End of a Busy Week

Quote of the day:
“I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and The Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the US should help the US or should help South Africa and should help The Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children.” – Lauren Upton (Miss Teen South Carolina) when asked why she thought one-fifth of Americans could not locate the United States on a world map.

Today's Fun Fact:
The animal with the fastest resting heartbeat is the hummingbird, at 1400 beats per minute. The slowest is the blue whale, at between 4 and 8. However, the heartbeats of some small animals (such as the hedgehog and ground squirrel) get down to around 5 beats per minute while they are hibernating.

First of all, I'd like to pat myself on the back a little bit for writing a new post every day this week. I have no doubt that Blue Cross is just as thrilled that they have paid me as I did it. Actually, it was a pretty eventful week, so it wasn't altogether that difficult.

So, we now officially have Gov. Quinn. I worked out right after work and then went straight to curling, so I missed both Blagojevich's speech to the legislature and the official announcement that he had been removed. While I still have some reservations over the exact manner in which he was removed, I am very happy he's gone and I hope the state and the country can move on pretty quickly. There is too much to be done on both a state and national level for us to continue to be distracted by this.

So, another day and another piece of grim economic news. A report released today reveals that GDP contracted by 3.8% during the 4th quarter, the largest contraction since 1982. Curiously enough, I can't confirm in any of the news stories if this is real (i.e. inflation-adjusted) GDP or just nominal. I believe that it's nominal, because I don't think that we have the inflation numbers for 2008 yet. While this news is certainly not a shock (analysts had actually been forecasting a 5.1% drop) the seemingly endless roll of daily negative economic news continues and cannot be good for consumer confidence. And in this we have another example of Keynes' "paradox of thrift"; hard times make people spend less and save more at exactly the time when the economy needs them to do the exact opposite. Each piece of bad news just makes people clamp down tighter, which furthers the cycle onward. This is, of course, the flipside to both the dot-com and housing booms, when everyone knew it was a bubble and assets were overvalued but people kept buying and spending anyway.

You can't help but laugh at the irony that on the day we announce the biggest GDP drop in 27 years, Exxon announces that they have broken the US record for annual profit at $45.2 billion. While I am still most definitely a capitalist and defend a company's right to make as much money as they can for their shareholders, I think this is further evidence that oil companies are a lot quicker on the trigger in increasing gas prices when the price of oil per barrel goes up than they are when it goes down. I also think that this is further evidence (as if we needed more) of the need to branch out into alternative energy sources. It is just not good for the country to have such a high concentration of profits in any one industry. Through lobbying and campaign contributions, it simply buys you a far too disproportionate amount of influence in the legislature. And while I don't believe that all oil execs are greedy, soulless, cash whores I also don't believe that none of them are. But I don't think that the key to breaking the energy monopoly is through increased regulation or windfall taxes (though I'm not completely deadset against either). Rather, I think it can only be accomplished when the constituency sends the message that unless their local reps get serious about at least leveling the playing field for alternative energy, they will soon find themselves out of a job.

Finally, and on the lighter side, this story bothered me . As a result of fertility treatment, a woman gave birth to octuplets this week. OK, I'm fine with that. If you wanna get pregnant and can't do it naturally I think it's perfectly fine to utilize all the resources of the modern medical science industry. And sometimes, as a byproduct of that, the results can be too successful. So that's all well and good. Here's the part that bothers me. She already had 6 kids. While I don't think there should be a limit per se on when you are and are not allowed to seek fertility treatment, I think (as in most things) that a healthy dose of common sense is warranted. When you've already got 6 kids and you can't get pregnant again, that's your body's way of telling you to stop. The story also says that amongst her brood are 2-year-old twins. That means that she got pregnant this time when they were only 15-23 months old, so it's not like she tried for years naturally before going to fertility as a last resort.

On a more philosophical level, at what point does it cross into borderline child abuse? How can two people possibly give each child the individual attention that they deserve when there are 14 of them? And this is coming from someone who's dad was one of 10 kids. At least that was spread out over 19 years, so basically 1 every two years. You can definitely see how that can happen if you don't believe in birth control (which, as a good catholic family in the 40s and 50s, they didn't). But this little baby factory has now churned out 14 in 7 years. Talk about unnatural! My question is this: what happens when she goes in for more fertility treatments next year?

Obama Impaled on Olive Branch

Quote of the Day:
“If a woman tells you she's twenty and looks sixteen, she's twelve. If she tells you she's twenty-six and looks twenty-six, she's damn near fourty.” – Chris Rock

Today's Fun Fact:
Despite the images we’ve all seen in our grade school science books, it isn’t possible to draw a map of our solar system to scale. On a sheet of paper, with Earth reduced to about the diameter of a pea, Jupiter would be over a thousand feet away and Pluto would be a mile and a half away (and about the size of a bacterium, so you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway).

So the $819 billion stimulus bill passed the House late yesterday. It passed despite (at last count) exactly 0 Republicans voting for it. While it's not altogether unusual for a vote to line up almost exclusively along party lines, this one was notable for the fact that Obama at least made an effort to achieve bipartisanship on it. How much of an effort you think he made probably depends on your overall opinion of him. In an attempt to garner Republican support, he removed funding for planned parenthood groups and funding to renovate the national Mall (both criticized as wasteful spending by the Republicans) while adding some of the additional tax cuts the Republicans are asking for.

The question now being asked is should Obama have even bothered with his overtures? It seems that Republicans think he is somewhat cornered by his promises of bipartisanship. If he fails to make any compromises they can argue that he is shutting them out of the process and reneging on his promise to work with them, and if he fails to go far enough to meet them they can still vote it down (even though they know it will pass) so that they can criticize it when parts of it inevitably don't work. Basically, they want to morph the Obama "I never voted for this war" platform to "I never voted for this stimulus" in the 2010 elections. In essence, they are gambling that the stimulus will either not work, not work quick enough, or just be unpopular. They would say they are not "gambling", since they seem pretty sure it's not going to work.

Personally, I think the Republicans are playing a dangerous game. According to Gallup, Obama currently has an overall 64% approval rating, and 45% amongst Republicans. That's bound to decrease as the recession deepens (as almost all experts think it will). Still, if the public perceives that the Republicans are more interested in blocking the Obama agenda than they are in stimulating the economy it may end up pleasing the 16% that currently disapprove of Obama at the expense of pissing off everyone else.

So should Obama even bother trying to court Republican support if they seem so intent to rebuff it? The only real point of compromise is to give and get concessions from both sides. Why water down the bill you want in the name of appeasing a group that's still going to criticize the legislation anyway? With future legislation (starting with this stimulus bill in the Senate) I think Obama should take the tactic of sitting down with Republican leadership and saying that while he likes the bill the way it is, he is willing to make certain compromises in order to gain bipartisan support. However, if after making those compromises Republicans indicate that they still will not support it he should tell them he is getting rid of all the revisions and going with the bill as originally written. If the legislation is going to be criticized anyway, let it truly be your legislation that you take the heat for. It's true that Republicans can still fillibuster in the Senate, but that would really be a game of political chicken in this climate. Opposing a bill is one thing, but outright blocking a vote is not likely to win them any new supporters.

A Couple New Things I'm Trying

Quote of the day:
“Now that's using the powers of the executive branch to help people who need help, not unlike what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was president, and he helped Great Britain because Congress was not willing to allow the United States to shore up Britain in its fight against the Nazis” – Gov. Blagojevich

Today's Fun Fact:
The modern military salute has its origins in Medieval Times. When a knight rode up to a castle to announce himself to the lord and lady, he would take his right hand and raise his visor to show that it was really him and not an impostor and then drop his arm to let the visor fall down again.

So I decided that I'm going to try to start my blogs off with a quote and a bit of useless trivia. Why? Why not.

Yesterday as I was going through my mail I came upon some literature for an Evanston mayoral candidate. When I read that his name was Barnaby Dinges I swear that the glass of water I was drinking nearly shot out my nose. Though his website specifies that his name is pronounced DIN-jiss (and not ding-gus) it still strikes me as a rather unfortunate name to have in seeking public office.

Lastly, I need a little bit of help. Every year I come up with a goal (or series of goals) for myself. I don't really refer to them as resolutions, but I guess that's what they are. Two years ago it was to get my MBA and run the marathon, and last year it was to get my CPA. This year I'm having difficulty coming up with some. So far the biggest one I have is in some ways very trivial and in some ways one of the most challenging. In an effort to avoid hangovers, I have made it my goal to never drink more than 6 beers in any 24-hour period. I have, however, granted myself two exemptions to this (Super Bowl Sunday and March Madness weekend). Other than that though, I have accomplished a couple rather pedestrian achievements (modding my PSP and beating the original Legend of Zelda in under an hour) and I only have one more (learn to juggle). I have been "working" on a novel for a few years now (i.e. I wrote 10 pages 2 years ago and haven't touched it since) so I was thinking of making it a goal to finish my first draft of it. Anyone else have any ideas on what aspirations I should set for myself?

Geithner In; Blago (soon to be) Out

So, Geithner was confirmed yesterday and is now officially the Treasury Secretary. Obviously as my post yesterday would indicate I am pleased by this, but I'm ready to move on.

Our embattled governor's impeachment trial got underway yesterday while good old Roddy (or, as the Daily Show dubbed him, "Scumdog Million-hairs") decided to forego the proceedings in favor of a whirlwind media tour. This whole situation has brought up something of a moral dilemma for me. On one hand, I absolutely want him out of office. Despite his claims, I do not believe that it is possible for a number of the phrases he was caught on tape using to be within the bounds of the law in any context. It is abundantly clear to me (as well as to most of the general populace) that he is guilty of trying to personally profit from the US Senate appointment. At the same time though, I do kind of agree with him that the impeachment trial is something of a farce. Basically, the legislature has decided to throw in lots of other politically-motivated charges that would never warrant an impeachment by themselves. And Blagojevich will not be given the full opportunity to defend himself due to limitations imposed because of how they might interfere with the criminal case. I said the other day that "a correct decision obtained through incorrect means is still a correct decision" and on those grounds I guess I have to still be in favor of his removal since overall I do think it's the right decision. But it has made me reconsider my position on recall elections. Previously I have been against them because I think the last thing we need is even more perpetual campaigning and a politician that governs by the poll numbers. However, this is exactly the type of situation where a recall election makes sense. I just can't figure out how you can install a recall provision for cases like this without opening the door to mass political manipulation.

And I don't know whether to laugh or cry at all the ridiculous statements being made by Blago over the last week. At last count he had compared his "courage" in making decisions to FDR, his arrest to Pearl Harbor, and likened his "persecution" now to Gandhi and MLK. Mr. Blagojevich, though I don't agree with any of those, you do remind me of this one guy that went around professing his innocence when the whole world knew he was guilty: OJ. Guess you can hope that your criminal trial goes as well as his did (well, as well as his FIRST one at any rate).

Why I Don't Care About Tim Geithner's Tax Problems

Some of you may have noticed me lighting the fuse on the Tim Geithner discussion and then falling silent once we had a few comments. I was all set to respond but then realized that I had quite a bit to say and decided to make it a separate blog post instead.

For the uninitiated, I will attempt to summarize the Geithner situation using just the known facts. Geithner is Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary. Normally, this post gets minimal coverage but with the financial crisis front and center and the fact that his predecessor (Hank Paulson) became something of an overnight celebrity there is a great deal more scrutiny than there has been in the past. In any case, it has recently come to light that when Mr. Geithner was head of the IMF he failed to pay necessary self-employment taxes to the IRS from 2001-2004. In 2006, he was audited for his 2003 and 2004 returns and ended up paying ~$15,000 in back taxes. It's reasonable to assume that he knew at that time that he had made the same error on his 2001 and 2002 returns as well, but he failed to file an amended return. It was only during the current vetting process that he paid the back taxes on those returns.

This is another of those "scandals" where I just don't see where the issue is. He owed back taxes and he is now current. To me, that's the end of the story. I suspect that it's seen as a bigger deal because as Treasury Secretary he will be the head of the IRS and it's something of an embarassment to still be owing money to the organization he will be overseeing. Fair enough but it still doesn't, and shouldn't, preclude him from the nomination.

There's also been a lot of remarks about him using TurboTax to file his returns, like that's somehow a negative. I'm a CPA and I have used and will continue to use a TurboTax-type program (TaxAct) for my returns as well. Why? Because it's easier, and there's less chance for error. I will also continue to use calculators and spreadsheets even though I am capable of arithmetic and I will continue to use Word and this blog even though I am fully capable of writing things out by hand.

By the way, pay particular attention to the fact that I said "less chance" and not "no chance" for error. Using TaxAct did not stop me from making an error on our 2006 return.

So on the specifics of this case, I don't think there's anything here that warrants a withdrawal or even a holdup of his confirmation. But in a larger sense, this represents something I am growing increasingly tired of in politics, and that's the over-scrutiny and demands for perfection in the private lives of our public officials. Pardon me, but from a privacy standpoint how is someone's minor tax issues anyone else's business? And it's not me calling these issues minor, it's the IRS. They never even so much as assessed Geithner a penalty for any of his errors (and even we got penalized when I messed up our returns). Before anyone jumps on me for partisanship, you may recall that it was on this blog just a few short months ago that I said that all the talk on Palin's family (whether or not the baby was hers, how long she waited to go to the hospital during labor, etc) should have been out of bounds. And in that case we were talking about an elected official. Here we are merely talking about an employee (albeit a very powerful employee). The debate should have nothing to do with whether or not you personally want Geithner in the position, it should have everything to do with whether or not there are grounds to bar him from it. In my opinion, it's not even close. I believe that the proper analogy is saying that someone can't be made Chief of police because you find out that they have a couple unpaid parking tickets.

Happy Inauguration Day!

Have meetings most of the day, so just have a couple real quick comments.

In the bipartisan spirit, I'm going to say something nice about our soon to be former President Bush. In case you are ever hard pressed to name one good thing that the man ever did, I think this qualifies. By executive order, he is designating nearly 200,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean as conservation areas. This will make him the person that has protected more of the oceans than anyone else in the world. Now, overall I think that policies of sustainability are preferable to pure conservation (in much the way that I believe that drinking responsibly is preferable to prohibition), but given all the challenges and (often) years of time it takes to get such policies in place (especially since so much of it involves international waters) I think that this was a good idea.

As for our incoming President, I was reading the latest Economist this morning on the way in, and I think that this summed things up pretty well:

"The next four, or eight, years may be a disappointment, a triumphant renewal, or something in between. Mr Obama is inexperienced, and right now the world looks especially forbidding. But he is a respectful and thoughtful man, and that is a good start.

Random Thought That Occurred to Me

So don't ask me why I thought about this, but it intrigued me. I just ordered a 1 terabyte external hard drive and while thinking about how awesomely huge that is it got me to another thought. Assume the following: an 80-year life span, the average length of a song is 3.5 minutes, and the average size of an MP3 is 1 MB per minute. If you bought a total of 12 terabytes of hard drive space (which you could do for ~$1200) and filled it with MP3s, you would officially have more music than you could ever listen to in your lifetime. Even if you started playing songs the moment you were born and continued 24/365, you would still not get through them all by the time you were 80. Of course, that begs the next question, which is how long would it take to download 12 TBs of music on the average T1 line? Well, guess that's a question for another day . . .

Changing topics completely, this story disturbed me . A man (Jonathan Reed) in Texas has had his 30-year-old rape/murder conviction overturned. The reason? The Texas Supreme court ruled that "prosecutors improperly excluded black prospective jurors from Reed's trial". The kicker is that Reed is white. The case was apparently built upon a manual "written by a prosecutor in 1969 and used for years later, that advised Dallas prosecutors to exclude minorities from juries" because "they almost always empathize with the accused". OK, that definitely seems pretty obscene, but is this really an effective way to right that wrong? Shouldn't the fact that, you know, there was overwhelming evidence that this guy is guilty carry a little more weight (the roommate of the murdered girl was also attacked but lived and ID'd Reed, and two other residents ID'd him as being in the apartment complex before the attack) than judicial procedure? It seems to me that it's your basic right to a trial judged by a jury of your peers and it certainly seems like he still got that. Thus, if we were talking about a black defendant where all black jurors were disallowed that would be different. Furthermore, since this manual was written in 1969 and Reed's trial was in 1979, doesn't that mean that all decisions rendered within those 10 years now need to be vacated and retried? And, if so, doesn't that mean that the families of any men put to death (Reed was on death row) as a result of decisions rendered during that time can now sue the state? I guess that at the end of the day, my point is that I believe that a correct response achieved through incorrect methods is still a correct response. I think that while lower courts need to be strict interpreters of the law, when cases reach the levels of the state and federal supreme court, I believe that society is better served if the justices are guided by the overall principle of "was justice served in this case?" But, as with the Burris appointment, this is probably another example of where the "right" thing to do comes into conflict with the "legal" thing to do. It's a bit disheartening that those two principles should conflict so often.

Happy New Year!

Before I get into anything else, help settle a debate between me and Mike. How much does the new Pepsi logo look like the Obama logo? Judge for yourself:

Pepsi

Obama

Personally, I don't think they are that close. It's true that both are red, white, and blue and both are circular, but it's certainly not strange for a politician to use the U.S. colors in a campaign (in fact, it's more rare for them not to), nor is it unusual for a logo to be in a circle. You know what I think the new Pepsi logo looks like? The old Pepsi logo.

I think they wasted a couple hundred million on an ad designer who basically decided that the white swoosh should turn up instead of down on the right side. Yep, that's some value for your money.

Next topic. In reading this week's Economist, I came across an article on Turkmenistan. Now, I know that people in most of the rest of the world do not have as simplistic names as we do, but I came across one that is just obscenely long. The current president of Turkmenistan is Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. Good luck fitting that on a bumper sticker. If they charge by the letter, the campaign could go bankrupt just from printing yard signs. Let me take a stab at phoenetically pronouncing this one. I'm gonna go with Ger-bahn-goo-ly Bir-dy-mook-ham-ma-dawv. Anybody got any better ideas?

I've been following the Israel-Hamas conflict with interest. I don't have a whole lot of thoughts on it, other than that it is obviously a bad thing for stability in the Middle East. That is not at all to say that Israel isn't justified in doing what they are doing (I think they certainly are) but it definitely sets the peace process back quite a bit. During times of relative calm, it's easier for 3rd parties to try to act as a peace broker between opposing forces. But once the conflict turns hot, it pretty much forces everyone in the region (as well as all the major countries of the world) to line up behind one side or the other, and that makes it hard for anyone to be seen as a neutral party capable of mediating. Years of baby steps forward are completely erased overnight. It is times like these when I am most pessimistic about the long-term. I said shortly after 9/11 that realistically I saw only 3 eventual outcomes from the Middle East situation: 1) we wipe them out; 2) they wipe us out; 3) we wipe each other out. Sadly, 7 years later not much has happened to change my mind about that. But, as with climate change, nothing would make me happier than to be completely wrong.

Finally, the unresolved Senate seats make for some interesting January pre-inauguration news. The Roland Burris appointment has unfolded very interestingly. Last week, it was pretty much seen as a given that Burris wouldn't be seated when Congress convened yesterday. Even Burris seemed somewhat resigned to it, telling the Sun-Times that "if he is turned away at the ceremony, he won't make a scene." Then over the weekend, things suddenly took a turn as more and more people came to the conclusion that "gee, I guess Blago is still the governor, and unless we have proof that Burris obtained the nomination through illegal means, we don't really have any legal grounds to not seat him." But, as usual, the Democrats couldn't be pro-active about it. They still chose to not seat him yesterday but now it looks like they will today (or at least sometime soon). Even though it's easy to resolve, flip-flops like this drive me crazy. If there are no new facts to consider, why are you coming up with a different conclusion today than the one you had yesterday?

The other Senate situation still needing to be resolved is the one in Minnesota. On election night, incumbent Norm Coleman led challenger Al Franken by 215 votes, triggering a mandatory recount. Now, after the recount process has been completed, Franken now leads by 225 votes and Coleman has filed a lawsuit challenging the results. I think this is an extraordinarily bad idea for Coleman. Now let me be clear about this. I am not an Al Franken fan. In my opinion, he's the sort of extreme leftist in the Michael Moore type mold that give moderate liberals a bad name. Nevertheless, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, dragging the election results through the court system does far more harm than potential good. There will always be ballots that can be contested (i.e. where someone marks down both candidates and then crosses one out) and there will always be controversy where some absentee ballots are discounted and then allowed or vice versa. But there is just no way to legitimately win an election in a court room. I thought it was a bad idea when Gore did it in 2000 and I think it's a bad idea now. I don't often say this, but I think maybe that LA has it right. If no candidate gets over 50% of the votes on election night, there should be a run-off a few weeks later. Either that or there should just be an automatic run-off if the result is within 1%.

End of the Year Update

Not a whole heck of a lot to report but wanted to get one more post in before we roll the calendar over.

Spent Christmas in Houston and looks like we missed out on some truly nasty weather up here in Chicago. I have no doubt that we'll have plenty of more chances to experience horrible weather over the next 2-3 months. Our nice and relaxing time in Houston was brought to a grinding halt when we were informed on Saturday that a pipe had burst in our building and the garage was being flooded. Fortunately (for us, not the developer) it was the rear half of the building that was affected and our car was parked at Midway, so from a damage perspective we were fine. It did mean, however, that we had the distinct pleasure of returning home to no running water. After some headaches dealing with our not-at-all efficient developer we finally got water restored last night ~7:00. Good times.

Weather was decent in Houston. Got up into the 70s most days but rained a lot. I was excited to have a chance to get outside and run again for the first time in over 6 weeks. I was real good and ran the first 5 days I was there but then took Christmas day off and somehow never made it back out again. Nothing too much else exciting to report from the trip. Worked at the pizza place a bit, finished a couple books, and saw a couple movies: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Bedtime Stories. Benjamin Button I would classify as a good movie that I just didn't like very much. Everything about it is well done (acting, writing, directing) but it just can't escape the fact that the story is inherently depressing and in the end that makes it not a lot of fun to watch. Bedtime Stories was about what you'd expect it to be (i.e. pretty stupid but moderately entertaining); only saw it because we took our nieces and nephews to see it and when you can get 4 kids (from ages 4 to 13) to all agree on the same movie that is the movie you are seeing.

Since we got back I also went out and saw The Wrestler, which I thought was excellent. Ironic that it was just about as depressing as Benjamin Button but somehow I liked it a lot more. Maybe it's because it was an hour shorter or maybe it's just because I am quite familiar with what happens to has-been (or never were) wrestlers and thus I knew more what to expect. Mickey Rourke does indeed turn in an Oscar-worthy performance and you can't help but think that he put a lot of himself into the role. Evan Rachel Wood is also very good in a small role. I've only seen her in this and Across the Universe but I've been impressed by her and wouldn't be surprised to see her really take off in the next couple years.

The Bears? Blah . . . Only silver lining is that tickets to the game were going for so much money that I avoided having the displeasure of witnessing the season-ending loss in person. I am however, excited about Illini basketball and the Big Ten conference season opening today, as well as the Blackhawks Winter Classic and all the bowl games on New Year's Day.

Well, I think that does it for me for 2008. I'm working on a couple of more weighty posts that hopefully will be enjoyable and stimulate some good discussion. Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, has a Happy New Year, and I will see you in '09!

Double Feature

OK, one more thought on Bernie Madoff and then I'll let it go (for now). Is it just me or does he look like he could be Harry Shearer's brother?

Bernie Madoff

Harry Shearer

In other news, I got out last night and saw a double-feature of two really good films: Frost/Nixon and Slumdog Millionaire.

For the benefit of those unfamiliar with these films, Frost/Nixon is a fictionalized recount of the interview of Richard Nixon by David Frost 3 years after Nixon resigned from office and the circumstances leading up to it. It is famous because it was in these interviews that Nixon finally admitted to being part of a coverup and that he let the American people down. Here the story is largely told from Frost's perspective, and I think that is the correct choice. Frost was viewed as basically the Jerry Springer of his day (or, at best, the David Letterman). Someone who could be entertaining but was not given serious credibility for having the journalistic chops to pin down someone like Nixon and force him to answer the tough questions. In fact, that's pretty much the reason he was granted the interview. He offered Nixon $600,000 (much from his own personal accounts) and was seen as someone who would toss softballs all night and allow Nixon to start to repair his image. Frost, on the other hand, sees this as an opportunity to prove that he has what it takes to be taken seriously and (he hopes) will springboard his career back to success in America. This type of approach makes us realize that there is a lot on the line for Frost here too. Had the film focused on Nixon's point of view, why would we care about some hack journalist asking him questions? Whatever your opinion on Nixon, you have to admit that he's a fascinating, enduring figure whose legend just seems to grow with time. One of the great ironies of the film is that many of the characters talk about how one of the worst outcomes of the interview would be if Nixon was somehow able to exonerate himself. The interviews did not do that, and I wouldn't argue that the film does either, but it's certainly succesful at turning Nixon into a sympathetic (if never really likable) figure. In the end, it doesn't argue that people should forgive Richard Nixon for his crimes, but that they should understand that he definitely did not "get away with them." One of the lines in the film (which, incidentally, Nixon never actually said) is "no one can know what it's like to resign the Presidency of the United States." And that's the key. I can't think of another person in history that has fallen so far, and had to live with that fact for 20 more years. To have been the most powerful man in the world and then been reduced to the point where you will never just be "former President Richard Nixon"; always "disgraced former President Richard Nixon."

A quick word on Frank Langella's performance. He doesn't really look like Nixon, and he only passably sounds like him. Nevertheless, he IS him. From his mannerisms, to his walk, to his style of speech, to the way he fills up a room and just exudes power, he really is the embodiment of the man. If you have never understood why Nixon was so hard to pin down during interviews and investigations, I can guarantee that you will understand after you see this film.

Don't want to sleight Slumdog Millionaire, which I also thought was very good, but I don't have a whole lot to say about it. It's really a conventional rags-to-riches/love story set in a very unconventional setting (Mumbai, India) and told in a fairly unique way. It's about a "slumdog" (i.e. poor boy from the ghettos) that is one question away from becoming a millionaire on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire". He is suspected of cheating because how could someone from such a background know all these answers? The remainder of the story is told in a series of flashbacks as he takes us through his life and we learn how he acquired his knowledge. Ultimately, it's a skillfully made if rather conventional story. Definitely worth seeing though, if only to see some great shots of a foreign country that haven't really been seen before by US audiences. Be warned that much of the movie is subtitled.

May(doff)day

First of all, it is Monday afternoon and as of right now we still have good old Blago as our governor so, sadly, it looks like I was wrong about that one. I'm still hoping for a quick resolution, but am preparing myself for this thing to drag out for weeks and possibly months.

I also awoke today to see that some dude named Bernie Madoff is perhaps the greatest magician of our time: he apparently made $50 billion disappear overnight. Before we get to the specifics, there is something that irks me. The four articles about this that I saw today had the following headlines: "Stocks Edge Lower as Madoff Victim List Grows", "Alleged Madoff Fraud Victims Include Big Banks, Super Rich", "List of Madoff's Victims Keep Growing, Likely to Extend Beyond Clients", and "How to Get Money Back from Bernie Madoff." So, basically, a lot of information about who has been affected and to what extent, but next to nothing about what actually happened. I think it's yet another example of our ADD media. Apparently they broke the story of what Madoff did on Saturday and so if you missed it - too bad; they're moving on. In that respect, maybe Blagoyevich is on to something here. He's gambling that we don't care enough to continually keep following this story and will eventually just forget about it. And he might be right. But I digress. . .

Fortunately, I got a good summary from the Economist:

"Details are still emerging, but Mr. Madoff has himself described it as a giant Ponzi scheme. For years, it seems, the returns paid to investors came, in part at least, not from real investment gains but from inflows from new clients. It might still have been going on, were it not for the global financial crisis. Redemption requests for $7 billion, by investors looking to pull back from turbulent stockmarkets, forced Mr. Madoff to admit that his coffers were empty - bearing out Warren Buffett's adage that only when the tide goes out is it clear who was swimming naked."

Some other details that I found interesting:

"The affair has - like the subprime-mortgage debacle - exposed a stunning lack of due dilligence. Droves of investors who should have known better tossed in billions, preferring to keep their fingers crossed rather than ask awkward questions of a firm whose investment strategy was vague and opaque. Even within his own group, Mr. Madoff's money-management business was a black box; no one but he had full access to the accounts. As a broker-dealer, it was able to clear its own trades, a privilege that should give pause for thought. Worse, questions had been hanging over the operation since the mid-1990s. Some institutional investors have long steered clear of Mr. Madoff, unable to understand how he spun his gold, or uneasy that his books were audited by a tiny, three-person accounting firm."

I bolded the parts I found most interesting. Being able to clear your own trades is just a complete lack of a fundamental control. You can get away with that if your operation is heavily audited, but I think it's pretty obvious that a $50 billion portfolio is way too big for a 3-person accounting firm to handle. Even so, if they had performed their job adequately they would have uncovered this scheme long ago. One of the most basic steps in auditing investments is to pick a sample of securities and observe that they are physically present onsite or in a safety deposit box offsite. I'm sure that this accounting firm will soon be out of business if they are not already. I am quite curious if they have professional liability insurance (as most audit firms do) and if so how much they had and who is on the hook for that.

Two months ago, Christy and I went to see a play called The Voysey Inheritance. Here's a quick summary of the plot:

"Misappropriation of client funds...fraudulent speculation on the Stock Market...deceit...lies ...and an intricate cover up. When young Edward Voysey discovers that the family's wealth has been built on three generations of deceit and theft he must choose between confessing all and ruining the clients that have unwittingly trusted the firm, or continuing the deceit in the hope of righting the wrongs that the firm's clients have unwittingly been subjected to. So the scene is set for an intriguing examination of ethics - and their absence - in the world of high finance."

Hmm, sounds a bit familiar no? The best part is that this play was written in 1905. Technology has grown by leaps and bounds since then, but it seems that financial swindels are often still barely above the sophistication level of 3 Card Monty.

It's also a vivid reminder of the fact that the "con" in "con man" is short for confidence. A good con man doesn't take your money; you give it to him because he's somehow managed to convince you that he's got your best interests in mind, or at least that you both share a common interest. And no matter what the final dollar amount ends up being here, the real damage will be consumers enduring yet another blow to their confidence in the finance industry. As they say about roaches in your house, "by the time you see one, it means you've got 1000." People are likely to start pulling more and more money out of their accounts out of fear and that's going to 1) cause the markets to fall further and 2) expose more criminals who are currently perpetrating similar schemes. The combination is likely to have a postive feedback loop effect, and that can be a very dangerous thing. Whatever the underlying reasons for a financial crisis, nothing gets better until trust is restored. People have to trust that they will still have a job next week before they will make major purchases. Banks have to trust a company's or consumer's income statements before they will lend them money. Right now nobody trusts anybody, and this is actually where greed is the enemy of capitalism. In the capitalist model, a nation of greedy pigs with an unquenchable need for consumption is good for society as a whole, but a nation of greedy misers who horde all they have is not.

It's hard to see the silver lining in all this, but I still believe it's there. There are still a whole lot of well run firms with profitbale, enduring business models and they will end up coming through this fine. I am also hopeful that the exposure of all these systemic problems will let us make some badly needed reforms in a way that is just not possible during the good times. Sometimes you just need to demolish the house and start over again instead of patching up every leak. Of course, that doesn't make it any more pleasant for the owners of the house (i.e. us), particularly when we are still inside the house as it's being demolished around us!

Blag-OY-VEH-evich (sorry, all the good puns are already taken)

So the masses (ok, 2 people) have been clamoring (ok, wondering) if I was going to do a post about our esteemed public servant Mr. Blagoje(bleep). Initially, I didn't have a whole lot to say about it. Most of the time when a public official gets caught (as in the cases of Sen. Craig and Sen. Stevens) there's at least some form of semi-plausible story where they might, just maybe, be innocent. That's when it's a good time to get together and try and separate the known facts from the speculation and figure out where the "truth" lies. That certainly does not appear to be the case here. As Nixon can tell you (or could of until 1994) it's real hard to weasel out of your own voice on tape. Speaking of Nixon, Hot Roddy might have a chance to surpass him in the category of "highest concentration of expletives in a career and life ruining recording." Something he can hang his hat on as he (hopefully) rots in his cell next to his predecessor.

For those who may not have read a ton about it, let's take a look at the "highlights":

"I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself."

[The Senate seat is] "a (bleeping) valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing."

"I’ve got this thing and it’s (bleeping) golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for (bleeping) nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there."

On Obama's preferred candidate: "they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. (bleep) them."

There's also a lot of good stuff with him trying to shake down the CFO of a children's hospital for a $50k contribution and him threatening to hold up the Cubs sale if the Trib board didn't fire some editors that were critical of him.

So, anyway, all that's out there and I think it's pretty cut and dry. And while I am disgusted and saddened by it I am also not naive and I can't be completely stunned by the revelation that we have a very crooked politician on our hands.

But what I am absolutely astonished by is the news that he apparently has no plans of resigning. I am assuming that he will be planning to use the R Kelly "that's not me on the tape" defense. That will prove to be exceedingly more difficult for him though, as he's up against a court-approved wiretap by federal agents and not a grainy video on the web.

Perhaps I shouldn't be that astonished, though. As I mentioned in the comments to my last post, we're talking about a guy trying to auction off probably the highest-profile appointment in the country right now, knowing that he's already under investigation for his Rezko affiliation, in a job where his predecessor left in disgrace and is currently rotting in jail. In that context, this latest act of arrogance or stupidity (I'm still not sure which it is) represents the model of consistency.

Actually, more than anything else I think it's delusion. This is obviously a guy who basically must feel like he's Bear Stearns (i.e. too big to fail). The level of self-denial that allows this man to actually believe that he has a chance of conducting "business as usual" for the remainder of his term is such that I honestly believe he may now have a good case to plead innocence by reason of insanity when he's eventually put on trial.

Ultimately, though, it won't really matter. There is an ever-increasing crowd of people lining up at the guillotine to have a whack. It's a race between the IL attorney general, Lisa Madigan, getting to the IL supreme court to declare him unfit for office, and the state legislature getting down to impeach him. I'm sure that somewhere on the internet there has been a betting line established.

My guess is that by end of day tomorrow he will "do the right thing" and resign. It's just taking some more time for those around him to pierce the fog of invincibility he thinks he has. One way or the other, I think we'll be welcoming in Gov. Quinn by early next week. Once Blago goes to jail that will make 4 of our last 8 governors who have followed that route. Here's hoping that Gov. Quinn can take us back under the 50% line!

Surprise loser in all of this: George Ryan. If he ever had a chance of having the rest of his sentence commuted, it is gone now.

Surprise winner in all of this: Elliot Spitzer. Congratulations Elliot! You are now just the 2nd most disgraced governor of 2008!

So, uh, yeah . . .

Wow, 3 weeks since my last update. I knew it had been a while but I didn't realize that I'd slacked quite this bad. It certainly hasn't been due to me being busy - I had all of last week off. More along the lines of I haven't had a whole lot to say.

I talked about doing a long post on the auto bailout, but after having a couple hour-long conversations with various people about it I got a little burned out on the topic and don't really want to go too much in depth on it. The long-short of it is that on principle I am against it. The auto industry is not merely going through a liquidity crisis like a lot of other businesses are. They have been struggling and burning through cash at an almost unimaginable rate for the better part of 2 decades now. They simply were able to get away with it as long as credit was so easy. However, as I have oft repeated, I am a pragmatist and I recognize the extremely detrimental effect (both economically and psychologically) that letting the Big 3 go under would have on the labor market and the country as a whole right now, so I won't be that upset if some form of bailout ends up being authorised. The main problem is that I don't want this to open the floodgates for all struggling industries to parade through Washington with their hands out. For that reason, I will only be really upset if money is given without any form of punitive stipulation, such as the removal of the current management. One of the arguments I've heard from the auto company reps is "why was it a good idea to bail out Wall Street but now it's a bad idea to bail out the auto industry?" That's just a terrible argument. If you are asking for money, you have to make the case why it's a good idea to give it to you, and not basically say "well you made this mistake once, so how about you just keep on making it?" Regardless of what happens, the Big 3 are going to need to do some major restructuring if they want to survive. They are simply carrying way too much debt to ever be profitable with their business model. Even with the dramatic reduction of benefits set to take effect in 2010, they will need to find a way to turn some of their creditors into equity holders or all they will be doing is delaying the inevitable. As they say, when you jump off the top of the 80th floor for 79 stories you can feel like you're flying.

And, as a final point, having all of the CEOs flying up to Capitol Hill on private jets was just idiocy. I know that it's a relatively minor thing, but it just shows complete lack of foresight on their part. It's like a guy going out to beg while he's wearing an Armani suit. And really I blame their respective PR departments. Each company has teams of people that are dedicated only to upholding the company's image. How can it be that not one of them stood up and said "Um, think about how this is going to look."? If truly no one did, that doesn't speak very highly of the level of talent in the organization. And if someone did and was shot down, that doesn't speak very highly of the decision making process. But then again what do you expect from a company who said in the mid-90s that hybrid cars would never be economically viable?

Finally finished Warren Buffett's book, and I still can't recommend it enough for anyone with even a passing interest in business. As my next "educational read" I've started to read Contours of the World Economy, which is a series of essays that analyzes the economies of the major empires and civilizations from the Romans on. So far it's pretty good, although quite dry. But I've read that it's used as a textbook in some college macro-economics classes, so I guess that's to be expected.

Hope that everyone had a good Thanksgiving! I'll try not to make it another 3 weeks before my next update.

Republican Schizophrenia

"Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country. And I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face. I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that."

- John McCain, from his concession speech last Tuesday

"There are three seats in the House and two in the Senate that still hang in the balance. Winning these races and strengthening our Republican numbers in both chambers of Congress is critical to blocking Barack Obama’s left-wing agenda . . .The Obama-Biden Democrats and their liberal special interest allies are trying to steal these election victories from Republicans. . .Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are hoping to add more seats to the Democrats’ Senate and House majorities so they can steamroll our opposition to their extreme, ultraliberal schemes. . . Every Republican vote we can add now will help our Party stop the Obama Democrats’ leftist policies in the U.S. Congress. "

- Mike Duncan (RNC Chairman), from an email I got from him yesterday soliciting me for donations to the RNC.

You can really feel the goodwill and bipartisanship, can't you?

First of all, let me just say that the reason I get emails from the RNC is because I gave $25 to John McCain during the primaries. And it turned out to be some of the best $25 I ever spent, just for the information and insight into the campaign that it provided. It was quite humorous over the last 6 months to get back to back emails; one from the Obama campaign and one from the McCain campaign, with subjects like "Help us defeat Obama and the Democrats" next to "Help us defeat John McCain and the Repiblicans."

In any case, back to the quotes. I certainly don't expect the GOP to suddenly start agreeing with everything the Democrats say. I just think that it shouldn't be too much to ask to, you know, wait until there actually is legislation out there to oppose. Otherwise you're basically just defining your party as "we're against whatever the Democrats are for". In addition to being really petty, that doesn't sound like a very good way to govern or reconnect with the American public. And I like the use of the word "schemes" in describing Reid and Pelosi. Makes them sound like some silent picture-era villains sitting in Congress twirling their handlebar moustaches. And finally, I really like how they say that Democrats are "trying to steal these elections." Yes, their cunning plan to get more votes than their opponent is diabolical indeed.

I understand that politics is a contact sport, but there's a lot of other paths to take here. Why not just play up the checks and balances angle, as in "our government functions best when voices from both sides of the aisle are heard. We need these elections to keep our voices from being drowned out."? Or, considering the beating they endured last Tuesday, the GOP could approach it from the angle of "you have spoken, and we have heard you. With your help we will renew this party and this country." Overall, this is just another illustration of the fact that the Republicans simply don't know how to appeal to centrists and independents anymore. They can't get it through their thick skulls that there are a lot of people (as of today a majority, in fact) that don't automatically equate the Democrats with a force that needs to be stopped at all costs. As with the Sarah Palin pick, this kind of communication does very well at energizing your base but that base by itself is simply not sufficient to win federal elections anymore (north of the Mason-Dixon line anyway). Until they realize that, there will continue to be dark days ahead for the GOP.

Idiots on Both Sides of the Aisle

So, if we have truly entered a new age of bipartisanship in American politics let me get in the spirit by complaining equally about a member of each party.

First up, and hopefully the last time I ever feel compelled to talk about her, is the easiest Republican target since Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin. With the election over it now appears that as harsh as the media and pundits were on her it turns out she deserved all that and then some. The stories starting to surface about her now are truly cringe-worthy considering how close she came to being one heartbeat away from the presidency. And the best part about it is that these stories have been broken by Fox news . Among the most damning (hopefully; though who knows what other stories will emerge) are reports that "she was unaware that Africa was not a country but a whole continent" and that she was "unable to name the countries that belong to the North American Free Trade Agreement: the US, Mexico, and Canada." I could go on a long diatribe about this being a reflection of McCain's bad judgment and so on and so forth, but you know what? More than anything I just want to be done with her. Ms. Palin, I wish you all the best in your future endeavors, but please slink back to Wasilla now and become irrelevant to my life once again.

This story though, bothers me a bit more. Harry Reid is apparently leaning towards removing Joe Lieberman as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In a statement, Reid said "While I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus." However he wishes to phrase it, the bottom line is that this is punishment for Lieberman supporting John McCain. Look, I am not a big Lieberman fan. I thought he was a poor choice for VP in 2000 and I often found myself getting very angry at him throughout this campaign. But this is 100% the wrong thing to do. Democrats won on Tuesday based largely on a campaign of ushering in a new era of bipartisanship. That means extending an olive branch across the aisle to people who may have done you wrong in the past and whom you may not even like very much for the betterment of the country. Well, Joe Lieberman isn't even across the aisle. If Congressional Democrats can't even make peace with someone who has been one of their own for the vast majority of his career, I have absolutely no faith in their ability to heal the rift with Republicans. It also sends the message that breaking with the party to stand up for what you believe is right for the country will not be tolerated. I can't think of a single worse message to send right now.

On the far, far lighter side of things I am on my way to the Cheech and Chong show at the Rosemont Theatre tomorrow night. I honestly haven't watched a single Cheech and Chong film or listened to a recording of them in about 10 years, so it will be interesting to see how the humor has held up. In any case, Cheech Marin has aged a lot better than Tommy Chong has, so I had a feeling this would be my only chance to see them and I'm looking forward to it.

Have a good weekend everyone!

Musings on the Rally

Well, probably the best and easiest way to describe the rally is to say that if you saw it on TV it was exactly what it looked like it was: a lot of people that were all very happy and just excited to be a part of the moment.

The picture above was taken by Joe right when Obama came out to speak. Obviously we were not very close, but that wasn't really the point. We spent the early part of the evening at Joe's friend's Ed's place (that's a lot of possesives in a row!) with my brother and his girlfriend Kari (who also went to the rally with us). He lives about 5 blocks from the rally location and we thought it would be a good place to eat dinner, watch the early returns, and relax before we got amped up to be amidst the throngs of people. As a result, we didn't leave for the rally till about 8:45. Since people had started lining up to get in first thing in the morning, it didn't seem to make much sense to get there 2 hours early just to end up about 200 feet closer and still not be able to see anything. While there were lines to get in, it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. There were 2 separate security checkpoints, but it was only the first one that had a decent size line. That was where they were making sure that only people with tickets were getting past so once you got through that it really opened up. At the second one they scanned your ticket and checked your ID to make sure it was legit. Strangely enough, there were actually no metal detectors. I am thinking that they used them for the early crowd but then once it got jammed up they figured it wasn't as big of a security risk since everyone else would be pretty far back. That's just speculation on my part, though.

We got inside the actual rally at about 9:15 and just stood around and conversed with fellow supporters for about half an hour. At that point, since they'd already called Ohio and Pennsylvania for Obama it was just a question of when, not if, the victory would be official. They had CNN on the jumbotron and the sound system was more than adequate to keep everyone informed. Finally, at 9:58 they called Virginia for Obama and there was a huge cheer that went up from the crowd. Less than 2 minutes later, just as the California polls closed they made it official: Sen. Barack Obama was now President-elect Obama. For about 5 minutes you couldn't hear CNN anymore or, indeed, anything else other than 200,000 people screaming and yelling. When some semblance of calm was restored, the next thing I remember hearing was that McCain was about to speak and officially concede. I give John McCain all the credit in the world, because he gave one of the best concession speeches I've ever heard. While there were a smattering of boos, by and large most people cheered and applauded him (with the notable exception of when he talked about Palin). We weren't there to dance on the grave of our opponent, we were there to celebrate our victory.

After that the fervor died down for a little while, but you could feel the anticipation and the energy never left the crowd. Finally, after about another 30-45 minutes of waiting the moment arrived. As you would expect, the place erupted when he walked out but it actually died down fairly quickly. As excited as everyone still was, they were more interested in hearing him talk than they were in cheering at the moment. There was the feeling that this was going to be a speech that would still be played 30, 50, maybe 100 years from now. And he didn't disappoint. For any that missed it, I would encourage you to go to youtube or any of 1000 other places on the web to view or read a transcript of it. It was a synthesis of everything he has been saying for the past 2 years. I made a point to look around while he was talking, to try to freeze the image in my mind forever. The thing that struck me the most as I listened was being aware of how silent it was. There were 200,000 people all standing in the center of one the largest, busiest cities in the world and the only sound that could be heard was the voice of one man, speaking for millions and saying everything that we wanted to say. By the end, I don't think there was anyone there whose eyes didn't at least well up. Truly as unforgettable a moment as there can be.

Reflecting on it later, I was most impressed with how he was able to weave in the sense of celebration and rejoicing with a continuing call for action. As I said in my last post, this isn't really the end at all; it's just the beginning. And rather than summarize and expound upon what he said, in the end I really can't say it any better than he did himself:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

Election Day!

So, at last it has all come down to this. We have finally reached THE day that marks the end of one of the longest and arguably most exciting presidential elections in our lifetimes. While there have been a lot of surprises, twists, and turns over the last year, obviously it is my earnest desire for it to be over early and that we are spared anymore late night drama. I will be amidst the craziness at the Obama rally tonight in Grant Park, so I am hoping that my only concern will be how best to celebrate with my fellow Obamaniacs. But, as with all things, you never really know until you know. And on that note, let me be probably the umpteenth person today to urge everyone who has not already done so to get out and vote!

Speaking of the Obama rally, just for fun I decided to look on craigslist to see how strong the "entrepreneurial spirit" was. While I expected to see some pretty high prices (highest I saw was $850), what intrigued me more was the number of interesting trades and offers I saw. On the more "normal" side of the spectrum were people offering Cubs tickets, Rock Band for the PS3, various other concert tickets, and an electric guitar (Guild). And, of course, since Obama has a lot of strong support among 20-somethings there are lots of hormonally related offers. Mostly this runs along the lines of young guys looking for "a cute date" (equal opportunity though, as there are both straight and gay posts) to bring but there are also a few cases of women offering themselves up in trade. Then there are the humorous posts. One guy offered to trade "fishing lures for a ticket" (at least I *think* that's a joke) and another guy was offering to take John McCain as his guest for free. On the more commendable side, there were people offering up the guest spot to the highest bidder with the stipulation that the money go to charity (yeah, there were a lot less of these than any of the other ones). Then, there are the ones that can only be described as odd. One guy wants someone to try and pass as his ex-wife, and then others are requesting essay submissions (typically either pro or anti religious). All in all, I think this shows a couple things. First, that the spirit of capitalism is alive and well in the American people. Second, there is still a place for a barter economy (particularly among the young and horny). And lastly, if you get a large enough group together (even if they all appear to be somewhat like-minded) you will see a broad spectrum of ideologies, some ingenious thinking, and all manners of personality traits and quirks.

For the record, I am taking my friend Joe and I will be getting nothing from him save the pleasure of his company (the value of which is debatable).

On a semi-serious note, I just want to point out that although this is the "end" of this presidential campaign, in another way it really is only the beginning. No matter the outcome tonight, the greatest value this campaign has had is that it has engaged the American people in a way that has not been seen in a long time. A democracy functions best when all of its members are thus engaged and it is my earnest hope that this marks a rebirth of perpetual political enthusiasm in this country. It would be a real shame if 6 months from now the populous collectively shrugged its shoulders and returned to the complacency towards government that has marked a lot of our last hundred years. As a people we have been very adept at overcoming adversity, but we need to get better at not letting up once we have broken through. As Mr. Haake, my old cross-country coach, used to say "everyone is taught to run hard up the hill, but if you run hard for 100-yards past the hill that's when you can really pass people." So, to all Americans, I say this: if you haven't been running hard, start now; and if you have, keep going!

Ronald Reagan Was A Socialist

Believe me, I was as shocked as you probably are to discover this. And I'd like to thank John McCain and Sarah Palin for finally pointing this out to me. I always thought he was a conservative-minded, supply-side, free-market idealist but apparently I was mistaken.

I stumbled upon this startling realization by listening to the recent attacks McCain and Palin have levied against Obama's tax plan. His plan calls for raising taxes on the highest bracket (currently at 35%) back to the levels they were at under Clinton (39.6%). McCain and Palin have been quick to decry this as "socialism" and "spreading the wealth around." Obviously it goes without saying that during the Clinton years we were all living under a socialist regime. Fair enough. However, while researching here I was shocked *shocked* to discover that under Reagan (from 82-86) not only did the highest tax bracket have a far higher tax rate (50%), but there were actually 3 brackets that all had higher tax rates than Obama's proposal (44%, 49%, and 50%). And while we're at it we can't let perhaps the biggest socialist of all time, Richard Nixon, off the hook either. Under his tax plans, there were a whopping 14 brackets with higher rates (ranging from 42% to 70%) than under Obama's plan.

OK, so obviously the tongue is planted firmly in cheek here, but I think it illustrates the ridiculousness of this "socialism" accusation. Ever since we have had an income tax (1913) we have had a progressive tax system. By definition, a progressive tax system is a redistribution of wealth mechanism. If you believe that redistribution of wealth is a socialist idea, then it's all socialist and we have in fact been a socialist country for the last 95 years. Personally, I think that's a pretty narrow view to take on it. At it's core, socialism is about collective ownership at the expense of individual property rights and government setting the market price for goods and services. Tax policy has absolutely no effect on the former and only a minor, indirect effect on the latter.

In any case, I have absolutely no beef with someone who supports a flat tax levying the claim of "socialism" at our tax code. What I have a real problem with is the hypocrisy of someone who still supports a progressive tax code (as McCain does) calling another progressive tax code "socialist". If he wants to say "my plan is socialist, but his is more socialist" I could accept that too.

As you might be able to tell, with it being 5 days before the election my hackles are a bit up. It really saddens me that this campaign featured two of the most honest and respectable candidates in our recent history and we still had a campaign that was this nasty. While the Democrats are certainly not blameless, it is mainly the Republicans' fault (but don't take my word for it). Fortunately, while it's never over till it's over, it looks to be shaping up to not be particularly close. Every day more and more Republican insiders are coming out with negative feelings on Palin and her actions, and Republican Congressional candidates are starting to throw McCain under the bus by running ads playing up the angle that you don't want Democrats to control both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. My sincerest hope is that the Republicans get the thorough ass kicking they deserve on Tuesday so that they are forced to reinvent themselves, throw out the right-wing extremists, and get back to their Reagan-esque roots. When that happens, I will be proud to once again pick up the Republican banner and wave it. Until that day though, I hope they never win another election.

Is This Thing On?

Update (10/22): Winner! In an unannounced and unexpected move, Kevin Smith WAS at the screening last night, and stuck around for over an hour after the movie to do a Q&A with the audience. We really lucked out because we were a little late in getting to the theatre and ended up getting seats near the front. While that wasn't ideal for the movie, it meant that we were about 10 feet from Kevin the entire time he was there. If you've seen any of his "An Evening With Kevin Smith" dvds it was exactly like that. I'm not sure if he'd take it as a compliment or an insult, but I think I laugh harder just hearing him talk for an hour than I do watching any of his movies (and I really like his movies). In any case, the movie was solidly good but not great. Definitely a must for anyone who enjoys either Kevin Smith or Seth Rogen movies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10/21

So, apparently I’m talking to myself now (or, more accurately, talking to Becky and Dan). My 4 posts in a 7-day span (which I think is a record for me) resulted in a whopping 6 comments (and 2 of those were mine). Yeesh, was my call for civility really that insulting?

So, last weekend my friend Joe and I went to the burgeoning metropolis that is La Porte, IN to campaign for Obama. I had been hoping that all we’d have to do was hang some literature on peoples doorknobs but we were out there knocking on people’s doors and talking to them. While I’m glad I did it, it just really isn’t my thing. I have a real problem with offering up unsolicited opinions to people (and FYI, I believe that by visiting this site you are implicitly asking for my opinion). I don’t like to be bothered by random campaign people and I assume no one else does either, so it just made the whole experience uncomfortable. What can I say, I’m just not a salesman. I’m also not exactly sure if we did any good. We met some strong Obama supporters that were happy to see us, and also some strong McCain supporters who were . . .less happy to see us, but I don’t really think we changed anybody’s mind. I guess in the end you have to believe in the power of numbers; if 10,000 people all knock on 50 doors somehow minds do get changed even if it can’t be directly traced to any one canvasser. Or maybe that’s just what I’m telling myself so I don’t feel like I wasted 4 gallons of gas and an entire Saturday.

In case the market hasn’t made you nauseous lately maybe this will do the trick . Some 21-year old ate a 15lb. burger in less than 5 hours. And the 15lbs was just the beef itself (pre-cooked). The bun and trimmings brought the total weight to 20.2 lbs. His prize for this feat? $400, 3 t-shirts, and a certificate. No matter how he invests that $400, I’m doubting it will come close to covering the costs of the inevitable angioplasty 20 years down the road. Don’t get me wrong, eating 20lbs of food in 5 hours is impressive, but so is maintaining consciousness while relentlessly beating yourself in the head with a hammer for a half hour. Doesn’t make either idea any less stupid. Of course, this is coming from someone who once drank 14 beers in 85 minutes and (on a separate occasion) decided to walk onto a semi-frozen lake in mid-March, so I think I know a thing or two about stupid ideas.

Going to see the new Kevin Smith movie tonight (Zack and Miri Make a Porno) as part of the Chicago International Film Festival. Sometimes as part of these they have special guests introduce the film and I had been hoping that maybe Kevin Smith would be here but it looks like no such luck. Still, it’s always fun to see a movie in a crowded theatre 10 days before its release.

I’m also really looking forward to seeing Saw V this weekend. I have no idea why, but I am.

W.

So I snuck away during lunch today to see W. Overall, I'd say it was pretty good. I have to admit, though, that I'm not really sure who the movie is intended for. It actually pulls too many punches to please the throngs of Bush-haters (which, judging by the latest approval ratings, is round about everybody nowadays). You won't find any scenes of him snorting coke, getting DUIs, smearing John McCain in 2000, or any mention of My Pet Goat. Sure, there are plenty of scenes of him drinking in his early life, but it's not exactly controversial to say that Bush drank a lot during his youth. So, it's pretty safe to say that anyone going into the movie expecting to see a non-stop pummeling of Bush the younger is going to be disappointed. On the other hand, it's unlikely that Republicans will like it either. After all, it's certainly not a coincidence that this is being released 18 days prior to the election and while I said that it doesn't pummel him it certainly doesn't paint him in a glowing light either. Largely, the movie reinforced the opinion I've had of him for the last 3-4 years. It paints the picture of a man who's been struggling his entire life to step out of the shadow of his father and his family's legacy. In a number of ways, he is a very tragic figure. Contrary to what a lot of the far left vilifies him to be he is not some evil, greedy, Machiavellian figure. He is a guy who genuinely believed (and still does) that what he is doing is right for the country and for the world and whose biggest mistake was surrounding himself with people that did not provide him with the crucial information he needed at the correct time. I am not trying to be a Bush apologist. The man made a lot of very, very bad decisions and we will be paying the price for them for a long time. Those bad decisions were a product of misinformation, stubbornness, and too much reliance on "gut feelings" instead of reevaluation of each situation as the facts changed. But I don't believe they were mainly the product of greed or malice. In the end, I still despise George W. Bush the President, but I really do feel empathy for George W. Bush the human being.

One of the people that comes off pretty well in the film is George H.W. Bush. Most of the film centers on him as an exasperated father dealing with a child who shows no real desire or ambition for anything for his first 40 years. He is proud of his son's accomplishments but can't connect with him, and he seems almost bewildered when the life and legacy that seemed destined to go to Jeb almost falls in George's lap instead. What little we see of Bush the elder as a politician centers on his side-stepping a number of the perils that W fell into headlong. Ironically, while W's numerous mistakes may have tainted the Bush name, it actually seems to have enhanced the legacy of H.W. Maybe it's just because enough time has passed that we can now look on his presidency with a less biased lens. Maybe not. But if that is indeed the case, then who knows? Maybe 15 years from now W will be right and history will vindicate him. I sincerely doubt it, but I have to leave open the possibility. I never thought my opinion of H.W. would have risen with time, and I never thought my opinion of Clinton would have risen with time either, but both happened.

Powell comes off very well too. Actually, I think he comes across a little too well. I am definitely a fan of Powell, and in all the books I've read concerning the Iraq war he was in fact one of the only people in the administration pushing for a conservative and diplomatic approach. But he is presented here as something of a crusader (in one scene in particular) whereas the story I've come to believe is one where he spoke out a few times early on but then gradually grew silent as he realized that his opinion was not valued and not often requested. I believe his decision to resign in 2004 is pretty concrete proof that he chose to remove himself rather than stay and try to fight, well, pretty much everyone. Mind you, I'm not criticizing him for that decisio, but I just don't think that's the perception that comes across in the film.

I have read a lot of praise about Thandie Newton's portrayal of Condoleeza Rice, and I just don't really see it. It is by no means a bad performance but apart from her looking spot on like her, there is very little meat to the role and she's largely a background character. Biggest props go to Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney (who, in the words of Ebert, "is not so much a double as an embodiment" of him) and of course Josh Brolin as W. It's hard to imagine one or both not garnering an Oscar nomination.

So in the end you have a well-made, well-acted film that is far more even handed than I would have thought Oliver Stone capable of. I'm still not exactly sure who it was made for, and I'm also not sure if the film will age well after the public has forgotten about the specifics of the Bush years. I guess, as W. himself would say, "we'll let history decide that".