Decelarating

So not too much new going on. That's actually a good thing, since we've been pretty busy since early May. This weekend we've got a Cubs game (possibly our last of the year) and then just relaxing on the agenda. Not too bad.

Christy and I went to the Elton John/Billy Joel concert on Tuesday. Overall it was OK, but I just was not in the right mood for it. I was still tired from the weekend and really would have rather just gone home, watched the Cubs game, and went to bed early. I have been trying to be healthier of late and decided not to drink. I find that I can enjoy a concert sober only if I am really, really into the music and that's only true of a handful of artists for me at this point. And of course with that in mind this concert decided to be the longest one I have ever attended - over 3 and a half hours. Good for getting your money's worth but bad when you're looking at the setlist online and just counting down till it's over. But we mainly went for Christy and she seemed to have a good time so that's all that matters. I have seen Billy Joel before and would see him again but I most definitely will not be going to any future Elton John concerts. Musically, he was fine but man he is just not exciting at all. He's sitting for every song. Obviously he has to do that since he's playing the piano, but it doesn't make it any more exciting for the audience. Then after each song he would stand up, wave his arms a little bit, clap for himself, then sit back down. Repeat. No banter with the crowd at all. By comparison, Billy Joel had the energy of a teenager.

I've been following the health care debate pretty closely. Being a Blue Cross employee, obviously it will affect me more than just about anyone else other than the people currently uninsured that will get insurance. I'm going to refrain from going in depth on it right now because it's still such a work in progress. Suffice to say that on one hand I'm very glad that it's being pushed off till the fall because it still needs a lot of work, and on the other hand I'd be a lot happier to see Republicans take a more constructive approach to the debate instead of continuing to play the socialist card again and again and again.

The only other interesting thing I came upon is a story about the CIA and LSD tests. My brother turned me on to the "Stuff You Should Know" podcasts from howstuffworks.com and one of them was on the CIA's testing of LSD on unsuspecting Americans in the 50s and 60s. This story would seem to be the stuff of conspiracy theories but thanks to the Freedom of Information Act it's now all been verified. I'd advise you to either read the article or listen to the podcast the next time you have 20 minutes free. Frankly (as mentioned in the podcast) I'm absolutely stunned they haven't made a Hollywood biopic about George White (one of the main ringleaders). Of particular interest is that the second stage of their experiments occurred in San Francisco and was one of the main contributing factors to the birth of the counter-culture revolution there.

Moving On

So, a quick scorecard for the last couple posts:

Post (largely) on a book about the Iraq War - 1 comment (unrelated to Iraq)
Post on retirement - 1 comment
Post on Michael Jackson - 21 comments

Seems about right. I'll have to remind myself of this the next time I find myself complaining that Hollywood makes too many mainstream popcorn movies. Does my writing completely suck or do you guys really not have any opinions on these things? Or has Weir become my sole readership? That's a distinct possibility. Weir, maybe I should just start e-mailing you directly. Although, ironically, your commenting frequency is better than your e-mail response rate.

Moving on . . .

I got the quarterly results of my 401(k) in the mail the other day and was astonished to see that it actually made money! Wow, who knew that they could do that?

Moving on . . .

So tomorrow is Christy's shower at our place and I will be . . . elsewhere. I had orginally planned to go out of town somewhere but seeing as we have traveled 3 of the last 4 weekends that doesn't seem too appealing to me any more. So instead I'm going to be hibernating at the movie theatre in downtown Evanston. As of right now I'm planning to see 3 movies: The Hurt Locker, Harry Potter, and Transformers 2. I look at that list and immediately think about the law of diminishing returns.

Moving on . . .

We finally got a Wii and I've been doing the Wii Fit for about a week now. Overall I like it but it is definitely a blow to the ego the first time you step on and a high-pitched, chirpy little voice cheerfully informs you "that's overweight" as your on-screen representation balloons in the mid-section. I really like the Yoga stuff even though it massively exposes how horribly inflexible I am. But I was never gonna go to a class on my own so I suppose this is the only way it was ever going to happen. I also just got Punch-Out last night and it is everything I thought it could be and more. Call me crazy but I've always thought that Punch-Out would make a great movie. Certainly it would have to be campy and cartoony (I'm thinking something in the vein of Hellboy 2) but can you tell me that Soda Popinski, Bald Bull, and Super Macho Man wouldn't make great characters? 10 years ago Matt LeBlanc would have been a good Mac; not sure who would play him now. Forrest Whitaker would definitely have to play Doc.

As we head into the weekend, I think we've gone 10 days now without a celebrity death. Let's hope that streak is still alive come Monday. Also, I'm thinking of doing another roundtable, so either comment or send me an e-mail if you'd like to be a part of it. Better yet, regardless of whether or not you'd like to participate in it I'd love to get some ideas for questions so that I don't have to come up with them all myself and force people to write about things that no one cares about. I'll still be the one selecting the question (this is still a blogtatorship) but I think it'll be more interesting that way.

Have a good weekend everyone!

Happy Non-Sports Day!

As we sit here the day after the MLB All-Star game, we are in the midst of the only day in the entire calendar year with no televised event from any of the four major pro sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL). That means that today is a particularly difficult today for husbands across the U.S. to get out of doing the umpteen number of projects around the house they've been promising their wives they would do this last year or so, and bachelors will need to find some other thinly-veiled excuse to drink on a Wednesday. I will be "celebrating" by going to Home Depot (to get what will hopefully be the last supplies to put the finishing touches on the nursery) and Sam's Club (to get supplies for Christy's baby shower on Saturday). Seems pretty fitting.

I saw this article on Yahoo the other day. You don't really need to click on the link (not that you were going to anyway). The title is "Swearing Makes Pain More Tolerable" but in a Freudian slip moment I initially read it as "Swearing Makes Palin More Tolerable." Indeed it does . . .

Last week saw the passing of Robert McNamara (former Secretary of State) at the age of 93. Few people took a break from the Michael Jackson coverage to notice. I'd just like to take this opportunity to recommend (again) that everyone see the 2003 McNamara documentary The Fog of War about the lessons learned from Vietnam. It is an absolutely fascinating film and gives you some great insight into how things that seemed so certain at the time turned out to be dead wrong. There are obvious parallels to the Iraq War (and really just about any war) and it makes you wonder if 20 years from now we'll be seeing anyone from the Bush administration being as forthright as McNamara is here. Regardless what you think of him, he is definitely worth listening to.

Speaking of passings that no one noticed, how about poor Bill Mays? My brother gets the award for funniest joke in bad taste that I've heard this year. Written to me via e-mail: "Ed, Michael, and Farrah; it always comes in 3s. But wait! Billy Mays will throw in one for free! Only if you act RIGHT NOW."

Anyone who might be keeping tabs on my movie and book lists on the right may have noticed that I finally finished another book: The Gamble by Thomas Ricks. It's only the 2nd book I've finished this year, which is way down from my average of 1/month the last couple years. I blame 1) my obsession with playing Donkey Kong on the el; 2) my Kindle New York Times subscription; and 3) my Economist subscription. In any case, The Gamble is a "sequel" to his 2006 book Fiasco. That book covered the events of the Iraq War from 2003-2005 while the new one covers 2006-2008. The first question most people ask about the books is "Are they partisan?" In my opinion I don't think that they are. Sure, Fiasco was extremely critical about the handling of the war and that was controversial in 2006 but at this point you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who holds the position that the war was run well during that time. This book is definitely more optimistic but that's not saying all that much. You get a lot of great details into how the idea for the "surge" came about, how Petraeus came to be in charge of it, and how the tide slowly started to turn. However, you aren't left with a whole lot of optimism that the situation is not going to start deteriorating quickly after we've pulled out of the major cities (i.e. as of 6/30/09).

The conventional wisdom about the Surge is that it worked because we finally had enough troops there to do the job. That's true, but it's misleading. The real change was one of strategy: we moved from having a small number of large forward operating bases (FOBs) just outside the city limits to engaging in classic counter-insurgency strategy by having lots of small bases located within the cities in neighborhoods. Once it was decided to adopt that strategy, the generals (namely Odierno and retired Gen Keane) estimated how many troops would be needed to accomplish it and discovered that they needed 30,000 more.

In military speak, the "center of gravity" changed from seeking out and destroying insurgent and terrorist cells to protecting the local population with the hope being that once trust was gained with the people and local tribal leaders that they would assist the military in helping apprehend "unfriendlies". And indeed that is exactly what happened. After an initial spike in violence as the troops moved into hostile areas, casualties dropped dramatically and the focus of attacks increasingly became U.S. forces instead of locals.

So why the pessimism? Well, one of the least publicized aspects of the Surge is that one of the principle reasons for the decline in violence (at least initially) was due to the U.S. military deciding to put members of the Sunni insurgency on the payroll to get them to stop fighting. From the book:

This may have been the biggest gamble Petraeus took as the commander of the war in Iraq. He was going behind the back of the Baghdad government to put its enemies on the American payroll. Strikingly, he didn't seem to think he needed to get clearance from the American government, either. When asked about how he had gotten the president to agree to the program, he indicated that he hadn't asked Bush about it. "I don't think it was something that we needed to ask permission for. We had the authority to conduct what are called security contracts, and that was how we saw these."

In other words, the insurgents (particularly those not religiously motivated) were happy to lay down there arms as long as they were being paid to do so. They were paid ostensibly to keep security in their own neighborhoods, but of course the truth of the matter was that with them no longer creating the violence there was not a lot of security forces needed.

All of the strategic steps taken during the Surge were with one goal in mind: creating enough temporary stability to allow the political process to move forward. And quite simply that has not happened. 5 years since the first Iraqi elections and there is still not an agreement in place for territories to share oil revenue; an item that was one of their top priorities. Maddeningly, as the violence got better the politics have actually gotten worse. With the situation not as dire, a lot of the politicians have decided that instead of forging compromises they can afford to take harder lines and be more demanding. The bottom line is that right now Iraq is not a melting pot so much as it is oil and water. As a group the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds simply don't like each other much, and it's just very hard imagining them co-existing peacefully without the U.S. acting as constant mediators.

And in case you are not utterly sick of me rambling on about this subject, here are some other quotes from the book that I found interesting:

“The surge may have bought transitory successes . . . but it has done so by stoking the three forces that have traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states: tribalism, warlordism, and sectarianism.”

"One of the lessons of the twentieth century, noted David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency expert, was that “there has never been a successful counterinsurgency that took less than 10 years.”

"A senior intelligence officer in Iraq described the long-term American goal as 'a stable Iraq that is unified, at peace with its neighbors, and is able to police its internal affairs, so it isn’t a sanctuary for al Qaeda. Preferably a friend to us, but it doesn’t have to be.' He paused, then pointedly noted that his list doesn’t include democracy or the observation of human rights."

"The Americans have imposed power sharing on Iraq’s factions, he said, and that should worry us for several reasons. First, it produces what looks like peace but isn’t. Second, in such situations eventually one of the factions seeks to break out of the arrangement. 'Thus,' McCreary wrote, 'power sharing is always a prelude to violence,' usually after the force imposing it withdraws."

"'I don’t think the Iraqi civil war has been fought yet,' he said. 'I suspect Sadr is recruiting and amassing weapons and resources for that day we pull down our troop levels to the point where he can make a grab for the seat of power in Baghdad. I’m sure his boys are infiltrating all levels of the Iraqi army and police, and he is smart enough to wait until he realizes we are drawn down to a point where we can’t effectively stop him without a massive rebuild of troops, . . . a point where the American public will not stomach another buildup.'"

"The less the Iraqi generals need American support, the more they might be inclined to take control of the government, so one reason to keep a substantial number of troops there, said Biddle, was to deter them from launching a coup. One nightmare scenario, he noted, leads eventually to a Shiite general who takes over explicitly as a Shiite out to suppress the Sunnis—and who has at his disposal a military and an economy more effective and efficient than Saddam Hussein’s ever were. 'Imagine an Iraq-Iran axis with their oil wealth, a modern equipped army, in cahoots with each other,' he said."

"The role of Iran remains problematic. At this point it appears to be the biggest winner in the Iraq war, and perhaps in the region—both in the short term and long term. As former Iranian president Muhammed Khatami boasted to the scholar Vali Nasr, 'regardless of where the United States changes regimes, it is our friends who will come to power.' In other words, all Iran really has to do is stand back and collect its winnings as Iraqi Shiites take power and realize they have few allies in the region aside from Iran."

"Iraqi counterparts would candidly say they were just waiting for the Americans to depart so they could revert to their old methods of population suppression. Older officers 'would sit and tell us they wanted to go back to the old way underneath Saddam and were just waiting for the U.S. to leave,' reported Maj. William Arnold, who in 2007 advised a battalion of the Iraqi 9th Division (Mechanized), a particularly significant unit because it was part of the only armored brigade in the Iraqi army and so would be key to launching a military coup d’état. 'We felt that those guys would listen to us just because they were using us as a checkbook.'”

"Gen. Odierno said in my last interview with him in November 2008 that he thinks Iraqi commanders have improved and that they no longer will automatically revert to Saddam-era viciousness. 'I think two years ago that was true. I think maybe even a year and a half ago it was true. I think a year ago it was a little less true. I think today it’s less true.'”

"When you got to know them and they’d be honest with you, every single one of them thought that the whole notion of democracy and representative government in Iraq was absolutely ludicrous.”

"'We’re thinking in terms of Reconstruction after the Civil War,' Miller added. That may be a historically insightful way to think about the duration of the American presence in Iraq, but it probably is not a good sign politically, given that Reconstruction was a failure, giving rise to the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist organization that for the next century violently intimidated American blacks and any whites who might seek to help them exercise their civil rights. Nor have Americans signed up for a century-long mission in Iraq."

"The heart of the Iraq matter still lies before us, Crocker maintained in both my interviews with him in Baghdad in 2008, and he likely is correct. 'What the world ultimately thinks about us and what we think about ourselves,' he said, 'I think is going to be determined much more by what happens from now on than what’s happened up to now.' In other words, the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably have not yet happened."

A Post on Retirement That I Don't Have a Good Title For

Sometimes, the federal government has a pretty good sense of humor. One of the best and longest running jokes they've come up with arrives in my mail annually when they send me an update on how much I have paid into Social Security and what my projected benefit will be when I retire. The fact that as of right now should I and others in my age group actually receive said benefit amount at retirement the entire country would be bankrupted is what makes it such a good joke.

The Economist did a special report on ageing a few weeks ago. I found this passage particularly enlightening:

When Otto von Bismarck introduced the first pension for workers over 70 in 1889, the life expectancy of a Prussian was 45. In 1908, when Lloyd George bullied through a payment of five shillings a week for poor men who had reached 70, Britons, especially poor ones, were lucky to survive much past 50. By 1935, when America set up its Social Security system, the official pension age was 65—three years beyond the lifespan of the typical American. State-sponsored retirement was designed to be a brief sunset to life, for a few hardy souls.
Now retirement is for everyone, and often as long as whole lives once were. In some European countries the average retirement lasts more than a quarter of a century. In America the official pension age is 66, but the average American retires at 64 and can then expect to live for another 16 years.

Though the report was well written, it essentially took 20 pages to say the following: we are all going to have to work longer. And for proof of that, you don't need a whole lot more than the preceding paragraph. Our current social security scheme only works when one of two conditions are met: 1) an ever increasing population; or 2) a constantly expanding economy. Number 1 has pretty much stopped already (we have population growth only because of immigration) and if nothing else I think that the last year has taught us the folly of being completely dependent on number 2. We have a surplus in Social Security right now because with the vast majority of the baby-boomers still working we have many more payors than payees in the system right now. Also from the Economist: "In 1950 the OECD countries had seven people aged 20-64 for every one of 65 and over. Now it is four to one—and on course to be two to one by 2050." A two to one ratio simply is not sustainable for paying social security in the current manner. Right now the average U.S. worker makes ~$40,000 per year, and the social security tax is a flat 6.2%. Thus, at 7-1 it means that we can afford to pay each retiree the equivalent of 43.4% (7*6.2%) of the average salary (43.4% of $40,000 = $17,360) and still be solvent. At 4-1, the figure drops to $9920 which is not great but at ~$800/month could provide a decent base for someone who presumably no longer has a mortgage or car payment, will have all their medical expenses paid by Medicare, and who hopefully has some private pension saved up to supplement. But at 2-1 we're now down to $413/month. Try living off of that

This is yet another great example of a problem that is actually very simple to understand, but almost impossible to solve; at least from a political standpoint. The math is quite easy. You either need to increase the retirement age (and thus increase the ratio of payors to payees), increase the social security tax rate to get more money per person into the system, or decrease the benefit amounts. How many Congressmen you suppose are lining up to sponsor legislation for any of those 3 ideas right now?

I think that probably the best solution, although far from ideal, is to take an arbitrary age (like 60) and say that if you're older than that as of right now you will still get your benefits at 65. But they will be reduced from their current levels. However, if you opt to work an additional two years, you will get your full benefit amount beginning at 67. For people aged 55-59 it's reduced benefits at 66 and full at 68 and for people 50-54 it would be 67 and 69. For everyone under 50 though, the retirement age will just be raised to 70.

Of course, the absolute best solution from an individual standpoint is to see to it that you can take care of your own retirement savings and then you can retire whenever the hell you want.

So, Apparently Michael Jackson Had a Monkey's Paw

* In the event that the above title makes absolutely no sense to you, allow me to refer you to here.

So, apparently somewhere in his worldwide travels Michael Jackson acquired a monkey's paw. And sometime in the last week he decided to use it. "I wish that the whole world would love me again" he said. Done.

Yes, in another one of life's ironies Michael Jackson died on the eve of embarking on his "comeback tour" and in so doing managed to revive his career and image far more effectively than he ever could have done while alive. I believe that it's quite probable that his music will be more popular now than it has been in 15 years. And anyone currently under 10 years old will probably grow up knowing about "creepy Michael" only as a side-note instead of the main attraction it had become for the rest of us these last 10 years.

I look around at all the tributes being paid to him and I am quite perplexed. I can't escape the feeling that no matter how you look at it a disservice has been done to someone. Although he still had lots of fans (as evidenced by the sold-out venues for his planned tour), most of the world was done with him. The general consensus seemed to be "Yeah, you were a good entertainer for a long time, and you made some great music. But you are just too creepy, and we can't get past it." Even the majority of the black community had turned on him. Seriously, you were more likely to hear a black man defend O.J. than defend Michael Jackson. I think Chris Rock's comments from Never Scared in 2004 sum it up pretty well:

Damn. It's all fucked. The world's fucked up man. Michael Jackson lost his mind. What the hell is wrong with Michael? Another kid? Another kid? I thought it was groundhog's day when I heard that shit. Another kid. Get the fuck out of here. That's how much we love Michael. We love Michael so much. We let the first kid slide. Another kid. I'm fuckin done. I'm done with Michael. I was a fan my whole life. I am fuckin' done! I'm handing in my glove. I saw Michael on 60 Minutes. Ed Bradley tried his best to make Michael look like a mammal. Someone that drinks water and breathes air, right? He gave Michael the easiest question in the world, the easiest GED questions in the world, and Michael could not pass the test. He said, "Oh Michael, do you think it's proper for a 45 year old man to sleep in the bed with 13 year old boys?"

[as Michael Jackson ]"Yes".

[as Ed Bradley]"Ok, ok, oh let me rephrase that question. Michael, would you let your children sleep in a bed with a 45 year old man that has been accused of child molestation?"

[as Michael]: "Yes".

Ed Bradley looked at Michael Jackson like he wanted to say, "Nigga, is you crazy?" Like he wanted to take the 60 Minutes clock and push the shit forward and say "get the fuck off my show!"Did you see Michael going to court? Motherfucker going to court 20 minutes late! What kind of black man gonna go to court 20 minutes late? This ain't Barbershop 2. This is court motherfucker. And he ain't even wearing a real suit to court. Coming in there looking like Captain Crunch. Shit, who's your lawyer, Franken Berry? You better take your black ass to Banana Republic to get you a decent suit. What is up with that boy?

So now the guy dies and all of a sudden it's like he was still the beloved figure that he was the year after Thriller was released. Like the last 27 years didn't happen. I'm all for paying tribute to someone's life, but it all seems just a bit phony to me. It's like, if you really were still a huge Michael Jackson fan, where you been the last 10 years? Where were you to show your support for him and let him know that you still stood by him while he was still alive and could have benefited from it

To be clear, there were a number of celebrities and family that really did stick by him through it all. I'm not talking about them. Nor am I talking about the fans that bought all of his albums and even the ones that were psychotic enough to stand out front of the courtroom and cheer for him during his last molestation trial. What I'm talking about are the endless parade of celebrities that are using his death to shove themselves in the spotlight for an extra 30 seconds. The media pirranhas who have made a living on blasting his every move for the last 15 years and now will put out an endless series of "special tribute" issues. Just last week, Us Weekly ran a page making fun of "Wacko Jacko fashion". What do you think the odds are that this week's issue will be a gushing 20+ pages of over-the-top sentimentality? And I'm talking about the legions of "fans" who were all too happy to pass on an endless parade of Michael Jackson jokes over the last 2 decades and now will shake their head and mutter something about "the tragedy of losing someone so young."

Look, I don't have a problem celebrating the guy's musical accomplishments (of which there are many), or somewhat looking the other way on some of his private issues (if nothing else, it is true that he was never convicted of any of his alleged sex crimes; though of course he settled more than one out of court). I think I am just a big believer that how people talk about you when you're dead should be how they talked about you when you were alive. In sci-fi terminology, I guess I am looking for more Speakers. A person's life should be remembered by the actions they took and the effect they had on others, not on how we later choose to remember those actions and effects. You wanna know how history gets rewritten? It's subtle ways like these

As a final note on this, I am reminded of the Japanese author Mishima. He was rather obsessed with death and basically believed that all things (people, plants, animals, or artistic creations) should be cut down at their peak physical form and beauty so as to avoid decay and be preserved that way for all time. You can't help but wonder, how many of those that died so young actually ended up preserving a far better legacy for themselves? People like Buddy Holly, Richie Valence, Kurt Cobain, Heath Ledger, and Sam Cooke come to mind. Did we miss out on 30 more years of genius, or a tragic downfall? We'll never know. If you could have asked him just before he died, would Michael Jackson have been willing to trade the years from ~1987 to 2009 to be remembered for all time as simply the greatest musical performer ever? I wonder what he would have said.

Are You F*!&ing Kidding Me?!?!?

You may want to mark this date down, because I am almost speechless. Please read this story. It redefines the word "ridiculous". It's the kind of thing where if it happened in a movie, everyone would talk about how far-fetched and unrealistic it was. If it happened on April 1st, you'd be absolutely certain that it was an April Fool's Day joke. And if you got this story forwarded to you on any other day, you'd be positive that it was from The Onion.

This is my favorite part of the story (which makes absolutely no sense if you haven't read it yet): "Democrats scored a tactical victory by seizing the official Senate gavel, which is large and made of black walnut, its whack echoing through the chamber with authority. Senator George H. Winner Jr., who was presiding over the Republican session, was left to peck the table in front of him with a small gavel used by Republicans for their private conferences.
“It’s better than the eyeglass case I was using before,” Mr. Winner said."

My Marginally Exciting Life

OK, so it's been two weeks and thus it's probably time for a new post. While there have been some new topical developments in the world (health care proposals, new financial regs, the Iranian election) I am not currently in the mood to dive into any of them yet, so instead I'll just give a brief update on my life the past couple weeks.

The 30th b-day party on the 13th was a lot of fun. All week leading up to it the weather forecast just kept looking crappier and crappier and I woke up on Saturday morning to some dark skies and some pretty bad rain. So it looked like our outdoor extravaganza would be turned into a house party. Fortunately though, the weather cleared up significantly around 1:30 and it turned into a really nice day. We fired up the grill and got the ladder golf going and I even got to do my first (and probably last) keg stand. We headed inside at about 8:15 and started playing some poker. Admittedly, that's when the evening starts to get a little hazy for me and I started to do some really smart things like forgetting how many cards are on the board in Texas Hold 'Em. I did make it till almost 5:00 A.M. though and I was the last one awake, so that's something of an accomplishment (right?).

Last Wednesday I went to the Cubs/Sox game with some work friends. If you're wondering which game that was, it's the game right before the Cubs decided to have 3 miraculous comeback wins in a row. Other than the outcome of the game, it was a lot of fun. The Cubs had been 4-0 in games I attended this year so my streak finally ended, which was kind of a bummer. As of right now I am only scheduled to go to 1 more game this year. If that holds, it will be the least number of Cubs games I've gone to in probably 9 years. I'm still convinced that the Cubs will make the playoffs and it will be game 5 of the NLDS when Anabelle will decide to make her appearance in the world. Of course, for that to happen the Cubs would have to actually win a playoff game, something they've failed to do in their last 9 attempts.

This past weekend I went down to Houston to visit all my peeps down there. Played golf a few times (terribly of course) and took the nieces and one of my nephews to see Up, which is now probably my favorite Pixar movie after Toy Story. Other than that, just did some relaxing and tried to stay out of the 100-degree/85% humidity heat.

The big mission over the next couple weeks is to finish the conversion of the spare bedroom/my man-cave into Anabelle's room. We're planning on doing all the painting and adding the chair rail (and if you know what that is you're ahead of where I was 10 days ago) over the 4th of July weekend and then I get to build the crib, which came last Wednesday. Hopefully, all my years of IKEA furniture-building have honed my skills. I have yet to have a piece of furniture that I've built collapse on me, but I most definitely have built some contraptions that I wouldn't trust my daughter's life with. Hopefully, it's somewhat idiot-proof.

Finally felt Anabelle kick for the first time last night. My juvenile mind instantly conjured up a scene from Billy Madison ("You feel that kick; he's gonna be a soccer player. Yes he is") and then I started picturing her with a little forehead light, whistling the theme from The Great Escape as she tries to figure out a way out of her temporary home.

Yeah, I'm definitely mature enough for fatherhood . . .

The End of an Era . . .

So, with my birthday less than 7 hours away this looks to officially be the last post of my 20s. And since there's not a whole lot of "topical" stuff that I have a lot to say about right now I'd thought I'd just do a little bit (ok, a lot bit) of musing on how I feel about growing older.

Quite frankly, I never saw this coming. It's not that I ever had some premonition of doom that I wouldn't ever make it to my 30th, it's just that you never really picture it. More than anything, it just never really feels "real". For the vast majority of your life, you look forward to each birthday, happy and excited to be "growing up". Then you hit about 24/25. The novelty of being able to drink legally has worn off. You stay out till 3:00 A.M. on a work night just frequently enough to remind yourself why you don't do it more often. If you're really lucky (like me), you find someone you love and get married and start to think about your career rather than just your job. Your life starts to settle down a little bit and you start to think that you've arrived at some destination. You're grown.

But then a real funny thing happens. Or actually, a funny thing doesn't happen. Time refuses to stand still for you. It has this stubborn way of continuing to move on and on with no regard to your personal agenda. It's like you're travelling on a bus and just when you thought you were about to pull into the station it just keeps driving by instead at the same speed it's always gone. And once that finally sinks in, you get hit with the thought that the bus is only going to stop once; at the end. And you really have no idea what road it's going to take you down and how short/long that road's going to be.

The strange thing is, none of the rules have changed. And you know that none of the them have changed. It's you that's changed, and your reaction to the rules changes with it. Had I read the above couple paragraphs 10 years ago, I doubt I would have found anything enlightening about them at all. I never had any delusions of immortality. But there's a vast gulf between "knowing" something in the abstract and "knowing" something through experience. On one level, I "know" what it would feel like to witness the Cubs win the World Series, but I don't think that I really do. I "know" what it's going to feel like to hold my daughter for the first time, but at the same time I couldn't be more clueless.

There are just some things that have to be experienced to be understood.

That's a sentence that probably would have driven me nuts up until a couple of years ago. Hell, I'm sure that there will be many times where it will drive me nuts in the future. Nobody likes being told that they can't understand something, especially for a reason as seemingly arbitrary as the year on their birth certificate. "You'll understand when you're older" is probably one of the most infuriating sentences in the English language to be on the receiving end of. A lot of times, it's just a way of saying "I can't really defend my position against yours, so I'm just going to assume I'm right since I'm older". But sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's true. I think part of growing wise instead of just growing old is recognizing the difference between the two.

The expression goes "age is just a number", and that's absolutely true. It's not that I've received some bolt of lightning over the last 24 hours that makes me feel the way I do. These are feelings that have steadily brewed over the last 5-6 years, and this occasion is simply the lightning rod for coalescing and expressing them. Or maybe the moment of enlightenment happens sometime over the next 6 hours. I'll let you know tomorrow.

I titled this entry "the end of an era" and I think that's about right. As my friend Joe succinctly put it last week "we're not kids anymore" and although that's probably been true for a while now it only really "feels true" now. I look at this time now much as I did as college was coming to an end. I had an unbelievably great time, but I was ready to move on. The last thing I would have wanted was to live the college lifestyle for the rest of my life. Yet even though I was ready, there is always the tinge of sadness that you are leaving something that you remember so warmly along with more than a little apprehension about venturing into the unknown.

As I have been writing this, I realized that I'm talking about becoming a parent at least as much (if not more) as I am about growing older. I can't help it; the two are inextricably linked to me right now.

So time marches on, and so we all must march with it. I stand here on the eve of my 30th and I can honestly say that I'm pretty fulfilled. I have not achieved perfection, because that is impossible. There are always disappointments, regrets, and (possibly the worst of all) the "what if?"s. But I like what I have done with my life, and I'm proud of what I have accomplished. Between an amazing wife, unbelievable friends, and a loving family I have more wonderful memories and incredible stories than I ever could have imagined. But most importantly, I am happy with the person I have become and am. The challenge for me now is to live the next 30 years (or however long I have left) so that I can stand here and say the same thing. I am filled with equal parts excitement and terror at the prospect, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Torture and Newborn Babies

Another post from our guest blogger Joe Mays. Please note that I've actually had this in my hands for 12 days and just haven't posted it until now, so this was written before the Cheney and Obama speeches on torture. Just wanted to clarify so that when Weir bitches about it not being timely the fault is mine, not Joe's.

I was thoroughly shocked last month when I discovered that roughly half of the country finds torture acceptable, but I'm even more disturbed at the public discourse around the practice. The debate that is constantly running on all of the 24 hour news networks always seems to be centered on one question -- does torture work?

This is completely backwards to me. Let me explain myself with an analogy...
Let's say your child is screaming on the seat behind me on an airplane. One way to solve the problem is to pull out my NRA-approved assault rifle and blow his cute little face off. The screaming will stop. Problem solved! My tactics worked!

I don't do that because it's immoral.

There are also unintended consequences. If I didn't blow a hole in the plane and we all crashed, I'd probably get mauled by everyone else on the plane - even those who agree that your screaming baby is annoying! Torture has consequences, too. There is a pretty strong consensus that the president did the right thing by *not* releasing the two-thousand or so torture photographs as demanded by the courts recently. Commanders on the ground noted that releasing the photos would cause an escalation in violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of our troops would die because of the torture and humiliation the pictures portray.

Finally, if the moral issue *and* the fact that I would be making enemies out of allies aren't good enough reasons, the legal punishment for killing a newborn is overwhelming. I'd probably get a**raped in jail for the rest of my life. This is precisely why we need to prosecute those who torture -- a lot of people don't have any moral issue with torture, and some even think it is perfectly legal.

They are mistaken. The U.S. hanged Japanese commanders who waterboarded our soldiers during WWII. These executions, along with the treaties we signed banning the practice, made our nation's stance on the issue clear - torture is immoral and illegal.

If you're one of the people who always thought that torture is a good war strategy and should be used daily on everybody we capture, that's another discussion. I clearly disagree with you, and I expect our conversation will get as far as me telling you to f*ck off, and perhaps you saying the same.

This post is directed at those who used to think torture was immoral, but have changed their minds because they believe Cheney when he says "it works" (we know he's never lied before). Support for torture started increasing just after the attacks on the WTC and has continued to rise. Two months after 9/11, only 32% of Americans thought torture was acceptable. Apparently, the "torture isn't wrong because it works" argument is catching on...

And Now For Something a Little Light-Hearted . . .

On the heels of Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame I thought we'd lighten things up a bit and talk about . . . abortion! More specifically, I'd like to echo our President's call for a more civil tone in the abortion debate. That might seem like an oxymoron, and it probably is, but for over 35 years now we've tried screaming at each other and it hasn't worked, so how about trying something else?

In the abortion debate, I am an anomaly. I am the only person I know of (though I'm quite sure there are many others) who has actually changed their mind on this issue (from pro-life to pro-choice). Apart from being raised Catholic, when I became a Republican in the mid-90s one of the main reasons I was pro-life is that I saw abortion as another example of a growing trend where people have a "victim" mentality and don't believe that they are responsible for their own actions. Judas Priest "made" my son kill himself. Marilyn Manson "made" those kids shoot up Columbine. Grand Theft Auto "made" these teenagers steal cars. I didn't like the detachment from personal responsibility that seemed to be growing in our culture. In many ways I still feel that way. At that time it was simply a matter of "you knew when you had sex that a baby was a possibility and now you've got to deal with the consequences of your actions." At that time I should add that I was still in favor of abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or endangerment to the mother.

As weird as it sounds, the thing that actually made me change my mind about abortion was reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. For those that have not read it, no, abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the story. But what is present is Rand's philosophy of objectivism, which (to express it extremely simplisticly) emphasizes total respect for the rights of individuals and, as an extension of that, laissez-faire capitalism. It is very critical of people (and particularly government) intervening in the name of the "greater good." So I started thinking about some of the implications of this. Rand would say that most social programs are bad, because they perpetuate this victim mentality among those whom they purport to help. It's along the lines of "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, but teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Rand would say that it's far better to allow the entrepreneurs of the world to thrive and create opportunities for the lower economic classes to seize, but only if they are willing to work for it. So, how does this relate to abortion? Well, I realized that if I was going to be in favor of eliminating a lot of social programs and telling the lower class that they wouldn't receive anymore handouts, it would be inconsistent to say "oh, and we're going to force you to have that baby even though we won't help you support it." It seemed to me that the only way I could justify being "cold" towards welfare is if I could truly say "well, it was your choice to have that baby."

Writing and rereading that paragraph feels very strange to me now. That's not really the reason I am pro-choice now but that really is the rationale that first led me to change my mind. Since that time I've become a little more pragmatic in believing that women who want abortions will still find ways to get them. I've also been swayed by things such as Freakonomics, which makes a fairly convincing case that Roe v Wade was the single biggest influence in the sudden drop in the crime rates in major urban cities in the early 90s.

So I bring all that up as background as a way of saying that I really do see both sides of this issue; at one time in my life I have passionately argued both sides of this. Even though I have a definite opinion on this issue, I by no means think that I'm unequivocally right. Hence, the only people whose opinion I don't respect on this issue are those who can't see how it's a very, very murky issue.

The question basically comes down to this: at what point does human life start? And one of the main troubles is that science can't answer that question for us. Most people agree that in the moment after you have a fertilized egg you don't have a human life yet and most people would also agree that the moment right before birth you do. So then you start counting forward and backwards. How about a minute after fertilization? A day? A month? How about a day, week, month before birth?

So, of course, with science unable to provide a definitive answer religion is all too happy to step in. That in and of itself is not a bad thing. Religion is there precisely to provide the answers that science cannot (yet) give us. It's just quite unfortunate that a religion (Christianity) that is above all about love, peace, and forgiveness is often presented with a face akin to that of a rabid dog on this issue.

If you are a Christian, you probably should be against abortion. If you believe that only the hand of God has the ability to create a human life, then it makes sense that you believe that life begins at conception. But you should also understand that your belief is just that: a belief. It's not a fact. And you should also be able to see that those who aren't Christians don't have that clear-cut answer, and for them it's a far murkier issue. A good Christian needs to be able to reconcle the fact that it is possible to be both a good moral person and be pro-choice.

I'm not suggesting that will change their mind on the abortion issue. I am hopeful though, that it will help change the tone.

(cringes as he hits "publish post", knowing that the last time abortion was brought up on this blog we got a crazy reverend advocating the bombing of abortion clinics in the comments)

Deja Vu All Over Again

Almost exactly a year ago I asked the question "Has Hollywood finally run out of ideas?" Today I ask the same question about Broadway. Christy and I had the pleasure and torture (respectively) of seeing Legally Blonde: The Musical on Friday night. Back in December we bought tickets to a series of 4 plays and this one was the first. The other three are Fiddler on the Roof, The Addams Family, and a new play called Spring Awakening. So that's one out of 4 original theatre productions. Then last week I get a form in the mail soliciting a renewal for the next series. Those plays: Young Frankenstein, Dreamgirls, 101 Dalmations, and the token one new play In the Heights. So one out of 4 again. Then, as I was scanning through the playbill (which, by the way, was the highlight of the performance) I noticed an ad for Mary Poppins and a "coming soon" poster for Shrek: The Musical. Oh, and by the way, the theatre where we're seeing all these (The Oriental) just got done housing Wicked for the last 3 and a half years. Technically, Wicked is an original (but only in the strictest sense) but it's still a prequel (and doesn't everybody just love prequels!) and certainly only "works" if the audience is familiar with The Wizard of Oz.

Has Broadway now basically become the new action figures for movies? Something that just automatically accompanies a hit film/franchise? If we wait long enough are we going to see musical versions of The Dark Knight and Saw (actually, that I would like to see)? It's not so much that the plays aren't new. Apart from the plays that have been turned into movies (e.g. Chicago, Phantom of the Opera, Rent) there really is not a DVD equivalent for theatre, so I don't really have a problem with Cats or Fiddler on the Roof coming around every couple years. I just don't like the ultra-formulaic exercise of taking an existing movie, transplanting all scenes and plot points wholesale into a stage script, and slapping together super-cheesy, bubble-gum pop ballads and inserting them every 5 minutes and calling it something "All New!" It just shows a tremendous lack of creativity. It seems like Broadway is following the lead of Hollywood in that they are so terrified of making an expensive flop that unless Andrew Lloyd Weber is willing to attach his name to it you'd better already have a built-in audience or it's not getting made.

Look, I am not a complete artistic purist by any stretch of the imagination. Hollywood and Broadway only exist to make money. I always thought that the job of a producer and director was to look at something and see promise and/or to say, at various points in the process, "ok, it's good but we need to do X here, " or "it's dragging in this spot, we need to rewrite this so we don't lose the audience." To me, this seems like 1) producers have lost all cajones and are afraid to take any risk; or 2) they have absolutely no idea how to spot good ideas/scripts anymore and they know it.

It used to be that movies were seen as "for the masses" and theatre was viewed as being (for lack of a better term) more cultured. To use an analogy, if the average movie is a Miller Lite, than theatre was a Heineken. Not for everyone, but for those that like it there's no comparison on the quality. So now it seems like Broadway has decided that there isn't enough money in Heineken so they better start serving Miller Lite too. That's all well and good, but if I'm now gonna get the same product at 4-5 times the price, remind me why I'm going again?

Food for Thought

First off, although very minor this is probably the funniest story of the year. It's good to see that there appear to be others besides me with a Taco Bell obsession.

Next, from an article in the New York Times, a new report shows Medicare and Social Security now going broke even earlier than expected. Social Security is now set to go bust in 2037 (4 years earlier than previously estimated), while Medicare will be broke by 2017 (2 years earlier than thought). While estimates are notoriously inaccurate, like the weather they tend to get more and more accurate the shorter the projection, and 2017 isn't that far away anymore. The culprit is, of course, the recession, so initially when I read this my first thought was "yeah, but once the economy improves it'll push those dates back out again, right?" Wrong. The current estimates already assume that the economy will return to growth later this year. Which means that if that doesn't happen the reality will be even worse, perhaps significantly so.

I'm not bringing this up for gloom and doom sake. Of the things that I worry about, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare don't even make the top 20. Of course, that might be because I already assume that those programs won't be around by the time I qualify for them. But I digress. From the article: "Spending on Social Security and Medicare totaled more than $1 trillion last year, accounting for more than one-third of the federal budget." So we're already at 1/3 the budget yearly and the baby-boomers have only just started to retire. It's important to keep things in perspective and in that respect all of this debate over stimulus plans and increased government spending programs, while still important, is really just something of a sideshow. The truth is that no matter what else happens, you will never have a sustainable balanced budget if you don't figure out how to manage these two programs. And to manage them, one of two things needs to occur: 1) raise taxes or 2) cut benefits. Some combination of the two is probably the most likely outcome. Anyone who tells you we can have the same benefits without raising taxes is mathematically challenged at best and a deceitful windbag at worst.

I think this would also be a good time to point out how disastrous the Republican plan for the privatization of social security accounts looks right now. Obviously we can't say for sure, because it looked pretty good for the 10 years before last October, but if the Social Security endowment had been in the stock market it would have easily shed 25% of its value and probably shaved about 10 years off of the projected insolvency date. And before anyone jumps down my throat for more Republican-bashing, I was fully in favor of this plan too so I am admitting that I was wrong as well. Maybe it will recover and still look like a good long-term plan again in the future, but I've already seen enough to think that a separation of retiree income from the ups and downs of the stock market is a good thing.

Just Asking

Can someone explain to me why the movie Catwoman is on AMC? AMC, by the way, stands for American Movie Classics. Or at least it used to. Apparently, although they have not officially changed their name they've taken a page from KFC and just want to now be known ambiguously by their initials. All I know is that the only thing "classic" about that film is that it is a classic example of how to lose all the prestige of winning a Best Actress Oscar as quickly as possible.

Can we get a little consistency in the headlines please? I open up this article and I feel pretty good and then I open this one and I feel like I should run around screaming with my hands waving frantically over my head Godzilla-movie style. So, let me see if I've got this straight: either the swine flu epidemic is almost over or it's on its way to infecting one third of the world's population. That is (ahem) a bit of a large range. Maybe I should do this thing Price Is Right style and bid 2 billion and 1 people infected. Can I get my own article then? My favorite part though is the WHO chief who was quoted as saying "This is a benchmark from the past. Please do not interpret this as a prediction for the future." Judging by the title of the article, it doesn't look like they listened to him. Here's a good investment tip: put money in the pharmaceutical companies that make flu shots.

And finally, what the f*ck is wrong with people? OK, let's make it multiple choice:

When you are getting into a fight over beer pong, are you:

A) Psychotically competitive

B) In desperate need of anger management counseling

C) An irredeemable douchebag

D) All of the above

It's Morning Again in America

Contributed by guest blogger Joe Mays:

Americans are slowly waking up with a horrific hangover, and we are saying as we did twenty-five years ago - It's morning again in America.

Ronald Reagan's 1984 ad campaign, which etched this slogan into our collective history, focused on a calmly determined and optimistic population that was putting the pieces of our fractured country back together through hard work and determination. It's no wonder that, given these troubled times, Americans all over this country are waking up saying, "Was Dick Cheney really in my bed?"

Yes, we have a bad hangover.

But Americans are optimistic and rightly so. The latest ABC/Washinton Post poll finds that over two-thirds of us approve of the job that President Obama is doing, and for the first time in six years we think our nation is on the right track. The polls, in this case, are correct. We are moving in the right direction. Just as one might grasp for a glass of water after a late-night binge, Americans elected a new and different President. And now we are all looking for a way to repair the damage and leave future generations with a nation better than how we found it. I see evidence of this on both the left and the right. The left is looking to invest in and change our education system, health care system, energy policy, and our environment. The right is finally furious with the massive debts that we have amassed. Of course, these two goals are at odds - it's impossible to make investments that require us to spend money we don't have *and* reduce our debt at the same time. But at least we're all concerned with issues that will make our country better rather than what we can do to keep the late-night binge going.

This alone will make our country stronger. As long as every American - Republican, Democratic, and Independent - keeps future generations in mind and makes their voices heard and calmly works for what they believe in, we will all fight. And we'll all eventually prosper. This is what makes our nation great.

Those who are acquainted with me know I'm not a morning person. But this is a morning I'm happy to get up for.

Huh?

OK, I promise that I'm not going to turn this into a reprinting of every RNC e-mail, but I got another one yesterday that I found interesting. The best way I can think to describe it is schizophrenic. The big news yesterday was Sen. Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican to the Democratic party. This move, along with Al Franken's eventual seating (and he will be seated) will give the Democratic party a fillibuster-proof 60 members in the Senate. Obviously this does not make the RNC happy. Here's Michael Steele's take:

Specter claimed it was philosophical--and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats. He told us all to go jump in the lake today.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.

Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.

OK, that's all well and good. If you looked at the latest poll numbers, Specter was losing significantly to his Republican primary challenger (lagging by 21% according to this poll), so you can certainly see an element of opportunism here. However, Steele goes on to say this:

Facing defeat in Pennsylvania's 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services--and his vote--to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.

Huh? Let me see if I've got this right. Steele says that Specter's claim that he is more ideologically a Democrat is crap. He was going to lose in the primary because of his left-wing voting record. Anybody else see the contradiction here? If he has a left-wing voting record, isn't that pretty much absolute proof that he is ideologically more a Democrat than a Republican?

Of course, I don't believe that he has a "left-wing" voting record. He has pretty much been a right-centrist for most of his career (and here are the numbers to back that up). As such, this probably isn't as much of a game-changer as it appears to be on the surface. Specter was one of the potential Republicans that the Democrats could swing to their side in legislation (as they did with the stimulus vote) and I believe that's still primarily where he will be. The idea that he will now blindly back the Democratic party on every issue is unfounded. The Republicans should now view him as someone that they potentially can pick off to stop legislation. To that end, it's probably not the best of ideas to be trashing him all over the place in the media.

For the next post, I'm going to do something a little different. Or, rather, I won't be doing anything at all. We will have a first here on Better Than Life: a guest blogger! The inimitable Joe Mays will be contributing a post. Look for that on Friday.

Finally, on a personal note Christy had her 20-week ultrasound today. Most importantly, we found out that the baby is developing right on schedule and everything looks healthy and great! Of most interest to everyone else, we also found out the sex of the soon-to-be-newest Delaney! I have agreed to let my wife break that story, so (if you don't have it bookmarked already) head on over to Christy's blog for the big news!

Window into the RNC Mind

As I have mentioned before, due to my one-time campaign contribution to John McCain in the primaries, I now have the joy of being on the RNC e-mail mailing list. As such, I get 1-2 e-mails a week from them (usually asking me for money). I read them for the same reason that I watch Bill O'Reilly's talking points everyday: I don't want to be accused of getting all my information from one side and I am perpetually hopeful that a sane, rational conservative voice will once again emerge from within the Republican party. Well, this week's 2 e-mails pissed me off more than usual so I wanted to share them. I apologize in advance that this will be very long, but one of my biggest problems with these e-mails is a complete distortion of facts and out-of-context quotes and I don't want to make the same mistake. Anyway, given my lack of blogging recently you should have plenty of time to get through it all by the time I post next.

So here is e-mail #1, in it's entirety (From Michael Steele; Subject: More Profiles in Arrogance; Note that all bolded words appear that way in the original e-mail. I have italicized the whole thing to make it stand apart from my words):

Dear John,

Recently in his speech in France, Barack Obama called America "arrogant." 1 I'm sure the French loved it -- And so did the liberal press.

But who is this president who calls the American people arrogant?
This is the same politician whose supporters anointed him "The One" and a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 2

This is the same man who indicated his disdain for small town and working Americans when he said they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," while addressing a group of San Francisco caviar and champagne liberal elitists.

How arrogant is that? Arrogant enough?

In truth, President Obama seems to champion the twisted "Blame-America First" mentality of the worst of the American left.

More importantly, it shows an absence of wisdom to criticize the United States while on foreign soil, and then join with the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress to do everything possible to end American exceptionalism and create a weak, dependent socialist state patterned after the examples of Europe.

• He has taken steps towards nationalizing American auto companies; firing executives while leaving in power the same Union Bosses who funded his campaign and helped cripple the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
• He has refused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans 3 so he can make them hostages to the whims of the Federal government.
• As a lawyer, Obama once sued the same financial institutions on behalf of radical groups like ACORN for failing to use leftist social engineering criteria for lending instead of an applicant's ability to repay a loan.
• He campaigned on "transparency" and "integrity" in government and then has nominated a rogue gallery of tax evaders, Washington bureaucrats, and lobbyists to run his Administration.
• Obama brazenly follows his chief of staff's maxim of "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" 4 to cripple our free markets with massive taxation and spending that wrests away our freedoms and puts even our great-grandchildren in debt.
• And now, anyone who dares speak out against or challenge Obama's ultra-liberal agenda, such as the hundreds of thousands of patriots who attended last week's Tea Parties, should expect to be labeled "unhealthy" by this Adminstration. 5 Now, THAT is arrogance!

You know that Barack Obama's hubris and charisma conceal the inexperience and lack of wisdom that our country cannot afford in its president.

And though the teleprompter and mainstream media liberals may delay America's realization of the peril the Obama White House portends for our future for a while, the eventual failure of leftist policies and ineffective leadership will not.

We must be ready when that time comes.

Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Democrats' arrogance of power and support GOP Members of Congress as they work to hold the Obama Democrats accountable to the American people, by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the Republican National Committee today. Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 and lay the groundwork for ending Barack Obama's grip on power in 2012. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

P.S. John, the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab -- please take this opportunity right now to support our fight against ineffective leadership and failed legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.

1 "[A]rrogant." (President Barack Obama, Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, 4/3/09)
2"[T]he moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks After The Democrat Primary, St. Paul, MN, 6/3/08)
3"[R]efused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans..." (Stuart Varney, "Obama Wants To Control The Banks," The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/09)
4"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." (Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity For Obama," The Wall Street Journal, 11/21/08)
5"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," (David Axelrod, "Face the Nation" 4/19/09)

OK, well I don't want to turn this into something with the length of a thesis paper, so I'm just going to pick a couple of these to address. Just want to make it clear that just because I am not specifically commenting on it does not mean that I am conceding it as a valid criticism of Obama.

So, first of all, here's some irony for you. Following up the statement "Barack Obama called America 'arrogant'" with "I'm sure the French loved it." That is precisely the type of arrogance he was talking about. And it wasn't a slam on America; if anything it was a slam on the Bush administration. The quote comes from this BBC article and the full quote is "He said the US had been 'arrogant' and 'dismissive' towards its allies, while there was "insidious" anti-Americanism in Europe. He said these attitudes had to change." This is classic diplomacy. You can't go to Europe and say "this anti-americanism needs to stop" - that would be arrogant - you need to say "we've both made mistakes and we need to start over again."

Next, I have a real problem with the line that he was " a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'." This is an utterly ridiculous distortion. You can read the transcript of the speech that it was taken from here , but here is the full quote: "The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."

From a simple scorecard standpoint, the words "I" or "me" appear 4 times in the above; the words "we" and "our" appear 8. This strikes me as a call to action for all Americans, not an "I am the One that can make it happen."

Apart from that, it's the general tone of the e-mail that bothers me, but more on that later.

Here is e-mail #2 (From Michael Steele; Subject: Your Weekly Trunk):

Issue 7 April 21, 2009
Welcome to The Weekly Trunk -- The Republican National Committee's new weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. The goal of The Weekly Trunk is to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.
This week's issue features...

More Afraid of U.S. Veterans than Muslim Terrorists?
In the topsy-turvy Obama Department of Homeland Security, real terrorists sponsor "man-caused disasters" and our own valiant veterans are the threat. (Jonah Goldberg, "(Right) Winging It at the DHS: What's the Real Threat to Our Country?" National Review Online, 4/17/09)

What's Your Opinion? Do you believe with the Obama Administration that our military veterans should be labeled as "terrorists?" View Chairman Steele's video on this topic. We want to hear from you. Post a video on the RNC's Facebook page today and let your voice be heard.

Tell It Like It Is, Governors
Republican Governors Haley Barbour and Mark Sanford shed some light on the hyper-partisan policies of the Obama Democrats. (Harry Enten & Jade Taenzler, "GOP Govs Hammer Obama," MSNBC, 4/16/09)

The Never Ending Campaign
Perhaps he agrees that he was a much better presidential candidate than he is a president -- because his campaign is still running. (Kenneth P. Vogel, "Obama Campaign Still Funds Operations," Politico, 4/15/09)

Eco-Madness
Despite mounting evidence that the world is actually on a cooling trend, Obama's green zealots push forward their plan to cripple our economy with unnecessary environmental regulations. (Tom LoBianco, "EPA Ups Pressure for Climate Change Action; 'Endangerment Finding' Seen as Step Toward Regulation," The Washington Times, 4/17/09)

What Will It Be Next Week, Governor Sebelius?
Last week it was tax evasion for President Obama's health secretary nominee, Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius. This week, it's an "oversight" in reporting political donations from an abortionist. ("Sebelius Lowballed Donations From Abortion Doc: She Got About $35,000, Nearly Three Times the $12,450 She Had Reported," Associated Press/MSNBC, 4/13/09)

The Democrats' False Diagnosis
Democrats are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to debating private vs. public health care. (Kerry N. Weems & Benjamin E. Sasse, "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap? The False Comparison Between the Costs of Public and Private Medical Plans," The Wall Street Journal, 4/14/09)

So It's OK Now, Is It?
Barack Obama pursues PR tactics for which President Bush was derided. (Jim Treacher, "Staged Military Photo Ops Suddenly Awesome," Hot Air, 4/14/09)

Card Check Reality Check?
With Democrats now in power, are unions learning how very bad their plan to take away workers' right to a secret ballot vote on unionization looks? (Michael Barone, "Unions Can't Dictate an Increase in Power," The Detroit News, 4/15/09)

Department of Propaganda?
Former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks wants government funding for "independent" media. How independent would government-funded media likely be? ("Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout," FOXNews.com, 4/16/09)

New Best Friends Forever?
Newt Gingrich comments on Barack Obama's chumminess with Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez. ("Gingrich Raps Obama on Chavez Summit Greeting," The Associated Press, 4/20/09)

Blame America First, Last & Always...
Barack Obama follows up the tactic of his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and falsely blames America for Mexico's problems with firearms violence. (Editorial, "Obama's Gun Lies," The Washington Times, 4/20/09)

A Lack of Intelligence
Former Attorney General Mukasey and former CIA Director Hayden explain the negative impact of the Obama Administration's handling of intelligence gathering. (Michael Hayden & Michael B. Mukasey, "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror: The Point of Interrogation is Intelligence, Not Confession," The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/09)

Check out this definitive list of Vice President Joe Biden's long and impressive history of gaffess (Biden's List of Political Blunders," FOXNews.com, 4/17/09)

Again, just gonna pick out a few to highlight.

Firstly, the U.S. Veterans vs. Muslim terrorists comment. Come on? Really? If we're now just making things up that neither Obama or his administration ever said, here's some suggestions for next week's e-mail: "Obama denies gravity: says we can all fly if we just believe", "Obama to the uninsured: 'Hurry up and die already'", "Obama comes out against children, thinks all babies should be eaten at birth." The link that the RNC provides is to an article in the National Review which is a criticism of this report. Since I'm sure you are sick of clicking on links by now, I'll summarize. The report says that right-wing extremist groups (and defines these as mainly white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups) may be using the election of the first black president as well as the current economic downturn as recruiting tools. It then goes on to say that one of the groups that they think will be targeted will be "disgruntled U.S. veterans." At no point does the report come even remotely close to saying that this danger is even in the same league as foreign terrorists. This is just a complete fabrication. But I do have to give the National Review article credit for its dissent. I mean, it's not like any disgruntled war vet has ever joined an anti-government group and then committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. I mean, apart from this guy.

Secondly (and you knew it was coming), is the "Eco-Madness" paragraph. Well, at least now I have some clarification. I have always believed that most Republicans did not believe in climate change and were merely paying the issue lip service, and now I have proof. The link the RNC provides mentions absolutely nothing about this alleged "cooling trend." Presumably, it comes from this article by George Will. Let's be clear. I love George Will. Absolutely adore him. He's definitely my favorite political pundit and he's probably in my top-10 list of people I'd most like to meet. But he is just dead wrong on this issue. Nate Silver at fivethiryeight.com does a great job of taking Will to task on this issue here. Not gonna say anymore about it now because my views on this subject have been well chronicled on this blog.

So this brings me to my final point, which is a statement on the tone of both of these e-mails. Apart from providing completion, my ulterior motive in presenting the complete texts of both e-mails was to highlight something about them. Or, more accurately, to highlight something that is not present. And that is an idea. Not one single idea of what the Republicans want to do. Not one single piece of legislation that they are trying to get through which they are urging us to call up our local Congressman and support. Not even a vision of what they believe are the major legislative challenges. Well, that's not quite true. They state one objective quite clearly: "the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab." There it is in plain english; they are the party of "no". Their objective is not to "provide a constructive opposition and support the conservative values of our constituency" it's just "to hold back the Obama Democrats." This infuriates me because I do not like unchecked power. I desperately want a sane, rational counter-point to the Democratic party. Congressional Democrats will (and have) put ridiculously wasteful spending and protectionist measures into bills. I want a conservative opposition that is willing to compromise so that we get bills which give the best chance of having a positive impact on the U.S. But this is following the Rush playbook: rant and rave against everything they do; hope it fails; then get back into power in the ensuing backlash. That might be good politics, but it's horrible governing. In the short-term it isolates those in the middle while at the same time whips up your base into a frenzy. When instead of saying "we don't agree with this policy and here's why" you say "this policy is just another example of Obama trying make America a weak, dependent, socialist state" it is not surprising that people start getting pushed towards extremism. Maybe I was just naive, but I actually expected more from the Republicans. It makes me angry, but more than anything it just saddens me. I think my party is officially dead.

And just in case you're not completely sick of reading political e-mails, as a counterpoint I present the text of the e-mail I received from the Obama administration (also soliciting money from me) last week (From David Plouffe; Subject: Calls For Failure):

John --

It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.

Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.

In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.

The change we need won't come without a fight -- no meaningful change ever does. Just like in the campaign, Barack Obama can't win without you by his side. Town by town, block by block, this grassroots movement is organizing and uniting Americans behind the President's plan.

But to finish what we started, we need resources.

Will you join the fight? Before Monday, April 13th, make a donation of $25 or more to help President Obama turn this country around.

We know that Washington won't change overnight. It'll take time, commitment, and money, but this grassroots movement can make change a reality -- affordable health care, a clean energy economy, and quality education for all. We know we are asking a lot from you -- but the stakes couldn't be higher.

It's why we worked so hard to elect President Obama, and he's counting on us to follow through. Today, you can make a difference.

Jo Ann from Charlotte, NC, has joined thousands of other supporters this week to support this movement and reject the same old politics:
I am a sixty-two year old woman on disability. I followed the election closely and did what I could to get Obama elected. Since he was inaugurated, I have watched in awe to see how much has already been accomplished. I live in Charlotte, NC where the unemployment rates are double digits and going up. My youngest son was out of work for 8 months because the company he worked for went out of business. So many workers and families are losing jobs and homes. There's so much more to be done, but this budget has to be passed and the programs have to be put into practice before things start to recover. That's why I support President Obama and his plans.

Americans like Jo Ann deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.

We need to seize this crucial moment to help pass this budget and invest in the one thing that can make President Obama's promises of change a reality -- the movement you built.

Before the Monday deadline, strengthen this movement. Make a donation of $25 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/fightattacks

Thank you for all that you do,

David Plouffe

Fiscal Inferno Revisited

Time again, I think, to revisit one of my favorit topics: the national debt. And you know what that means: more graphs!

As has probably been evident over the past couple months, something has been increasingly bothering me. It's the rebirth of fiscal conservatism and rise of the deficit hawks in the Republican party after what seems like 8 years of silence on the issue. This is a big issue for me because it is one of the main things that drew me into the Republican party back in the mid-90s. I saw myself then, as I do now, as being aligned conservatively on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. The idea of limited government, free markets, and a balanced budget has always struck me as the right way to run a government.

This might seem to be at odds with my recent political leanings. After all, I supported Obama (who certainly wants to increase the size of government) as well as the stimulus plan and budget (which will certainly increase the national debt). But it isn't that I stopped believing in my core values: I just stopped believing the Republicans.

So I tried to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. Have I allowed the Bush years to unfairly bias me against Republicans or am I justified in my skepticism? Are Republican administrations really better at handling the debt?

I once again visited the US Treasury and Bureau of Economic Analysis to get my data. I took the annual GDP and national debt numbers over the last 50 years and expressed debt as a percent of GDP. I then calculated the difference year over year. As a technical note, since all debt figures were given in that current year's dollars I had to use that year's current dollars for GDP as well (i.e. I didn't use "Real" GDP or chained-2000 dollars, as most GDP figures use). You can check out the results in the following graph (and I've also attached all my data to the bottom of the post):





So what does this tell us? Well, the 0 line represents no change to debt as a percentage of GDP so as an oversimplification anything below the 0 line is "good" and everything above it is "bad". One thing that is clear is that as a country we did a pretty good job of fiscal restraint from ~1959-1974 and a generally lousy job since then. In the last 50 years we have managed to reduce the debt (as a % of GDP) 25 times while increasing it 25. Unfortunately, 19 of those 25 occurred from 1959-1981, which means we've only managed it 6 times in the last 28 years.

But that's not the question I set about to answer. The question is how do Democratic administrations compare to Republicans in handling the debt? Here's a break-down of the administrations that have managed to reduce the debt:

Republicans
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (5)
Nixon/Ford (1)
Reagan (1)
GW Bush (1)

Democrats
Kennedy (3)
Carter (2)
Johnson (5)
Clinton (5)

So the score comes out 10 for Republican presidents and 15 for Democrats. That's surprising in and of itself, but it's even moreso when you consider that Republicans have been in the Oval Office one and half times more than Democrats over the last 50 years (30 years to 20).

Obviously, all of this is a gross over-simplification. The President is not a dictator and the behavior of Congress certainly plays more than a minor role in determining this. There's a good argument to be made that Clinton's 5 years are at least partially the work of the Gingrich Republicans in Congress, and that the almost complete lack of reduction during the Reagan years is at least partially attributable to a Democratic congress. The George W years though, where Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and produced 1 year of debt reduction, are hard to ignore. Especially since they are the most recent.

The numbers bear out that, for whatever reason, Republican administrations simply do not do a better job of handling deficits than Democratic ones, and there's in fact a pretty good argument that they are worse at it.

In the end I guess what I am saying is that even though I believe in fiscal restraint, when given the choice between a party that tells me they are going to spend a lot of money on government and then does it and a party who tells me they won't spend a lot of money and then does anyway, give me the party that is more honest. Republicans have had a great scam going on the last 30 years. They say "government doesn't work" and then they create more government and when it fails they say "See? Told you." Maybe the Democrats don't have any better ideas but at least I can believe them when they say "we're going to create more government and spend more." It does pain me that those two options seem to be my only choices.

Bottom line is that if Republicans ever regain power and actually follow through on their fiscally conservative rhetoric, I'll be happy to jump on board again with them. Until that day, though, consider me an Independent.

Debt and GDP data

When Bad News is Good

So the stock market has largely been going up the last couple of weeks. That is of course good but is not of and by itself all that interesting. What is interesting is why it's been going up. At first blush, most of the headlines talk about stocks rising higher on good economic news. But when you read a little closer, you realize that it's not good news at all; it's bad news that's not as bad as it was expected to be. A sample just from today. Right now the Dow is up 100 points and the headline on Yahoo! Finance reads "Wall Street Pares Losses After Better-Than-Expected Economic Data." So what is this "better-than-expected" data? Pending home sales rebounded in March from a record low in February (in other words, March is the 2nd worst month on record), an index of manufacturing activity contracted in March but by a little less than expected, and construction spending dropped in February for the fifth straight month but at a slower pace than in January. So by and large nothing is getting better; it's just getting worse more slowly.

I'm not at all trying to dismiss the positive gains that the market has made, nor am I trying to say that people shouldn't be feeling a little better about the economy in general. The name of the game during a recession is trying to find a floor, and the slowing of the rate of deterioration is definitely a sign that we could be nearing that floor soon. But just a cursory glance at historical economic data will show you that both recessions and expansions are wrought with false troughs and peaks. I just find it a bit ironic that data which would ordinarily be seen as very bad news in this context is now seen as a reason for optimism. It's kind of like hearing that a school burned down and everyone inside died, and then throwing a party when you find out that one kid actually made it out alive.

In other news, we are exactly 5 days away from the Cubs opener. I am hoping to put together my annual Cubs preview over the weekend. I know that you all can't wait.

20 Minute Sprint Post

OK, I've got 20 minutes before my next meeting and I just want to get something down before it becomes approximately 4 ice ages since I last posted.

I'm too lazy to think of new topics, so I will take the suggestions made in the comments of my previous post.

First, the Economist had a big article discussing different countries' drug policies. Though just about everything has been tried, the result is almost always the same: varying degrees of failure. The most successful seem to be the most liberal policies (where success is defined as the least users of "hard" drugs). The end recommendation of the article was basically one for legalization. I think it will come as no surprise to anyone that knows me that I am in support of that. If not outright legalization, then at least decriminalization where drug use is treated as a health problem rather than a criminal offense. This is not to say that I believe that drug users are victims (they're not) but just that the choice to pollute your own body is a personal decision that shouldn't be legislated. "My body, my choice" may be the rallying cry for pro-choice activists but it could just as easily be one for advocates of decriminalization. Of course, outright legalization would have the added benefits of giving the government something new to tax while at the same time dealing a big blow to the profits of organized crime and cartels. I also think it would be quite a bit better if you allowed ordinary citizens to grow a weed plant in their backyard and harvest it themselves for personal use instead of forcing them to go deal with shady individuals in shady areas (and yes I know they're not really "forcing" them to do that). Beyond anything though, the number one reason to change the drug policies in this country is that they don't work. People aren't being deterred; people continue to be locked-up (and supported by taxpayer money) for non-violent crimes, and the occasional joint-smoker is made to feel like he's a social degenerate while the occasional drinker gets "This Bud's for you!" 20 times an hour every time they turn on a sports broadcast.

Now for the Madoff question that Weir brought up. Obviously the idea of people giving back their profits is ridiculous. They obtained their money by legal means even if Madoff didn't (kind of similar to the Pam Anderson sex tape where the video distributor got to keep his profits because he legally bought the rights from a guy who had stolen it). I also think that getting your money back is just as ridiculous. Enron and Worldcom investors didn't get their money (or even their 401(k)s) back when they were defrauded; this is no different. The tax question, however, is a little more interesting, but in the end I think it's just as bunk. Much like when you're sitting at a blackjack table, you don't really have profits until you take all the chips up to the cashier and cash out. Until then it's all just prospective profit. As an investor you are always entitled to recover what you put in (your basis) tax-free. Anything above and beyond that is rightfully taxed, regardless of how much else you think you still have in your stack.