Yes I should be studying. I should also be working. Somehow though I am completely unfocused. I know I have work to do, but I’m just not doing it. So at the very least I might as well enjoy my wasted time and pound out a few words.

Let’s start with prop 8! i would have been a trendsetter rather than a bandwagoner if I shared my opinion just after the election rather than today. I’ll share it anyway.

To all the prop 8 opponents… The many protests against Mormons and the handful of protests against Catholics are pointless and obnoxious. No matter how many millions those churches donated for pro-prop 8 ads, they aren’t the ones who voted. You have to contend with the 52% of voting Californians who decided to support the initiative. I know you don’t want to. It’s too hard to do that. For all you know your neighbor voted for it. Or maybe your dry cleaner did, or the guy who bags your groceries, or your Muni bus driver today. You have no idea so you can’t demonize them. That weird church in Salt Lake City is another story. They’re the perfect focus for your anger. Mormons lack your acerbic wit and jaded disposition. Such freaks! They wear holy underwear too. How weird is that! If only we could crush that church, nay, cult, gay marriage would flourish and everyone would love it. 

Except that’s not the case. Those 52% of people didn’t vote yes because they take their marching orders from Utah, and there isn’t a mind control ray hidden in the Salt Lake Temple. Those made their own choice to oppose gay marriage, and it’s up to you to change their minds. Being dismissive like Keith Olbermann isn’t going to convince anyone.

“What is it to you?” That is just the wrong question to ask, Keith. The Yes on 8 folks have their concerns. You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind by scolding them and telling them they shouldn’t care about this.

*** By the way, every time I watch Olbermann’s special comment all I can think of is that part from Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure when Bill and Ted hug, then quickly step away from each other and yell “Fag!“ It just seems such an appropriate counterbalance to Olbermann’s earnestness. ***

Screaming and yelling like shrill morons isn’t going to get the job done either. I bet it feels good though. You’re filled with righteous indignation that you want to get out. But let me ask you. When you see some super religious holy roller holding up a sign that says, “God Hates Fags,” does that make you re-examine your opinion on homosexuality, or do you just get angry? That right there is what you’re doing to a lot of wishy-washy prop 8 supporters. You’re taking the chunk of 8 supporters who are only weakly opposed to gay marriage and hardening them against you. The louder and more disruptive protests get, the less the public at large will want to be associated with your cause.

I feel confident you could swing 3% of the voters fairly easily. Put out some respectable gay couples in front of the cameras; some that would elicit some sympathy. Have them tell sob stories about a loving marriage being a lifelong dream. All you need to do is push a few fence sitters over to your side. Tugging on some heartstrings is not that hard. The most difficult part would be rebutting that commercial where the little girl says to her mom she can marry a princess. 

When I saw that ad I knew instantly prop 8 would win. Putting that school superintendent in the rebuttal commercial was a mistake. The little girl ad pulled on parents’ fears and emotions. The superintendent appealed to logic. Fear trumps logic. Now I wish I could give you an easy answer to this charge, but I can’t. It’s a powerful ad. All I can say is that mailing fake anthrax to Mormon churches is not the answer.

And by the way, it’s ridiculous you’re ignoring the black elephant in the room. Gay marriage would still be legal in California if black voters were comfortable with it. Seventy percent of black voters chose yes on 8. Yet you’re completely focusing your rage on Mormons and Catholics. Ridiculous. How about some confrontations at black churches? No? Your white liberal guilt makes you fear being labeled racist? Okay then, I understand. Keep doing what you’re doing then. You’ll get the gay marriage ban overturned in 2025 I’m sure.

I know I’ve disappeared from this blog again. No, it’s not from some post-election depression or Obama-induced rage. My marketing class is just eating up so much of my time. Right now I should be reading five chapters for my midterm this Saturday. I would be reading too but my head is killing me; it has all afternoon so today has been a wasted day.

It’s such a shame too because I’ve been bubbling with ideas and commentary. I’ve completely skipped the prop 8 controversy, not out of lack of interest, but lack of time to write. I missed my usual California ballot proposition round up. I stopped in the middle of a whole long screed about the Fed and interest rates because I’ve been too busy to finish. I was even looking at switching the US dollar to a form of the gold standard! Yet all these ideas continue to bounce around my head because I have no time to think them through.

I can’t wait until this class is finished. Next week will be busy, but that’s all leading up to the 24th. I have a big presentation to do on that day. Once it’s finished, it’s mostly smooth sailing. I’ll have to turn in a paper on December 1st, but writing is far easier than presenting for me. I think I’ll actually have time to get some posts up on here. Shame though that by the time I do, it will hardly be topical anymore. Ah well, it’s not like anyone reads this anyway.

The election is today. I voted weeks ago but I didn’t want to let the day go by without saying something. If you’ve read my past posts you can put 2 and 2 together and figure out who I voted for president.

To mark the day I wanted to discuss the one piece of news that actually made me feel a physical twinge of pain when I read it. I was so shocked by this proposal, I couldn’t think for a good ten seconds. Congressional Democrats are discussing an end to the preferential tax breaks that make 401(k) plans worth having. But to put that in more alarmist tones - Democrats are plotting to steal your 401(k)!!!

401(k) plans exist because Congress decided the money saved in there would not be taxed until you withdrew it. It encourages people to save for retirement because they can invest the money that would have gone to taxes for several decades. By removing this favorable tax treatment, there’s no reason to contribute to a 401(k). It becomes like any other investment account. You’ll have to pay taxes on your gains each year.

This isn’t even the end. Besides killing 401(k) plans, Congress will require you to contribute to a new “Guaranteed Retirement Account” run by the government. Each worker will have 5% automatically deducted from their paycheck and deposited in the GRA. Our generous and benevolent government would provide matching funds of up to $600 a year. But you don’t even get to decide how your GRA money is invested. Every penny of your GRA will be used to buy government bonds that return 3%; three fucking percent, when holding the S&P 500 index would get you 7.6% during the 1950 to 2007 period. So the best you can look forward to each year is less than half of what you would get if you just bought a simple index fund. Thanks to compound interest if you closed your eyes for the next couple of decades you will have lost more than ten times your retirement money by using a GRA. Don’t worry though. You don’t have a choice.

The Democrats will trot out this plan as protecting workers and saving the middle class, but that’s not the real reason. What this plan does is confiscate 5% of wages for Congress to use to finance debt. That’s what government bonds are! I guess I can’t say exactly what this spending will be for, but I am willing to bet my GRA it will be a massive expansion of social welfare.

This is the sort of news that makes me pound my desk and rage at my LCD. Reading this is when I went from guarded about an Obama presidency to absolute fear. You know if Obama does get elected, this plan is a lock. There will be nothing to stop Democrats from radically altering the economy, and this idea will be a huge step in financing Obama’s spending plans. That national health insurance plan won’t pay for itself.

How much debt can the government finance? I’m glad you asked. I’m getting these figures from 2007 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $695 in median weekly earnings, multiplied by 52 weeks a year, multiplied by 107,339,000 workers multiplied by the 5% deduction.

$695 x 52 x 107,339,000 x 0.05 = $193,961,573,000

That’s a cool $194 billion in captive finance each year. Don’t think of it as some abstract, meaningless concept. Remember that’s your money. If Obama and Pelosi and Frank were traveling around the country campaigning on a “I’ll take 5% of your money” platform, what would you tell them? That’s exactly what this plan will do. Five percent will be taken away and spent however they like.

I wish this news came out a month ago because then I really would have been screaming from the hilltops. I definitely would have been phonebanking for McCain had I known about this plan. It should have been in commercials on TV freaking out the rest of the country just like it freaked me out.

I’ll be watching the election coverage like everyone else. I’ll just be hoping McCain wins so my retirement savings doesn’t get blown away by the winds of change.

For a long time we’ve only had hints at Barack Obama’s economic philosophy. During the primaries I heard a lot of hay made about his august economic advisors: former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, economist Austan Goolsbee, and even some support from the Oracle of Omaha Warren Buffett. From those endorsements we were left to assume Obama had a very centrist, pro-growth attitude. I can’t recall him ever proclaiming that attitude though.

As it turns out there was good reason for the silence. Someone has dug up a recording from a Chicago talk radio show Obama was on in 2001 where his politics gave us the clearest glimpse of his economics yet. It doesn’t sound centrist and pro-growth to me. Listen to it first before reading what I think of it.

My summary: It seems that Obama is disappointed courts during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s through 1970s did not touch economic justice or redistribution of wealth, but he understands doing so would have created an administrative burden the judicial system could not have handled. Action through the legislative branch should have been pursued in that era to meet that redistributive goal, but civil rights leaders were just too focused on winning court cases. What we can take away from this interview is that Barack Obama believes, not only in the necessity of wealth redistribution, but also in a racially based standard to determine where this wealth is getting transferred. A colorblind socialism, which so far is what Obama has been accused of, would move wealth to those who have less. What Obama wanted to see happen in the Civil Rights Era was a program to move wealth from other races to blacks.

This goes well beyond the basic socialism that Obama has been charged with. It also shreds his “post-racial” identity. This is the radical welfare politics of an earlier generation.

Now I never imagined the mainstream media would give this story any attention whatsoever. To my surprise a friend sent me a link to the Boston Globe’s story on this. I was shocked to see they had the recording on their website! Could they actually be airing a real discussion of Obama’s economic beliefs? Alas no. This recording is damaging, and the mainstream media needs to step in and “correct” it. Lest we simple minded voters listen to this and think “redistribution of wealth” means “redistribution of wealth”, the media needs to tell us what it really means.

The Boston Globe quickly tried to nip any negative thoughts in the bud with this paragraph.

“The entire context of the interview isn’t clear, and the sentiment isn’t all that different from Martin Luther King Jr., who after the voting rights and other accomplishments of the 1960s civil rights movement moved toward greater emphasis on poverty and economic justice.”

I picked up two competing statements in there.

(1) “The entire context of the interview isn’t clear…” That whole four minute clip is somehow unclear. As if the entire four minutes was taken up by technical jargon us lay people couldn’t understand, even though that caller seemed to understand perfectly. I guess we have to assume there was some preface at the start of the interview were Obama explained “redistribution of wealth” really means “equal opportunity for all and a lowering of everyone’s marginal tax rates”.

(2) “…the sentiment isn’t all that different from Martin Luther King Jr…” So the Boston Globe is equating Obama’s 2001 statement with the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and by questioning it I am questioning MLK and the Civil Rights Movement. Therefore I’m a racist.

1 + 2 = You don’t understand what Obama meant, and if you question it you’re racist.

Obama’s campaign issued their own rebuttal to this recording that’s at least less insulting than the Boston Globe’s. They have a Harvard law professor claiming “redistribution of wealth” had a narrow legal definition confined to the social safety net; things like “education, legal filing fees, legal representation” and so on. So “redistribution of wealth” doesn’t mean “redistribution of wealth”.

I’m no legal eagle, but this smells like a load of crap. Wealth is not a word used to describe funding for education or legal aid. Redistributing wealth means moving money from one group to another. If you want to increase spending on social issues there are better phrases to use. You would talk about “leveling the playing field” or “ensuring equal opportunity”.

I really hope the undecided voters get to hear this recording and start asking more questions before casting a vote. There as been little debate about what Barack Obama really thinks and the mainstream media has been negligent in questioning him on it.

But just in case you think I’m seeing way too much racial conflict here, listen to this recording. It doesn’t seem like someone who’s going to bring us all together. Certainly is catchy though.

McCain needs a smart editor to cut this down to 30 seconds. Then he needs to play this twice every hour on ABC, NBC and CBS in the swing states for the next ten days; just throw all his campaign’s money into this. A video where you can use Obama’s own words to make white people worry he’s secretly going to implement the black liberal agenda (slavery reparations, more welfare, more affirmative action, etc.) is like manna from heaven.

Personally I would have liked to see more of the ads that attack Obama and the Democrats for resisting new regulation on Fannie and Freddie. That’s a solid criticism. Whatever. This attack can work too. McCain just needs to shave a few percent off Obama’s lead in a handful of states and he wins.

The Department of Defense is a sprawling monument to bureaucracy. The department has layer upon layer of agencies and bureaus and who knows what. I doubt any one person knows everything that goes on in there.

Yet I am still shocked to learn the DoD engages in breast cancer research. I first heard about it from MSNBC who mentioned it in passing in an article. I went in search of more information and found their website - the DoD’s Breast Cancer Research Program. What business is disease research for the DoD? Why in the world did Congress set this up? Even if they make an effort to avoid duplicating the research of other agencies, they’re still going to duplicate the administrative cost. This is just dumb.

This program will cost $138 million this year; a pittance in the entire DoD budget, but it still means something to me. This is only a part of anonymous medical research effort of the DoD. Categorized as “Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs“, I get the feeling the DoD has no interest in this and would rather deflect any criticism to Congress. Besides researching breast cancer, the DoD has programs for: ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, chronic myelogenous leukemia, neurofibromatosis, tuberous sclerosis complex, autism, brain injury, Gulf War Illness and prion diseases. They even cover research into “minority & underserved populations”. All this for a total of $235 million this year. Yeah, yeah it’s a drop in the bucket.

Thankfully the DoD has a FAQ explaining how this money was thrown at them:

Why is the Department of Defense involved in funding this kind of research?

In 1992, a highly visible lobbying campaign by grassroots advocacy organizations, primarily the National Breast Cancer Coalition, increased awareness among policymakers of the need to expand funding for breast cancer research. These consumer groups emphasized the need to fund research in ways that were different from those employed by traditional medical research organizations such as the National Institutes of Health. In response, the United States Congress allocated specific funds for breast cancer research in the Department of Defense appropriations budget. The Department of Defense was chosen because of its long history in performing medical research studies and because its administrative structure was designed for flexible and quick responses to changing needs and priorities. The success of this effort has resulted in an increase in the number of disease research programs for which Congress has mandated funding through the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs now administers programs funding breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, chronic myelogenous leukemia, neurofibromatosis, and tuberous sclerosis research.

 

So there you have it. Congress needed to shut up some obnoxious lobbyists, so they killed two birds with one stone; disease research received more money, and the DoD got a budget increase. I can’t imagine this is an efficient way to do anything. The DoD exists to prepare for and conduct war. Disease research is simply outside its expertise, and I don’t believe it can be cost effective in this responsibility. It’s like entrusting the Department of Transportation with running VA hospitals.

If you haven’t noticed, the stock market has taken a bit of a nosedive in the past month. With the presidential campaign in full swing, Barack Obama took a moment to scare old people with a swipe at any ideas towards Social Security privatization. I wish I could find the exact quote, but since I can’t I’ll have to paraphrase. Basically, he asked people to imagine the horror if they had their social security funds invested in stocks right now. The implication is that they would be penniless as a result.

I can’t really fault Obama too harshly for the statement. The conventional wisdom is that the stock market is so risky, it would wreck everyone’s Social Security payments if any money were allowed to be invested. He was just parroting that point. But is the conventional wisdom true? Thankfully, someone who is a lot better at math than I checked into this.

Andrew Biggs works for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. Biggs setup a scenario where 4% of the 12.4% payroll tax is invested in stocks. When retirement comes that 4% is converted into an annuity which pays out to you each year. A person retiring in September 2008 would receive 15% more money under this system than under the current system, even with the disastrous collapse in stock prices. Biggs went on to simulate retirees from 1915 to 2008 under this investment system and the benefits increase ranged from a low of 6% to a high of 23%. Let me underline the point that every group received more Social Security money in a system with investment accounts, and this even includes the Great Depression.

I encourage you to read Biggs’s article. It’s brief and will explain his work better than I can.

So when will we be allowed to invest our Social Security money? I’m sure Congress will come around the day after I retire.

This commercial is the most brutal political ad I’ve ever seen, probably ever. I love it, but then again I do love mudslinging. It shows the candidates care.

I first watched this with the sound off, accidentally. The second time I saw it with the music. It’s definitely more effective with no sound.

This would be great to see on TV, but after chopping out the superfluous serial killer comparisons.

This posting will do nothing to change anything, but I just want to record all of this so I don’t forget when I saw the United States become a banana republic. That’s what’s happening this year with the reports of voter registration fraud and, recently, reports of actual voter fraud.

What I’ve read so far…

• ACORN tried to register the Dallas Cowboys in Las Vegas.
• 10,000 fake registrations were found in Cincinnati.
• 8,000 fake registrations were found in Cleveland.
• Thousands of fake registrations reported in Philadelphia.
• Indianapolis is reporting voter registrations are at 105% of the population.
• One definite case of voter fraud in Ohio, as a man who registered multiple times cast an early ballot using a fake address.
• Likely voter fraud among Obama’s campaign workers, as one from Florida temporarily moved to Ohio to work on the campaign, registered and voted early there.
• There is a website that encourages people in other states to falsely claim Ohio residency by matching you with a volunteer’s address, register, and vote by absentee ballot.
• Fraud in New Mexico’s 2008 Democratic primary

Some want to dismiss the registration fraud as much ado about nothing. After all, who cares if Mickey Mouse is registered? No one can go to a poll and vote as Mickey Mouse, right? But what they’re dismissing is the blizzard of bogus Mickey Mouse registrations makes it even harder for state workers to investigate the true attempts at voter fraud; the cases where a person really is trying to get more than one vote. Not to mention the fact that entering a false registration is still a crime! How can you be so flippant about a crime against the foundation of the government?

That’s what really makes me miserable. People do not understand how corrosive this action is. We can all hate each other over our political disagreements, but when you attack the electoral process you undermine the credibility of the government. Why bother following a government when its legitimacy is in doubt? All that smug superiority this country has had should be washed away because now we’re no different than those tin-pot dictatorships in Africa and South America who rig their elections every couple of years.

One thing states may want to consider is to stop accepting registrations in bulk from any special interest groups. Don’t let any one deliver a thousand registrations or ship a thousand in a single box. The only registrations accepted would be delivered, in person or by mail, one at a time. It won’t completely stop registration fraud because ACORN could still just mail these in, but at least they’ll have to pay 42 cents for each of them.

Actually the best thing would be to require a picture ID to register. You make a copy and mail it in with your registration. It would be the same procedure as when you get a new job and have to fill out an I-9. Does anyone feel discriminated against for producing a copy of their driver’s license for that? I doubt it. Why would that be unacceptable for voter registration?

I finished my first MBA class last Tuesday. On the last day, since we had no work left and no final, so the professor gave us a networking exercise. We had to exchange business cards with everyone and talk about what each of us got out of the class, plus whatever else we wanted.

The whole thing got much more interesting to me when I met one woman who sat on the other side of the classroom. I took her card, we chatted for a couple of minutes, and she gave me props on my presentation. I appreciated that. My mistake was not actually looking at her business card. If I had I would have found she worked for Whole Foods in community relations. I found this notable because she looked like she fit perfectly with the stereotype of Whole Foods culture. I wish I could articulate this better but everything about her spoke to that granola, organic, earthy vibe - her clothes, her smile, her wide eyes, her slightly wide hips.

And if only I took a second to read her business card, I would have been able to ask her about her job. I was just too focused on maintaining eye contact. Stupid me.

It just seems so unlikely to me that a random granola girl would end up working at Granola Central. Now I’m left with a chicken or egg question. Did she seek out a job at Whole Foods because of her lifestyle choice, or was it peer pressure from the Whole Foods environment that turned her into one? I’m quite fascinated. I hope I see her in a future class.