Beyond that fact that he did not produce one significant piece of legislation in regards to public policy (Medicare Part D? the education bill? Please...) his assault on liberty was simply stunning:

1. Iraq. If misleading the public and resorting to fear tactics to drive our nation into a war of choice was not bad enough, this misadventure saddled our nation with an incredible debt that only adds to our future massive financial liabilities with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

2. The Patriot Act.

3. Implicitly condoning torture as an acceptable interrogation tactic.

4. Allowing government to grow as a percent of the economy PRIOR to the financial meltdown:
5. Failure to prevent the extent of the financial meltdown. As 43 claimed he was a man who favored less government and the virtues of free trade (despite the steel tariffs in his first administration, allowing the Democratic Party to push Fannie and Freddie to take increased risk with the goal of increasing the home ownership rate, etc.). Consequentially, the ideology that he claimed to adhere to, and aided by his incredibly high disapproval ratings, has has led many to question the virtues of the free market and provided greater credence to the belief that government can and should "solve" people's problems.

edit: Per an op-ed from John Taylor, professor of economics at Stanford and originated of The Taylor Rule:

My research shows that government actions and interventions -- not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy -- caused, prolonged and dramatically worsened the crisis.

6. Bailouts. The government had to prevent the complete meltdown of the financial sector. However, the rush to approve TARP and the failure to have any kind of transparency was simply stunning.

7. Failure to reform long-term entitlement spending.

I'm probably missing a few more. So much for 43's belief that "the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world."

Political Tone Deaf Award (Bailout Nation)

2009-02-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

This week's political tone deaf award goes to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly who, when asked why 11 Democrats did not vote for the "economic stimulus package" when it was on the House floor last week, stated:

The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district. Many of the districts are more conservative, and they campaigned on fiscal responsibility, and we understand that.

When relaying remarks to media outlets a press spokesperson must not only deliver a comment that advances the narrative of the article -- they must provide a quote that will be seen by listeners, readers and/or viewers as authentic while enhancing the long-term brand perception of the organization within targeted audiences.

Daly completely fails in this regard. Although he is being authentic he is damaging the political brand of the Democratic House leadership by being honest on the reality that "liberals" or "progressives" are simply not fiscally responsible. While this quote is not going to change any swing voters minds in the 2010 election cycle it is important to ALWAYS stay on message to ensure the strength of the political brand long-term.

If the leadership of the Democratic Party wants to expand the scope of government involvement in the economy they better get a grip on their PR flacks.

A better statement from Daly would have been:

The speaker has said many times that the members are representative of their district. She respects the diverse views within the Democratic House caucus and will continue to work with the entire caucus to address the massive challenges that confront our nation.

I like this statement better for a number of reasons:

1. This statement does not damage the public's image of the Democratic Party or the rebranding campaign from the word "liberal" to "progressive."
2. Although she seems accepting of the votes against the "economic stimulus package," their is a subtle threat in the latter part of the statement that members shouldn't get too comfortable voting against her on legislation.
3. I included the line "diverse views within the Democratic Party" from a branding perspective... to contrast the ideological purity current being enforced within the GOP. It is important for swing voters (moderates and independents) to see the Democratic Party as open to diverse ideologies to find solutions to the problems of America.

The People's Republic of Great Britain

2009-02-03T07:00:00.000-08:00

While America debates the merits of a $800 billion economic stimulus bill (I do not support the current incarnation that just passed the house), Great Britain appears to be seriously considering enacting Soviet style 5-year economic development plans. Per The Times of London:

Parts of the United Kingdom have become so heavily dependent on government spending that the private sector is generating less than a third of the regional economy, a new analysis has found...

Across the whole of the UK, 49% of the economy will consist of state spending, while in Wales, the figure will be 71.6% -- up from 59% in 2004-5. Nowhere in mainland Britain, however, comes close to Northern Ireland, where the state is responsible for 77.6% of spending, despite the supposed resurgence of the economy after the end of the Troubles...

The state now looms far larger in many parts of Britain than it did in former Soviet satellite states such as Hungary and Slovakia as they emerged from communism in the 1990s, when state spending accounted for about 60% of their economies.

If that was not frightening enough apparently some large private sector employers are considering adopting a 3 day work week.

The prospect of the three-day week returned to haunt Britain yesterday as it emerged that ministers are considering paying firms to cut hours in order to survive the recession...

Major firms such as JCB have already downed tools for one day a week and are considering moving to a three-day week, with state help, if the recession gets worse. The firm's chief executive, Matthew Taylor, said that he is pressing Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for Business, to introduce compensation for workers if their hours are reduced.

This is incredible. Their is a reason why the command and control government economic policies of the Soviet Union, India under the license raj and pre-Deng Xiaoping failed -- private individuals and firms are significantly better at allocating resources and creating wealth than government bureaucrats.

Not only is the extent of government involvement in the economy of Great Britain disturbing, these programs are essentially destroying the future of the British economy. The Labour Party is stealing the wealth of future generations of Britains to preserve their political power. The next generation is going to be so crippled by government debt that they will be forced to pay exorbinant taxes just to maintain a decent credit rating. With the average total fertility rate (the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime) at only 1.90 (where 2.1 is required to maintain the current population), not only will the next generation of Brits have to financial support a larger proportion of pensioners as a percent of the total population -- they will have to pay off for the reckless financial decisions of the this generation.

Advice to any citizen of Great Britain under the age of 40 -- GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!

Hat tip to Reason's blog Hit & Run and Mike Shedlock's blog Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis.

The Audacity of Hope

2009-02-02T08:14:00.000-08:00

The triumphant victory of Nicolas Sarkozy in May 2007 over the Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal was suppose to be a template for the GOP to keep control of the White House. Clearly it did not quite work out like that. While Sarkozy was able to distance himself enough from Jacques Chirac, McCain could never really distance himself from Bush due to concerns over losing the core religious conservative vote. Big mistake on team McCain, yet that is ancient history.

Per Ben Smith's blog at Politico, Royal is now claiming credit for Obama's victory.

"Yes, I inspired Obama, and his team copied us."

Really? Smith goes on to state "she claims that Obama learned the uniquely French concept of 'win-win' from her campaign." Now that is truly audacious.

I understand why foreign politicians are acting like teenage groupies at a Led Zepplin concert trying to connect their brand to Obama -- he is incredibly popular right now -- yet this is ridiculous. Segolene, the reason you lost is because your ideas are tired, they will not work and the French public -- even though they are incredibly liberal and pro big government -- did not trust you to turn around the economy.

A little advice Segolene... you should worry more about your credibility as a public official and developing competent public policy ideas more than demanding "credit" for Obama's victory. Just saying...

Credible Political Communication

2009-01-31T08:45:00.000-08:00

The role of a communications director/team for an elected office is to share information with the public on what government is doing to address problems and to build/shape the political brand of the elected official in order to advance his/her political future.

It was well known during the 2008 that John McCain didn't know how to use a computer. He even admitted it in the spring of 2008. I understand the need to use new technologies to improve one's ability to deliver messaging, yet apparently McCain is now personally down with Twitter?

An effective use of Twitter is not to relay a politician's media and diplomatic tea schedule -- BORING! An effective use of Twitter would be for the elected official to build his political brand by relaying unique incite into their thought process or entertaining anecdotes from their lives (as a former communications director for a Los Angeles City Council member I can attest that all elected politicians have plenty of harmless stories that can be shared under 140 characters that followers would find of interest).

This does not entail for an elected official to understand or "get" Twitter -- although that certainly would help. A successful Twitter strategy necessitates an elected official to engage with their staff to ensure original, unique content.

To maintain at least some credibility here the McCain camp should just call the Twitter feed "The Office of Senator John McCain."

Chronicles of Politicians Gone Mad

2009-01-30T08:21:00.000-08:00

I could not make this up... per the Independent Institute's blog The Beacon:

Earlier this month, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would ban camera phones from having a silent mode when taking a picture.

The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414) would “require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.”

You know you have been in office far too long when you introduce crap like this. Leaving aside the issue on whether the government should be regulating the free market in the first place (if consumers wanted the feature a phone company would certainly enable this option -- it's just a simple software update) can anybody -- somebody? -- please explain to me why it is in the public's interest for the government to get involved in something as trivial as this.

Innovate or Die

2009-01-29T06:30:00.000-08:00

While Americans remain fearful for the economic future of our nation their is reason for hope (beyond finally having a POTUS that is competent). As reported recently by the Financial Times:

the United States, despite its current economic woes, remains the world’s most innovative economy, with unrivalled business sophistication and competitiveness, according to a new study by INSEAD, the Paris-based business school.
...
The Global Innovation Index – released in New Delhi on Tuesday – looks far beyond traditional indicators of innovation such as the percentage of gross domestic product spent on research and development, numbers of engineering graduates, and numbers of patents obtained and scientific papers published each year.
Instead, the index seeks to measure an economy’s potential for a broad range of innovation – including social, marketing, and business innovations – by assessing its institutions and policies, infrastructure, and business and market sophistication as well as people’s skills.

The key for America to maintain it's role as the indispensable nation is to ensure our culture, economy and societal institutions continue to adapt to future challenges and opportunities. Although it is disturbing to read reports that our nation's youth score poorly in mathematics and sciences compared to other developed nations, technical knowledge will not in of itself guarantee our nation's preeminent role in global politics, national economic growth or high paying jobs for the next generation. Certainly a fundamental understand of one's field is essential, yet the ability to apply creative, innovating thinking to problems is the crucial element that differentiates talent and establishes power.

So keep the INSEAD report in mind tomorrow when the government announces an expected 5.5 percent drop in GDP for the fourth quarter. Hope is more than a slogan.

You Run Your House Differently?

2009-01-28T21:58:00.000-08:00

If there wasn't enough already on Obama's inbox...

The Wall Street Journal has a must read article online on the U.S./Chinese relationship. Apparently the Chinese government had no idea how exposed it was to Fannie, Freddie and the U.S. financial system until last summer. Needless to say they are not too happy they took a serious financial hit as a result of the collapse of the U.S. financial sector. To make this point to the new administration -- especially after Treasury Secretary Geithner appealed to U.S. politist demand by blaming China for manipulating their currency (perhaps this was necessary for U.S. domestic constituencies, yet I disagree on Geithner's analysis and this clearly angered the Chinese) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao became the first Chinese premier to visit the World Economic Forum. From the WSJ:

Leaders in China, the world’s third-largest economy, have been surprised and upset over how much the problems of the U.S. financial sector have hurt China’s holdings. In response, Beijing is re-examining its U.S. investments, say people familiar with the government’s thinking. …
Chinese leaders have felt burned by a series of bad experiences with U.S. investments they had believed were safe, say people familiar with their thinking, including holdings in Morgan Stanley, the collapsed Reserve Primary Fund and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

….. The Reserve issue “is causing a lot of concern with a lot of financial institutions in China,” said the Chinese official. Some officials expected that the U.S. and its financial institutions would better protect China from loss. “If the U.S. is treating us this way, eventually that will be enough cause for concern in the stability of the [U.S.] system,” the official said.

and:

Around October, a lengthy Chinese-language essay began circulating on the Internet excoriating Mr. Lou and other top CIC officials, along with Zhou Xiaochuan, China’s central bank governor, for being too close to the U.S. and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The diatribe quickly gained wide circulation in Chinese financial circles. One passage charged that Mr. Zhou “colluded with Henry Paulson to buy U.S. bonds, forced [Chinese yuan] appreciation, attached China’s economy to the U.S. and broke China’s economic independence.

Brad Setser, a fellow for Geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign Relations, discusses the article and his role in bringing to light the extent China invested in U.S. agencies and financial institutions in a must read blog post. In his own words:

China’s leaders have a major problem. They have accumulated an enormous quantity of US assets as a result of their efforts to manage China’s exchange rate But they don’t have a mandate to lose money investing the public’s money abroad. China’s losses have generated a public outcry. However, avoiding credit losses means piling into Treasuries and — well — that has risks of its own.

I don't think people realize how delicate political institutions around the world are right now -- especially China. With exports expected to drop off 19 percent and with a GDP growth rate of only 5-6 percent in 2009 (8 percent considered necessary to avoid social unrest), the Chinese people will not be in a forgiving mode as the country loses millions of jobs. As such, the situation in China could deteriote to the point:

1. The current Chinese government resorts to nationalism to stabilize their political power... threatening ties to the United States and Japan;
2. Civil unrest throughout China provokes a massive backlash by the government that has the whole world in an uproar over human rights abuses (think Tieneman, whose 20 year anniversary is this summer, ... yet potentially 25 times bigger; or even
3. A coup within China replaces the current leadership with a nationalistic military regime.

Alright, now this is all very pessimistic. The point is that we must work with the current Chinese leadership to try and stabilize the situation in China as much as possible. Stop the economic populist attacks in China -- your only going to get a response back from China that makes the situation worse!

While I firmly believe China must eventually open up its political system and become a democracy, now is not the time for us to be pushing this agenda. The alternative to the current Chinese leadership is not a constitutional democracy, it is something far nastier that would not only harm the people of China -- it would damage our national security interests and the future growth of the global economy.

Join Sarah 2012

2009-01-28T08:33:00.000-08:00

It has begun. Sarah Palin has started a political action committee -- a significant step to running for national office. The thought of this woman running our country and the free world is truly a terrifying thought. If nothing else I hope the Democratic Party and "progressive" interest groups learned their lesson from the years of George W. Bush... namely do not dismiss a political rival as stupid and expect enough Americans to agree with you that the individual is clearly not competent enough to hold the office of POTUS. A 2004 election of Obama vs. Palin would be absolutely entertaining. Not only would Palin fill the national void left by Bush 43 of embarassing comments made by elected officials (although Biden is trying his damnest), a loss worse than McCain's would further damage the credibility of the religious right as a viable ideology for the GOP.

Symbolism of Change

2009-01-27T23:37:00.000-08:00

Image of the Naval Observatory (residence of the VPOTUS) found on Google maps prior to January 18, 2009.
Image of the Naval Observatory (residence of the VPOTUS) found on Google maps January 18, 2009.
Not to get to caught up with the symbolism of change and a new commitment to transparency from the office of the President of the United States... Although Obama might secretly be wishing that Biden would spend as much time in undisclosed locations as Cheney did in the role of VPOTUS after events such as this.

- Thanks for pointing this out to me Kaner.

First Break with the New Administration

2009-01-27T19:58:00.000-08:00

So apparently Obama is routing for Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl. Makes since as Pennsylvania is far more important electorally than Arizona and Pittsburgh's owner, Dan Rooney, switched sides to support Obama in the general.

As a Cowboy fan I simply cannot route for a team that threatens to pull one Super Bowl championship ahead of us for the NFL franchise lead in Vince Lombardi trophies. Although Kurt Warner absolutely killed me in the championship game of one of my fantasy football leagues I hope he has one more outstanding game left in him.

Least Politically Astute Comment of the Month

2009-01-27T08:41:00.000-08:00

"Frankly, we're spending like crazy so there's no concern about the deficit for the next two or three years. That's one of the good news is that we can do health care now because we have to grow the economy. We must do it. That's a good thing."

Emphasis added. Question for Bill Clinton.... when do we NOT have to grow the economy?

Although their are a myriad of reasons why we must reform how Americans receive health care, I highly doubt any effort to reform health care in America is going to substantially aid the economy in the short term. This is not China where many save up to 40 percent of their incomes to ensure they have the resources to pay for a catastrophic medical event.

Obama Reaches Out to Muslim World

2009-01-26T19:46:00.000-08:00

Who would of guessed that the first television news network to score a personal interview with President Obama would be Al-Arabiya? The Saudi Arabian cable news network with an audience of 23 million in the Gulf region landed a huge get today with a wide-ranging interview discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al-Qaeda and America's relationship with the Muslim world.

Although Obama is not going to magically repair lingering distrust, hatred and suspicions Muslims have toward the West, today's interview was certainly a positive first step. It is nice to actually watch an interview our President provides to a foreign news outlet and not cringe knowing he is the face of America to the world.

More Change I Can Believe In

2009-01-26T08:23:00.000-08:00

I'm pleased to read one of Obama's first acts in office was to sign an Executive Order requiring the closure of Girmo within one year. Much to my pleasant surprise Obama went further than expected by declaring:

The Order also prohibits reliance on any Department of Justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.

A solid first step by Obama to demonstrate his committment to civil liberties and the constitution.

The Demise of the Printed Daily Newspaper

2009-01-25T19:11:00.000-08:00

It is no secret that the traditional model of the daily newspaper is no longer functional. The "golden" age of print journalism -- when printed daily newspapers held a monopoly on the ability to deliver information to the consumer of news whenever the consumer wanted to access the information -- is over. While the news consumer could and did access information from the radio or television, nothing compared with the convenience of reading the newspaper when one wanted and without being at the whim of what order a radio/television news producer arranged news pieces.

This monopoly on accessing the attention of consumers enabled printed daily newspapers to charge very lucrative fees to other firms/organizations/individuals who wished to rent a part of the printed daily newspaper deliver mechanism to market to consumers.

The printed daily newspapers (PDN) has faced challenges to its monopoly of delivering information before (radio, television). While in the past the PDN was able to adapt and even grow stronger by eliminating evening editions and further consolidation it has never faced a challenger that attacks its core strength -- the ability to deliver information to the consumer on demand.

Yes, the fact that the Internet can deliver news to the consumer faster and cheaper certainly is a major factor in the demise of the PDN. However, radio delivers information to the consumer faster and cheaper and the newspaper has been able to survive -- and thrive -- in spite of this competition. The reason the Internet is destroying the PDN business model is because it does what radio cannot -- provide information to the consumer in a manner that empowers the consumer to decide what and when they access information/entertainment.

-------

How soon will the PDN last? My not so bold prediction: at most four newspapers print seven days a week by the end of Obama's first term.

Brief Take on Latest Middle East Conflict

2009-01-06T13:49:00.000-08:00

I totally disagree with the EU that the invasion is not justified. If a neighboring political entity is firing rockets to kill your people and cause financial harm you are totally justified to retaliate.

The bigger and more relevant question is whether is was the most effective response in the larger scheme of things. That is still to be determined, and it looks increasingly likely that this retaliation was not the wisest of policy actions.

This is Change I Can Believe In

2008-12-30T20:10:00.000-08:00

Jim Webb is truly a phenomenal United States Senator. He has the confidence and intelligence to tackle tough public policy problems that lesser politicians (99 percent of his colleagues in the country) dare not tackle out of concern of taking a hit in popularity, upsetting interest groups and/or upsetting established media narratives.

Per the Washington Post:

"I enjoy grabbing hold of really complex issues and boiling them down in a way that they can be understood by everyone," Webb said. "I think you can be a law-and-order leader and still understand that the criminal justice system as we understand it today is broken, unfair, locking up the wrong people in many cases and not locking up the right person in many cases."

I wish him all the best in his efforts to reform our incarceration infrastructure. The fact that more than 1 percent of the U.S. population is in jail is not only immoral, a serious indictment on the failings of our society (a black man without a high school diploma has a 60 percent chance of going to prison!), culture and public policies... it is bankrupting our state and local governments.

Furthermore, Webb is one of the few public officials with the credibility and the desire to challenge drug enforcement advocates. It is no secret our "War on Drugs" has been a complete unmitigated disaster.

Another Reason why The Economist Rocks

2008-11-27T21:24:00.000-08:00

Nothing quite like the sarcasm and wit of the editorial board of The Economist. In a leader (November 15, "O give me a home...") discussing the possibility of the Maldives looking to buy a new homeland, as the country looks likely to be a casualty of rising sea levels, the editors expand the discussion to include the U.S.:

And Barack Obama, committed to uniting America, could defuse the nation’s culture wars by purchasing an alternative homeland for those of his countrymen who want more use of the death penalty, less gun control and no gay marriage. A slice of Saudia Arabia’s empty quarter would do nicely: there’s plenty of space and the new occupants would have lots in common with the locals.

The Future of the "Bolivarian Revolution"

2008-11-23T19:56:00.000-08:00

I highly recommend watching the Frontline program "The Hugo Chavez Show" showing this week on PBS. In addition to demonstrating why government efforts to control the commanding heights of the economy are utterly doomed to inefficiency and failure -- it showcases how an elected official can effectively use modern communication methods to build his brand and craft his public image to one's core coalition.

The history of this beautiful country is incredibly tragic. Unfortunately, I believe in the next two years a new monumental chapter of sorrow is about to unfold. The precipitious drop in the price of oil has left Chavez with serious financial difficulties and the inability to continue buying off support from the poor. As his popularity decreases with the public, and former allies turn against him, I fear the methods Chavez will resort to in order to preserve power and enact the "Bolivarian Revolution."

The Politics of Fear

2008-11-19T11:00:00.000-08:00

I have noticed that individuals pushing an issue agenda keep using fear to advance their narrative in the public's consensus. While there is evidence that fear and negative campaigning does indeed work to elect candidates into office, I do not think this is an effective method to increase public recognition of a political cause or empower a larger minority to demand change. Furthermore, I think ridiculous projections and/or talking points reduce one's ability to grow their coalition and damages the efforts by many who are working to actually achieve progress on the cause.

I'm going to take two examples to illustrate my rationale: radicals in the environmental movement (this post) and the U.S. right-wing campaign against socialism (future post TBD).

Knowing that an individual has said the following statements over the years do you really think that he is an effective messenger to increase the environmental movement's coalition?

"the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now" (1968);
"India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980" and "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971" (1968);
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" and "'Smog disasters' in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles" (1969);
"in ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish" (1970);
"before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion" (1976);
"by 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people" (1969);
"by 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million" (1969);
"actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." (1990);
"giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun" (1992); and
"we've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure" (1990)

The answer is clearly a resounding NO!!! I was catching up on some podcasts recently and listened to a Science Friday's from August entitled "Mass Extinction Event on the Horizon?" Host Ira Flatow was interviewing the man responsible for the previous statements... Paul Ehrlich.

Now I strongly consider myself an environmentalist. I believe public policy in regards to the environment must incorporate not only the needs of humans, it must take into consider the interests of plants and animals as we do in fact SHARE this planet with them.

However, it blows my mind why anybody takes Ehrlich seriously or would give him a platform to spew his nonsense... unless they are against growing the global coalition to take public policy measures to combat climate change and pollution caused from human activities. Ehrlich had the audacity to claim:

"the United States is going to be 439 million people by 2050. That's roughly 300 million people more than anybody has ever given a reason for having alive in the United States at one time";
"I think people need to be scared (of future environmental devastation)... Fear ought to be a big incentive now if we care anything about our children or grandchildren world" (Paul, fear doesn't work if you have 0 credibility);
"we don't even have a population policy! In the United States we argue about immigration policy without having a population policy. It's kind of like designing an airplane that can load 100 people a minute and when you say how many should it fly and you say well don't worry about that just design a plane that will load 100 people a minute." (Seriously? First off, government doesn't belong in the bedroom!!! Beyond that, Paul has consistently ignored evidence showing that as economic material well-being goes up, birthrates go down & the role technology can and will play to produce goods consumers want far more efficiently.)

This nonsense and tactical advise does not and will not convince anybody who is not a part of the growing environmental coalition to join -- it only reduces the credibility of the movement as a whole and damages the credibility and validity of the environmental brand. For the sake of the planet, please stop giving Ehrlich anymore media opportunities to tarnish the hard fought gains the environmental movement has made with the American and global public.

Why I am against the Proposed Bailout of the Big Three

2008-11-18T18:36:00.000-08:00

Reposting my thoughts I e-mailed to a few friends the other day. The remarks in quotations are statements from a really good friend of mine.
------

"No other industry has been similarly crippled because external circumstances - fuel prices - don't have such a major effect on the health of any other industry."

Fuel prices are NOT the reason the American auto industry is having problems. That is an absurd argument. Why are Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers still in the black? The foreign companies have achieved profitability in America mainly by setting up their factories in Southern and border states where they could avoid the UAW, and thereby introduce efficient methods of production.

"The automakers also rely heavily on loans and bonds to operate; the complete collapse of the credit market was another factor beyond their control."

Not really. Only a couple of years ago, GM was paying $5 billion per year in health benefits to retirees and current employees. The UAW was intent on saddling GM, Ford and Chrysler with absurdly high benefit liabilities knowing if all else failed government would pick up the tab.

There is a reason foreign automobile companies have easier access to credit -- they are simply run better and limit the power unions have.
-----------
Back to the principle point at hand.... why bankruptcy is the needed cure and why the bailout is a bad idea.

Bankruptcy Needed

1. Bankruptcy would help GM and Ford become more competitive by allowing them to rip up significant parts of their labor contracts with the UAW. Allowing the big three to dramatically reduce their health care liabilities to past and present workers and reduce the wages of current workers would lead to dramatic cost savings. I doubt this is possible without declaring bankruptcy.

Here is an analogy for you... United Airlines. By entering bankruptcy it was able to reduce its inflated cost structure by breaking contracts it had with the pilots union and other employee unions. It exited bankruptcy a slimmer and more efficient airline. Although it remains to be seen if UA can still survive, it is in much better shape to compete than before it entered bankruptcy.

2. Bankruptcy would force a massive reorganization. The current management would be forced out and allow the firms to reorganize and become more productive and efficient firms.

Why Bailout Bad

1. A bailout of the big three without forcing fundamental change in how these firms are managed will only result in another round of $25-$50 billions checks in the very near future. It is simply a terrible idea to simply write a check to the auto industry without demanding major, major restructuring of its labor contracts. Without that the money will simply go down a rat hole and the automakers will just be back again in a year or two asking for more money. Why should we as taxpayers subsidize a business model imposed on the big 3 by the UAW that is fundamentally not feasible?

The Democrats need the mid west for political power, and rely on the UAW and other unions to get out the vote. No way are the Dems going to get the needed massive concessions out of the UAW to allow the Big 3 to be able to compete without subsidies against foreign car companies that are profitable without massive government subsidies.

2. Government is inherently bad about picking economic winners and losers. Rewarding political patronage and enhancing electoral power is more important than creating a viable profitable business.

3. What is the objective of the bailout? To save jobs? At least with the bailout of the financial sector we have an objective of keeping banks capitalized enough where they can continue to lend money. Pretty straightforward.

We just don't have any good blueprint for what we want them to do!!!
----

"what matters is getting the policy right so that we don't put too many people out of work, on the one hand, or waste the government's money on the other."

I would argue that a bailout in of itself is a waste of taxpayer money. Government should not be in the business of deciding economic winners and losers -- that my friend is socialism.
-----
Bottom line is Detroit needs to dramatically cut production, wages and health care costs.

The Media's Change of Guard

2008-10-30T21:12:00.001-07:00

I thoroughly enjoy the political e-mail conversations/debates I have with three good friends of mine growing up. Two I would consider very liberal, the other pretty conservative (of the Heritage Foundation ilk). After a conversation on whether or not O'Reilly and Hannity have any intelligence I decided to retort with a longer response on the future state of the media. The piece is unedited and very raw, yet I thought I would share it here as it may be of interest to some.

---

Looking at the current media environment I think partisan media will only grow. If you look at communications and media historically partisan and opinionated news sources dominated. The period between WWII and the 2000 elections, where the ethics and standards of journalism was held in the upmost esteem, was a historically anomaly. This period was possible due to the incredible profit margins the networks, print and radio outlets had as the cost of distributing information went radically down due to new technologies (broadcast and print ad revenue with a growing affluent readership).

The profit margins are gone. Technology has grown so rapidly it has enabled an entire new medium of communication that is free to deliver -- the internet. Not only is it free it is incredibly fast. Why would I pay and wait for information when I can get it free and quicker online?

Daily newspapers are simply fucked. They will never make up the ad revenue online. The transaction cost for people to search for favorite sources of information online is very minimal. People will naturally look for information that conforms to their world view as it provides greater satisfaction. For evidence not only have the daily circulation numbers crashed, the New York Times corporate debt is now rated as junk and the Christian Science Monitor dropped its daily print edition and became a weekly. If a non-profit can't make it times are really bad.

With those will go the high standards for journalism, unfortunately. Newspapers especially will be in a desperate search to preserve market share, if they survive at all. Rebranding oneself as a paper that "thinks like I do" may be their only salvation outside of some of the elite papers (WSJ, Financial Times, New York Times).

Welcome to the new era of tabloid, partisan journalism. Our only salvation is more sites like TPM and similar right-wing sites find a new audience that is willing to pay for investigative journalism.

Furthermore...

The better question here is what does this mean for democracy? As communities grow more uniform (Santa Barbara elite liberals, suburban Orange County conservative), is the nature of bipartisanship essentially doomed? Don't blame the politicians -- blame the voting public!

My biggest concern here is that people stop thinking analytically on how to best solve problems and resort to familiar political rhetoric to feel they belong to something. A spirit of bipartisanship leads to better solutions as people are forced to negotiate out of their often narrow political convictions.

Bloomberg 2012

2008-10-03T19:24:00.000-07:00

I think there is a real possibility Mike Bloomberg will be our first Jewish POTUS in 2013. Although this sounds rather absurd at first hear me out:

1. We are on the brink of a severe recession. Opinions range from the extremely pessimistic Nouriel Roubini, who recently stated “we are literally one step away from collapse of entire financial system and even the corporate system," to Warren Buffett, who told Charley Rose this week "in my adult lifetime I don't think I've ever seen people as fearful, economically, as they are now... The economy is going to be getting worse for a while." Even Goldman Sachs came out with a report this week stating the recession will be "significantly deeper" than expected and the unemployment rate will rise to 8 percent by the end of the year (the current rate is 6.1 percent). Scary, scary stuff.

2. President Obama -- yes he is going to win -- will be facing a horrible political situation. The promised government programs he is campaigning on right now are not going to happen. We will not have the money. How much more can we borrow from foreign creditors -- especially if the current bailout does not work? Obama will probably move forward reregulating the economy, which will hinder our countries ability to grow out of the impending recession.

3. Voters in 2012 will truly be looking for change. I believe voters will blame the GOPpers for getting us into the impending severe recession and will be impatient with Obama as his public policies fail to turn around the economy. Voters will be looking for systematic change -- not just a change in parties. By self-financing his campaign as an indepedent Bloomberg will be able to brand himself as a economic expert not beholden to corporations or unions.

The base of the Democratic Party will end up taking the party and Obama too far left in the next four years, creating a nice sweet spot for Bloomberg to run as a true centrist. The American public, as much as many progressives don't want to admit this, will not vote for a FDR big government liberal -- even in the case of a severe recession. Of course voters will tilt leftward when voting for the POTUS in such a scenario. However, the American public has changed significantly since 1932. Not only is stock ownership more widespread, we have the example of the Soviet Union to demonstrate that government does a horrible job of trying to "manage" the economy.

Biden/Palin IV

2008-10-02T19:08:00.000-07:00

Overall: Considering how low expectations were of Palin she did alright. Biden completely won the debate on policy and knowledge, yet Palin may come out ahead because she didn't completely embarrass herself -- she didn't leave the podium crying that the "elite media" was out to get her.

Ifill did an awful job moderating the debate. She asked horrible follow up questions. It seemed like she was scared of coming across as out to get Palin than she clammed up for 90 minutes.

Observations 70-120 minutes:
- Biden killed the question on how he would be different than an Obama adminstration. Great job.
- "Team of mavericks." 'God' help us all if Palin becomes POTUS.
- Palin completely bullshitted her way through education. She said absolutely nothing of substance.
- I'm glad to see Biden took on McCain's maverick status head on with 7 minutes left. This was the most important moment of the debate IMHO.

Biden/Palin III

2008-10-02T18:40:00.000-07:00

Foreign Policy Bottom line: Biden, by essentially debating with McCain and not Palin, just destroyed the Alaskan governor in the foreign policy part of the debate. In fact, Palin looks ridiculous when talking about foreign policy. It is simply incredible just how unbelievably unprepared she is to be the VP. Unreal...

Observations (Foreign Policy)
- Biden did a great job communicating the Dem ticket's Iraq policy. Dude is en fuego 47 minutes in.
- She is obsessed with talking about Israel. Governor, you realize there is more to U.S. foreign policy than Israel? Right....?
- 20 minutes in and Palin finally gets a hit. Calling Biden out for voting for the war prior to being against it. "America craves straight talk."

Policy (Foreign Policy)
- Palin has no policy thoughts here beyond talking points (which I doubt she really understands). Thus I have little say here.
- Biden is spot on the Ahmadinejad does not control Iran -- the mullahs do. In fact, Ahmadinejad is not even in the top 15 most powerful political figures in the country.
- Wow, that is incredible. Three weeks of funding Iraq is equal to 7 years in Afghanistan. That is incredible. The most suscinct point I have ever heard how the current POTUS completely took his eye off the ball.

Biden/Palin II

2008-10-02T18:14:00.001-07:00

Thoughts 15 minutes through 45 minutes (Domestic Issues)
- Great job by Palin to call out Biden's stupid comment that the rich paying higher taxes is "patriotic."
- Palin must be either on speed or chugged a gallon of coffee before the debate. Not only is she speaking super fast, every time they show her legs she can't stop moving.
- "Ultimate bridge to nowhere." This line had more potential yet Biden should have slowed down his tempo before unleashing the comment.
- Biden is coming across as a 19th century populist. Granted, I've never been a fan of his big-government beliefs. However, playing this role allows Obama to seem more centrist and safe to the white U.S. electorate.
- 24 minutes in. Palin addresses her own limitations head on by saying "I've only been at this five weeks and haven't promised anything..." Effective response.
- Check out CNN vs. PBS on HD. Palin and Biden look much better on PBS. Both have a darker tone on PBS, real bizarre. Besides, CNN has too much crap going on on the screen in HD.
- Palin is settling down 30 minutes in. She looks real confident and secure talking about an issue (one of the only issues) she knows about... drill baby drill?
- However, she clearly knows little about climate change. I think this is Biden's best moment in the debate so far. Dude has a mastery of this issue and has a great response to Palin.
- Interesting Palin brought in a comment where Biden mentioned rape. That's a bit aggressive.

Policy
- Biden on taxes... "it's fairness." No Joe, a taxation system should not be about "fairness." It should be about collecting revenues as effeciently as possible with as little damage to the economy as possible.
- Palin seems to believe that man's activities is not the primary driver behind climate change. Seriously Governor? She is incredibly weak on this issue. Just wow.
- "Clean green natural gas." Really Governor? Nice eyebrow raise. Althought it is better than coal, it is hardly clean nor green.

Biden v. Palin I

2008-10-02T17:54:00.000-07:00

Bottom line: Palin is effective so far connecting as "somebody like me" -- which is really underrated in all communication plans.

Background
- I still don't believe Gwen Ifill didn't disclose to the McCain campaign that she was writing a book that included Obama in the title that was to be released on inauguration day next year. Full disclosure? Ifill clearly believes this applies to the people she covers.

Thoughts through 15 minutes
- Palin looks great in black.
- What's up with Biden's eyes? It looks like the make-up job stopped short of his lower eye lid. Bizarre
- Palin looks more confident than I thought she would 8 minutes in. Nice wink after responding to Biden's call out of McCain's comments that the economy remained strong.
- She is speaking way, way too damn fast. Still is still a little -- no very -- nervous.
- Does anybody really care what Biden is saying? Everybody is far more interested to see if Palin implodes.

Couric Interview with Palin.

2008-09-26T19:56:00.000-07:00

Although I plan on voting for Obama this is still painful to watch. Palin looks completely out of her league. Granted, she has electoral advantages. However, the thought of the Alaskan governor leading the most powerful nation in the world is rather frightening.

Presidential Debates in 1080

2008-09-26T18:00:00.000-07:00

First thought on tonight's debate... just imagine how much worse Nixon would have looked in high definition in 1960.

Bottom line is Obama demonstrated to the American people that he has the fortitude to be POTUS. He passed the credibility test... and he didn't even need a teleprompter.

Observations

- Interesting that Obama calls the GOP standard bearer John while McCain calls his counterpart Senator Obama.
- Nice of McCain to start with thoughts on Ted Kennedy. Reinforces his image as being bipartisan. I'm surprised Obama didn't mention this first.
- Although I disagree with Obama on the regulation issue (I am after all a proud libertarian) he did a good job talking about the issue without going over the top as a "progressive" populist.
- 20 minutes in it looks like McCain has gotten underneath Obama's skin. I'm surprised as I expected the opposite to happen. Obama needs to watch his demeanor when McCain is speaking and not commit an Al Gore type mistake.
- 40 minutes in Obama has grown more confident and looks cool, calm and collected.
- Obama has a good issue with "Google for the government." Demonstrates he understands how technology can help improve and reform government.
- 45 minutes in and it looks like McCain is getting angry. Obama did a good job of deflecting his lack of support of the surge and McCain looks pissed off Obama called him out for his ludicrous claims he made in 2003. I'm sure McCain feels he should own this issue and is frustrated that Obama is getting the best of him.
- How many times did McCain start with "Obama doesn't understand..." At least three I think in the first hour. An effective strategy to reinforce the narrative McCain is trying to attach to his opponent.
- McCain had an effective zinger on Obama's statement meeting foreign leaders without preconditions. Obama did the best he could to mitigate the potential political campaign landmine, yet by staying on this issue McCain had the first zinger in the debate.
- 70 minutes in and it looks like McCain is getting real testy when Obama is speaking. Obama has gotten to McCain and I'm waiting for McCain to lose his temper.
- 85 minutes in... by stopping a tit-for-tat on alternative energy and allowing Lehrer to move on Obama helped to diminish the perception that he is arrogant.
- 90 minutes in McCain gets another 10 second zinger in stating he did not believe Obama was ready to lead the country.

Policy

- Obama is correct on earmarks. Don't get me wrong earmarks are a problem. However, eliminating them will hardly get our government back in the black.
- I'm glad McCain brought up nuclear power. Nuclear has to play a larger role in our energy infrastructure.
- McCain is getting religion on invading other countries?!?! Paraphrasing McCain... "We shouldn't bomb Pakistan as we need the people to be with us." No shit. So why again was invading Iraq a good idea if your so worried what other nations think of us? Is all this talk of invading Russia going to help our ties with Russia? "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" is going to help our ties with that nation?
- Hey McCain... Pakistan is still a failed state (reflection on McCain stating Obama didn't understand Pakistan was a failed state prior to Musharraf). Pakistan will never be a cohesive country. The name Pakistan combines the name of four ethnic groups to create a false sense of nationalism.
- McCain's "League of Democracies" is ludicrous. Excluding China from any new international organizations that are created is a horrible idea.
- Nice point by Obama that we need Russia and China to craft a solution on the Iran issue.
- John Bolton would be proud of McCain's perspective on North Korea.
- Obama was solid on Russia. The idea of Georgia joining NATO is simply INSANE. Are we really prepared to invade Russia if Russia steps on Georgia's toes again? Georgia does not even have clear borders!

Updates on the Race to be 44

2008-08-05T22:09:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on a few recent developments:

1) Brent Scowcroft Stays Neutral: This one really surprised me. Scowcroft is a widely respected and admired foreign policy guru. The book he co-authored with 41, A World Transformed, is an excellent discussion of the international developments that happened during the administration of 41.

The decision by Colin Powell, and now Scowcroft, not to endorse McCain -- that is the real story, not that they are "neutral" -- demonstrates the massive disagreements that exist between the "realist" and "neoconservative" camps in the GOP. Clearly these huge nonendorsements by two heavyweights show that McCain's foreign policy would just be an extension of the current administration's policies (McCain and Cheney's recent dustup is just personal and has little to do with policy... IMO).

2) Paris Hilton's Response to McCain: Best line was "that wrinckly white haired guy." However, it was painful to watch as Hilton is simply an awful actress.

Bonus note: Absolutely hilarious that the new Madden '09 has Brett Favre on the cover as a Packer. Although EA Sports is going to get a ton of press around its product launch on August 12, I'm sure they would have picked somebody else in hindsight.

The Arrogance of the New Yorker

2008-07-13T20:55:00.000-07:00

Some random thoughts for a beautiful Sunday in Los Angeles.

1. Just imagine the media cycle if the July 21 cover of the New Yorker was on the National Review, or Weekly Standard. Do you think the response would have been the same? Doubtful to say the least.

2. Oh the arrogance of New York liberals, thinking that this cover will help Obama's image versus reinforcing ridiculous stereotypes held by many in the country. I imagine many will cancel their subscriptions of the weekly after this debacle. So why would the outlet do it? To force Obama to the left... doubtful. Probably just complete sheer arrogance... at the cost of subscriptions and a lose of respect from media observers such as myself.

3. At least the New Yorker forced the McCain campaign to agree with the Obama camp on something. This has been a pattern of the McCain campaign, following the media cycle versus leading it.

It truly baffles me why McCain did not use the period between early February through June to define Obama in the terms that suited the GOP. Following in the footsteps of a President with less than a 30 percent approval rating, one would think McCain would realize he would have to run a near perfect campaign to claim the Oval Office. However, instead of setting the November election on terms favorable to the GOP, McCain had a completely disorganized campaign message and team... and even took off most weekends from the campaign.

What we have hear... is a failure... to communicate

2008-07-02T20:52:00.000-07:00

This news story I read awhile back over at the Web site of the Atlantic was just shocking -- and I am one that is not easily shocked. Apparently numerous offices in the U.S. Department of Indian Affairs were without access to the Internet for seven years... SEVEN YEARS.

I encourage the readers of this blog to check out Maria Streshinsky's post to get the full scoop. I will state however that it is practically unreal how management ever let this situation deteriorate to the point that it did. We are living and participating in a world where access to information is just critical to be efficient and productive at one's job.

Furthermore, it boggles my mind the lost opportunity cost in man hours wasted by this bureaucratic problem.

Robert Mugabe is an Evil, Evil Man

2008-06-05T20:06:00.000-07:00

Although their are a lot of narcissistic, corrupt leaders of nations in the world Robert Mugabe is far and away the worst of this despicable lot (Ahmadinejad, Burma General Than Shwe, Sudan President Omar al-Bashir, Hugo Chavez...). It really is amazing how the leadership of Africa refuses to intervene (calling out Thabo Mbeki in particular here) even though it is clear Mugabe will do anything to remain in power until his death.

Seriously, how can the political leadership of Africa watch Mugabe arrest his competitor in the runoff battle soon after he reenters the country, let his supporters beat up U.S and British diplomats in the country and have his goons threathen to burn U.S. and British diplomats alive (I do not think it was an idle threat).

Mugabe has already completely destroyed his country -- it is going to take a generation of Zimbabwians to repair the damage this maniac has already done -- what else does he have to do before Mbeki steps in? I realize he was the idol for the African liberation movement, yet does this entitle him to commit every possible crime against humanity?

Mbeki is already a complete lame duck. It is inexcusable why he can't show some leadership and do the right thing.

The Iranian Nuclear Threat

2008-06-04T18:44:00.001-07:00

Although I have been an extreme skeptic of charges that Bush and/or Israel would attack Iranian nuclear facilities since rumors started flying in 2001, I am beginning to think this actually may happen.

In addition to the serious consequences such an action would have on the global economy and state of security (nicely laid out by Nouriel Roubini recently), I remember watching a panel discussion on PBS in 2002 or so where Lawrence Eagleburger (of all people) stated that if the Bush administration used military force against Iran he would be the first person to speak out against the POTUS. Furthermore, I always believed that the bellicose rhetoric from W was a diplomatic ploy to force greater concessions from the Iranian leadership (he really could not be crazy enough to add even more gasoline on the Middle East inferno... right?).

Roubini quotes Joschka Fischer, foreign foreign minister of Germany, who believes that Israel will attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration. Fischer is definitely a credible source (the Green Party in Germany should not be confused with their disorganized U.S. counterpart).

Furthermore, the Asia Times had a recent article stating a similar opinion. Now I have no idea if they used the same sources, yet apparently this possibility is moving into the realm of feasibility. If Fischer and the Asia Times are correct...

Clearly we need to do everything possible to stop Iran from having The Bomb. Considering how close Pakistan and India have been to blowing each other up... just imagine what the hell could happen if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Egypt also have The Bomb... outright frightening, I know, I know.

Furthermore, I do not envy the incredibly difficult position Israel lies in. In addition to a domestic political nightmare right now, you have a freakshow lunatic in Ahmadinejad threatening to blow Israel off the map. It is imperative for America to support the only real voice of democracy in the Middle East and ensure Israel continues to thrive for generations to come.
------
What is really missing from this debate is a conversation on what actually is happening in Iran right now. I listened to a fantastic podcast from Stratfor (do yourself a favor... subscribe to their podcast -- seriously!) this morning. Basically, there is an intense political fight currently between different factions of the conservative political hierarchy. Although I strongly disagree with almost everything the Iranian conservative movement stands for, I do believe figures like Akbar Rafsanjani and others will be reasonable on the nuclear issue if they win out in the current political struggle.

I have heard rumors in the past few years that Khamenei is nearing the end of his life, which makes the implications of the current conservative political battle even more important. However, it makes negotiations on the nuclear issue even more difficult if there is an apparent void of leadership at the top.

Bottom line is we should be waiting to see who the new Ayatollah is after the death of Khamenei before "cowboying up" and bombing Iran. If Iran gets The Bomb before then... well that is really unfortunate... yet I am not convinced we can even eradicate the Iranian intentions militarily anyways. Now, if an Ahmadinejad ally should take over as Ayatollah that is a different ballgame. Quite frankly Ahmadinejad's talk of the "hidden iman" scares the hell of me and reminds me of one General Ripper.

Google and the iphone

2008-05-27T22:45:00.000-07:00

I am a huge fan of the iPhone. Although I have heard legitimate criticism it is prone to breakdown, I have only had one minor software problem that was fixed by my local Apple store at The Grove here in L.A.

Google reader is a fantastic tool to keep up-to-date with the blogs I enjoy following (currently at 180 and counting). The most recent update for this iPhone feature is fantastic -- I highly, highly suggest anybody who has an iPhone to add this feature to your home page: www.google.com/reader/i.

I'll have some thoughts on Iran, communication between generations and how McCain has lost control of his brand in the next few days.

Inflation in Zimbabwe

2008-05-15T19:41:00.000-07:00

If you ever wanted a sign that Robert Mugabe is truly an evil human being and is completely destroying the former bread-basket of Africa here you go:

"During the meal, one of my mates was drinking beer — 750ml bottles of Castle Lager (fondly called bombers). He ordered a fifth one, was advised that the price, which when he ordered his first, second, third and fourth ones was 160 million per bottle, had gone up to 340 million per bottle."

This is completely ridiculous. It is almost unfathomable South African President Thabo Mbeki continues to support Mugabe. What a travesty.

Update: Mugabe just introduced a Z$500,000,000 bill.

Highway Toll Lanes for L.A.

2008-05-04T13:41:00.000-07:00

Good op-ed in the Los Angeles times yesterday on the trial plan approved by the Metro board here in L.A. to convert carpool lanes into toll lanes. I totally support this plan.

We currently finance transportation infrastructure primarily through gasoline taxes, as cars become more fuel efficient we will be losing needed revenue for infrastructure development. So we need to raise more revenue for transportation infrastructure. I am completely against increasing the sales tax to finance transportation infrastructure (there will probably be a 1/2 cent sales tax increase proposal on the November County of L.A. ballot -- VOTE NO!). Not only are sales taxes incredibly regressive, we should be getting money for transportation projects from the users themselves.

Some of the arguments against highway toll lanes and my response:

1. Freeways should be free.

Freeways are not free, we pay for the lack of infrastructure with the opportunity cost of our time as we sit in traffic.

2. The lanes will be only for the rich, "Lexus Lanes"

This one is real bizarre. The people who will be most inclined to use the toll lanes are one's who value their time the most. Think about a plumber. Paying say $20 (at most) to save up to an hour of their day in traffic they could probably fit two more service calls into their daily routine. A service call is at least $100 each.
So the plumber makes $180 more each day. That is $900 a week in additional revenue that is possible with these toll lanes. That is real money to the plumber.

This proposal is a true win-win. We gain the revenue needed to develop a better transportation infrastructure and we allow entrepreneurs to improve our economy.

Mohamad Mahathir Has a Blog

2008-05-01T07:21:00.000-07:00

Wow, this is awesome. The former prime minister of Malaysia now has a blog. For those of you who don't know, this guy was (and continues to be) one of the more colorful former leaders of the world. Some of his outlandish and utterly ridiculous statements have been:

“Currency trading is unnecessary, unproductive and totally immoral. It should be stopped.”
“As if these are the good old days when people can shoot Aborigines without caring for human rights.”
"The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”
"The Muslims have never ill-treated the Jews."

Mahathir claims he has friends that are Jewish... in the same manner as a cracker from Alabama in the 19th century would say he had black or gay friends.

His blog may be real interesting, once you hit post it is captured in a RSS feed -- even if you delete it right away. This could get real interesting. Citizens of a country deserve the public officials they elect.

On the Unipolar Moment...

2008-04-20T18:50:00.001-07:00

I just listened to a fantastic podcast reading of a Richard Haass article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs entitled "The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance."

Highlights, or rather comments/observations I particularly found of interest:

Realist theory would predict an era of unipolarity would be followed by a multi-polar world. Haass makes a persuasive case we are headed towards an era of nonpolarity, or "a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power."
Potential competing global powers are too entrenched in the movement of technology, energy, goods, etc. to consider removing themselves from this structure -- their own political stability depends on access to this system.
Nonpolarity will increase the potential military/terrorist threats to the U.S. A global system with multiple powers (state and nonstate) is more difficult to defend against than a single enemy (Cold War).
Nonpolarity makes diplomacy significantly harder. Getting a broad base of stakeholders to agree on anything will be increasingly difficult.

Haass is totally on point to state free trade of goods and investment amongst countries must be expanded. My final thoughts:

The fact that we are leaving a unipolar world to an era where the U.S. has less power to shape the world in the image we see fit only gives greater impetimus on the importance of increasing the free trade of goods and investment.
As much as some regimes, such as China, are not exempliary actors for the world or their own people, it is essential that we enhance global free trade of goods and investment to ensure the current system continues to be stable. I would hate to find out what would happen if Communist Party of China (CPC) where to disintegrate, much less the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others.
I agree with Haass that our military budget probably should be increased, yet I would go further than Haass on the military expansion concept. The wars of the future are going to be different than the wars of the past. Iraq and Afghanistan clearly have shown that. Honestly -- and granted I have no military experience or expertise -- we should explore radically increasing the number of marines and eliminating the army completely. Are we really going to ever fight a broad based land war again? Probably not. Instead of the army we need to develop a core of nationbuilders (funny how Bush was disgusted with the thought of nationbuilding as a candidate in 2000 and it has since defined his Presidency). Details and role of engagement would have to be hamered out, yet the concept should be explored.

Like... You Know?

2008-04-19T14:23:00.000-07:00

I was having dinner with my father about a month ago and I kept catching myself using the phrase "you know." I immediately commented that this was really a horrible expression. What a ridiculous way to ask for acceptance or comment from the intended audience. This got me thinking... how prevalent is this phrased used by the public, politicians and self described "talking heads" on political/public affairs programs.

Seriously, try it some time. I have been quit surprised at how widely used this phrase really is. After reading an article in the Daily News about a week ago that the public image of the Valley from the 1950's is gone -- whites are less than 50 percent of the population now -- can we officially kill the "like" metaphors and insert the phrase "you know" as a cultural faux paux?

Hey, just a thought.