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.

This drives me batty. Everyone who watched the third presidential debate has been brought up to speed on who Joe the Plumber is. Can we agree that Joe Wurzelbacher is not a real issue in this campaign? Sure he stands for an issue – small businesses – but the man himself isn’t an actual issue right?

Well someone please explain why MSNBC took the time and effort to check if Joe had a plumbing license. I can’t fathom how this matters at all to the presidential race. This is just an attack on Joe. Someone in a newsroom made the decision that they ‘need to get some dirt on this guy’. My guess is that since, apparently, he doesn’t know he needs to be licensed to be an employee of a plumbing company then we’re supposed to dismiss his complaints about Obama’s tax plan.

Yet another reminder the MSM is on Obama’s side.

This ad should be played over and over and over across the country if the Republicans want a chance in hell during this election. Its simplicity is its power. You can attack the Democrats with their own words. It’s a salient issue among voters and, if drilled into people’s heads, will harness their rage.

I don’t understand why McCain’s campaign hasn’t latched on to this. He was pushing for regulation of Fannie and Freddie in 2005. All his ads should be about Democrats protecting Fannie and Freddie, and ignoring his advice.

I really wish McCain came out against this bailout bill too, not just because I think it’s a dumb overreaction, but it would have been better for his campaign. It’s not as if his vote was needed in the Senate to pass it. He would have far more credibility among the angry voters if he hadn’t inflated the debt by hundreds of billions. At least the House Republicans have a degree of integrity left from opposing the plan.

The whole Congressional election landscape pisses me off. Congress has a 15% approval rating (CBS 9/27 – 9/30), yet the party in control is going to pick up even more seats? How stupid is this country? The Democrats have been in control for the last two years and what have they done? Pelosi never allowed an impeachment vote. The course of the Iraq War wasn’t altered whatsoever. We’ve had an energy crisis and how did they respond? They even pissed off Turkey for no good reason with that Armenian genocide resolution. These people deserve more control? I don’t think so.

I have no idea who is going to win the presidency, but I understand the knee-jerk desire to switch parties in the White House. I’m just frustrated people don’t think the same about Congress. They’ve have been fiddling while the economy burned for the last year. Where’s the outrage? Toss those Democrats out too.

12PM Hey, What Happens in Here Stays in Here
Guy to coworker at the next urinal, who just farted: Are you serious?!

St. Petersburg, Florida
via Overheard in the Office, Oct 2, 2008

But this brings me to a serious question. Can you fart when you’re at the urinal? I’ve certainly blasted plenty when I was pissing alone. Am I supposed to hold it when someone else is there? That seems so wrong to do when you’re in a bathroom. The room exists for you to expel those phantoms from your pants.

What about when you’re in a stall? Does anything go? Being a modest person I used to hold in any loud gas until the room was empty. In recent years though I’ve come to think of that as ridiculous. Why make myself suffer for a bunch of people I don’t know? If the mood strikes me I’ll try to fart even louder now when I’m in a public bathroom, just for shits and giggles. Last week I successfully farted another guy out of the adjacent stall at work. He was rustling the newspaper in the comfortable, spacious handicapped stall, while I had to cram myself into the regular stall. Embittered, I decided to poop on his joy so to speak. I had one big fart in me and I just dragged it out. I let out some noise, then paused, then resumed and so on. When I got to the fourth fart, he frantically crumpled his newspaper and got out of there. I bit my fist to stifle my laughter.

But seriously, what are the social rules for farting? I hope we’re moving towards a devil may care attitude. After all it brings such joy to everyone. Just try not to smile when you hear someone cut a big one.