What The L4?

100,000 Little Pieces

2012-01-12T21:34:00.000-07:00

Life is a puzzle. And so is mine. On the surface it has been a long time since the trajectory of my life made much sense. Yet it is has been a daily jigsaw of pieces working with disjointed serendipity toward a meaningful tableau. I have known a barrage of competing purposes and an endless stream of doubts. Forced by economic reality to move on from entrepreneurship, I assumed the role of manager. I excelled. I resented. The hop-scotch advance across the roles of retail functionary was fun but ultimately dysfunctional. I loved the people with which I worked but I loathed the people I served. Not really, but the line between service and slavish became harder to find.

City dreams collided with hometown nightmares. Park concerts meant less when juxtaposed with clinic infusions. The nuances of the perfect burger gave way to the needs of the perfect niece. Life has a way of focusing even the most distracted of observers. And so I am back in Montana. With the biggest of puzzles.

I was pulled here by family to be sure, but captured by opportunity as usual. Opportunity to pursue that which has always aided my success and literally filled my empty spaces: writing. Years of employing words to my advantage and plying prose for fun, have given way to a much greater undertaking. I mean to write a novel.

I still recoil instinctively from the notion of putting so much on the line. Of saying plainly, "I will write a book." But here I am. I can do no other.

Which brings me back to my puzzle. This Christmas finally, gloriously at home after the realities of retail had seen so many holidays put asunder, called for more than Christmas cookies and meat trays. I decided on a puzzle. Originally I thought it would be a group activity. And so it was by the minimum definition. Yet it was I who rose early and finished late. I who strained my vision and chewed my cheek.

In the end the puzzle gained greater meaning and was immortalized as a framed work on my wall. But regardless of how long the image hangs, the implication will live on. The 750 pieces of the puzzle had consumed me. It had overpowered my will and demanded my attention. Now I embark on a bigger challenge. A 100,000 word puzzle which demands
unbelievable attention and every measure of devotion. On December 26th there lay bare for everyone to see an unfinished puzzle, perhaps 300 or so pieces to go. Today there lay before me an unfinished story, perhaps 80,000 or so words to go. Game on.

No Shrug

2010-08-14T22:16:00.003-06:00

525,600 minutes. A year. As I age I find it increasingly difficult to differentiate time. It is harder to compartmentalize and mark discrete periods than I once did. Consider how a school "year" seemed so long when we were young! 9 months.... 9 short months. What folly. What youth.

One year ago I was in the throes of a dream turned nightmare. I stumbled stupidly as the fruition of my hopes turned into the instrument of my despair. Owning one's own business is an ambition which is never for the feint of heart-- or for the short-of-funds. Nearly two years after realizing my greatest ambition I was cowed by a fear I didn't know enough to consider.... failure.

I have learned a lot in the last 525,600 minutes. I've learned to value friends and family. It is cliche, but it is truth. I value sunsets from the 18th floor; and cups of coffee after too many the night before.

I value the last snow on a ski slope so far away and so close to home that you will yourself down the ice. I am amazed at the Starbucks mornings and the Culver's afternoons in Chanhassen. I am surprised that a heavy metal burger became a job that saw me into managment in a few months. I've worked the magnificent mile with people I like and ridden the bus with people I didn't.

I've witnessed tragedy and unspeakable illness and waited with baited breath for news of new life. I've seen the frustrations of disease coincide with the advent of baby. Beautiful baby. I've seen a little girl I love fall and skin her knee and blame me... but forgive I suppose. I've played great golf and seen great golf played in spite of me. I've danced: Danced to the point of sweaty, gasping exhaustion. Real dancing... with people who can. I've witnessed love.

In the past I have noticed the small things that enrich life when life needs a kick. Today I respect life for the big things that kick us when we need enriching. The world is held in the balance, and we all sustain the load. Here's to holding fast... no matter what!

Fuzzy

2009-11-27T16:06:00.009-07:00

George W. Bush made the phrase "fuzzy math" a buzzword during a presidential debate, but in the process he could have been highlighting a broader characteristic of partisan politics: the "fuzzy" implementation of "fuzzy" principles. Politicians and political parties have historically been rather more flexible in the implementation of their "core" values while trying to keep power than they are dedicated to them while trying to gain it. Afghanistan has become an illuminating example.

As president Obama has spent months in agonizing soul-searching over his strategy Vi's-a-Vi's the war there, he has pleased almost no one. In a minor scandal his commanding general's opinion took center stage under the Klieg lights of public scrutiny long before Mr. Obama had a chance to formulate his own position. However, the president has not done himself any favors by appearing to dither while soldiers die.

It turns out vision and perception can also be fuzzy. In my younger days there was a popular fad involving brightly colored images of seeming geometric nonsense, which, when stared at in another field of vision, revealed "hidden" three dimensional images out of the apparent chaos. These images are called stereograms, and as I recall were in turns really frustrating and really cool. Perhaps these images have a lesson to teach us about our current president. On their own the pictures were rather decorative and appealing without being objective imagery--not unlike other modern art. Hanging on a wall at the dentist's office they were bright and fun and interesting distractions. However, their true purpose lay hidden beneath. Only those with the will and skill to see the deeper purpose could unlock the real story they had to tell.

This seems a lot like the current president: a lot of appeal on the surface, but a lot of concentrated effort required to figure out what lies beneath. Unfortunately, by casting himself as a stereogram during the campaign he invited each voter to see the appealing, vibrant image they wanted to see. It continues to come as a shock to many voters that once they "stare" at the image long enough, its true character is revealed. In this sense, candidate Obama wasn't a "blank screen" but instead a dizzying, bright, compelling but confused screen. Mesmerized by the busy, colorful tableau, few took the time to carefully stare into a deeper, truer level. Had they done so, he would certainly have had a much tougher race on his hands.

And here's where the rub of the whole fuzzy affair emerges: the president appears likely to again escalate the war in Afghanistan. Just as the stereogram is a useful illustration of the president's path to office, Afghanistan is just one useful illustration of the consequences of that path: in this case, disillusioned Democrats and pleasantly surprised Republicans. He is supported by a majority of the public, but NOT by his liberal base. Unlike the other areas of public policy where principles blur, Democrats are proving frustratingly anti-war even in power, while Republicans are proving surprisingly focused on victory even under an opposition president. Had liberals listened during the campaign they would have heard a candidate talking about the importance of Afghanistan--but they didn't see that beneath the colorful surface they adored. That they are now shocked and dismayed by his escalation of the war is no more surprising than the shock of all those voters who thought Mr. Obama was a centrist, pragmatic, non-partisan. Perhaps we'll all learn to stare deeper. Or it could be that my logic is just a little fuzzy.

NOTE: It is possible to see the hidden image above (Hint: it is apropos to the current discussion)

En Garde!

2009-11-11T00:09:00.004-07:00

Compromise is a practice in desperate search of a few good practitioners. One quick definition of a compromise is “a settlement in which each side give up some demands or makes concessions.” Today’s political climate is almost completely lacking in an appreciation of this art; yet no less than the founding of the republic depended on deep, painful, morally questionable compromise. If the country is to avoid becoming ungovernable, these essential lessons of history must be relearned.

The political climate of the country over the past couple of years, if not the past couple of decades, is one in which compromise is undermined on opposing fronts in divergent ways. On one side Barack Obama—the most prominent political phenomenon of the times—represents a political paradigm that tends to simply take the republican virtue of compromise and sweetly and gently rock it to sleep. His is a powerful rhetoric of transcendence. Mr. Obama campaigned to be president from the curious premise of not being a politician. He is the post-partisan figure who is by relentless logic, patient education, and lofty persuasion going to heal the wounds of a nation straining at its seams. This concept of the noble savior-king descended from a more virtuous plane of human wisdom probably has ancient roots in human imagining. It is also a philosophy completely at odds with the tradition of democratic compromise.

By attempting to transcend politics a leader such as Mr. Obama willfully infers that his wisdom and talents supersede the usual—and therefore inferior—mechanisms of policy-making and general governance. Whether this worldview is born of hubris or ideology is irrelevant insofar as it is at once tempting and destructive. Tempting because it promises to banish those messier bits of democracy the public finds so distasteful: argument, gridlock, and that great bogeyman—division. Unity is idealized at the expensive of substance. The problem of human organization is not the imperfection of humanity, but the sloppiness of its governing systems. Once unity is realized, the logic proceeds, a great revelation of solutions to problems and resolution of conflicts will be manifest. This is a seductive notion, and it bears mentioning that George W. Bush also embraced the Unity paradigm early in his campaign and presidency.

Nevertheless, this is a delusional view with destructive consequences: substituting intentions for results at best, and relying upon a carefully crafted cult of personality at worst. The true brilliance of this approach to politics is that it seems to share the spirit of can-do problem solving and togetherness which compromise is thought to entail. It is a candy-coated, uplifting message that serves as a salve on the voters’ collective sore spots. However, there is a key point of divergence between Unity and compromise when it comes to the terms under which disparate factions are brought together. In the former the masses are collected in a grand consensus of wishful thinking. In the latter they are brought together by necessity in a difficult and messy give and take designed to preserve a greater good at the expense of many smaller ones. By obscuring the need for this practice, Unity undermines exactly the sorts of systems intended to keep the country united and free from tyrannies of all variety. When the public is deluded into thinking it can be brought together by hope, it is inevitable that it will eventually be brought together only by coercion.

The phenomenon opposite the Unity paradigm is Purity. This is the path of perceived virtue being doggedly pursued by many opinion leaders within the conservative movement—and by extension the Republican Party. Purity is idealized at the expense of effectiveness. This political paradigm holds that anything short of doctrinal wholeness is a sign of weakness and gradual surrender to an ideological foe. Under such an approach to politics discipline is the highest virtue. Allegiance is repeatedly tested and those of potentially flexible minds are systematically drubbed out of the organization. Unlike the Unity approach, Purity does not seek power via mass acclamation. It is rather a Quixotic attempt to recruit new followers based on providing a wholesome, coherent worldview. It suggests that being right is more important than being popular in the hopes that the former will eventually yield the latter.

The practical impact of Purity politics is illustrated by the grassroots effort to impose conservative orthodoxy in Republican primaries. The New York 23rd Congressional district aside, there are many other Republicans in prominent senate races—Florida, Illinois and Delaware come to mind—where well known, moderates face primary challenges on the grounds that the front-runner is insufficiently devoted to the ideological cause—at a time when the party is in a desperate minority position in the Congress! If successful, the result of this Purity will be even less influence. While the approach of Purity is a logical reaction to the approach of Unity, it is also antithetical to the spirit of compromise. Better to get nothing done than show weakness through an inch of retreat.

A more in depth analysis of modern political history might reveal a growing pattern of these two paradigms alternating between parties and gradually gaining permanence in the country’s governance; however that is beyond the present scope. The critical point is that two opposing political philosophies—one vowing to transcend compromise and the other declaring it a mortal enemy—are currently entrenched in such a way as to mutually assure the exclusion of traditional political bartering.

This is a problem verging on a crisis. Should the situation persist the country will become increasingly ungovernable. In 2009 President Obama assumed office on the wave of the most decisive election in a generation, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and with the most solicitous of press corps. Yet in spite of this seeming political trifecta he has demonstrated a surprising inability to achieve even portions of his agenda. Whether one agrees with his priorities and policies or not, one must acknowledge his apparent legislative impotence is alarming: if he can’t govern under these circumstances, who might do better, and how?

In contrast to these two opposing paradigms, the historic legacy is that of a long, noble attempt to find compromise—even in the face of morally grave and seemingly intractable issues like slavery. The Great Compromise was the first in a series of painful compromises which served to avert constitutional crises and sustain the union through its first 85 years. Though the so called Great Compromise involved the seemingly mundane mechanics of governing, its ability to bridge the difference between autonomous and independent minded large and small states was the critical step in making the American Constitution possible. If pressed residents of California may to this day concede their frustration in sharing equal Senate representation with their compatriots in Rhode Island, but the point is that this system enabled them to be compatriots in the first place. After this grand bargain there were several “named” compromises that largely kept the union together in the decades between the Revolution and the Civil War. The notorious 3/5 compromise settled differences between slave and free states over Congressional representation. The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 each served to expand and preserve the union by diffusing the omnipresent issue of slavery. In each of these cases either side could have been justifiably angered by the loss to its respective cause. Yet each side recognized the grave consequences of no deal. Eventually slavery proved too big a moral blight to be settled through political compromise, but the point is that compromise was effective in providing the common ground upon which a young nation was formed and sustained during its critical stage of development. Note that this was not universal ground or unanimous ground, but awkwardly shared ground.

If compromise is the ultimately necessary model for a vast, diverse and continental nation, where are today’s grand bargains? Unfortunately as the Unity and Purity politics have gained supremacy, so has the Supreme Court. As the country has forgone political compromise, it is only too happy to let the Supreme Court divide the proverbial baby rather than work its differences out legislatively. Perhaps the road back begins with a bold push for a major compromise. Toward that end a constitutional amendment would carry several advantages. First, an amendment is fairly novel insofar as there hasn’t been an amendment seriously debated since the ERA failed to achieve adoption thirty years ago. Resurrecting constitutionalism would in itself require the public to think differently about the politics of the age. Second, it represents a permanency that legislation lacks. Minds would tend to focus and arguments sharpen around a functionally permanent change to the country’s founding document. This should serve to add seriousness to a political discourse too often characterized by the trivial and absurd. Thirdly, it allows multiple large issues to be resolved simultaneously, thereby avoiding a chicken and egg style standoff over which side moves first. In order to be effective the amendment would need to settle issues of significant concern to large segments of the population in a palatable if painful manner.

Consider the following:

Autonomy over one’s body and mind being the highest objective of Liberty, neither the Congress nor the individual States shall make any law contrary to the following:

1) A woman who has attained the age of majority shall not be unreasonably restricted access to medical procedures intended to terminate an unviable fetus.

2) No government jurisdiction shall by penalty of law, taxation, incentive, or other means control or influence the physical or mental health of any Person whether it pertain to lifestyle, nutrition, medical procedure or any other factor except as pertains to proximate and discreet public health threats.

3) The genetic information of a human person shall not be duplicated in whole or in part in any manner such as to produce a clone or approximate clone of any human person for any purpose. No part of section two of this amendment shall be construed to contradict this section three.

The foregoing is a hastily composed, flawed prototype of what could be a compelling compromise amendment. First, it would effectively end the abortion debate by acknowledging—but not altering—the status quo. While this would not change the facts as they exist, it would scuttle conservative dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade, while enshrining a major liberal talisman into settled constitutional fact. The important side effect of essentially removing a perennially divisive political wedge issue from the debate should have appeal to exasperated voters on all sides of the issue. Second, it would end conservative and libertarian fears about the most sinister potential impacts of government involvement in healthcare: that government obtains carte blanche authority to make a range of health related decisions in the name of a compelling government interest in controlling costs. The so called “death panel” argument could easily be ended. Finally, the potential future controversy over human cloning could be settled in a decisive manner that should reassure conservatives and clarify that autonomy over one’s body cannot be used as justification for cloning in any way, shape, or form.

There are surely a number of equally viable issues around which one might build a compromise amendment intended to yield benefits beyond the specific policy matters settled. These benefits should include refocusing on the proper constitutional mechanisms of government, rediscovering the vast political mobilization and conversation required to approve an amendment, and depriving the parties of their stranglehold on political discourse. This project could be adopted by an independent movement, organization, or third party with the goal of removing some divisiveness from politics, advancing sound public policy, and reclaiming republican democracy from the dangerous idols of Unity and Purity. Only when the country is willing to sacrifice meaningful principles in service to the greater project of nationhood will it begin to repair its damaged governance, social fabric, and economy. More than some nebulous concept of hope, the change needed is in the direction of ugly, gritty, distasteful compromise.

Great Pains

2009-08-01T15:41:00.003-06:00

The Associated Press reports today on the strapping good health of what the article calls "A slice of the central US." With characteristic factual ambiguity the article seeks to assure those poor huddled masses around the country, that their lucky country cousins are basking in the fine fortune of financial fitness.

According to the AP, a swath of contiguous counties extending from Montana and North Dakota, through Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, before terminating in northern Texas comprise an economic "safe zone." A zone where unemployment is low, foreclosures are rare, and household incomes are up.

What utter nonsense. I'm sure the proud residents of this region are meant to feel honored that some AP reporters deigned to remember that these states exist at all. Perhaps someone was staring out of an airplane on a particularly clear day only to realize that there is more than clouds between LA and NYC. In any event, the article couldn't be a better example of what happens when journalists fail to report on all the facts.

Perhaps some background may have helped the story. Perhaps the gumshoes on this beat could have reminded their readers that this "slice of the central US"--which I thought we still called the Great Plains--has been undergoing systematic decline for the better part of 100 years. A region that supplied a young nation and much of the world with food has seen its population collapse as less and less labor is required to grow more and more food. It has seen national farm and environmental policies dating back to the New Deal create an ever increasing bureaucratic nettle bed within which to work. It has seen the farm economy increasingly jerked around like a yo-yo on the end of Washington's string.

For decades the region has seen some of its brightest citizens flee for the cities and the coasts, where they fueled commerce and innovation through their tireless work ethic and home grown integrity.

Those that remained were thanked with schools that had to consolidate or close. Clinics without doctors, pulpits without pastors, and storefronts without businesses. They were privileged to drive hours for the conveniences and supplies the rest of us take for granted. They were forced to brush off their status as a national punch-line, and endure the indignity of being considered fly-over country. Yet they worked hard. Kept their focus on their businesses and farms and families. Mostly they just wanted to be left alone, but occasionally they could use a little help.

They didn't build McMansions, they refurbished "the old Such-and-Such place." They didn't spend their weekends accumulating frivolous gadgets at the malls that no one built in the towns no one has heard of. They didn't hop from job to job seeking ever better wages only to get caught up in their own rat race. In short, they largely lived within their means. They don't have a housing crisis, because they didn't build many houses. They don't have a commercial real estate bubble, because they don't have any new commercial palaces.

In return they once again witness a government trying to destroy one of their main industries through misguided energy restrictions. They get the privilege of paying exorbitant gasoline prices, though they cannot avoid the long miles and large vehicles required for life on the prairie. They have the opportunity to bear the cost of health reform through reductions in Medicare.

After all the contributions the Plains have made to the country: food, labor, soldiers and energy, and all the hardships they steadfastly endure without complaint, I think the AP should have spared them the added insult of suggesting that they are better off than the rest of the country. I guess the good thing about being at the bottom of a hole, is that it is hard to keep falling.

Fat Guys in Blue Uniforms

2009-07-15T21:19:00.003-06:00

Rarely do I approach a posting with a flippant comment. This will deviate slightly.

The Supreme Court of the United States is of little democratic importance. The Supreme Court of the United States is critical to the republic. The Supreme Court of the United States is like a child: it should speak only when spoken to. The Supreme Court of the United States is like a king: when it speaks every tongue confess and every knee bow.

I have been struck by the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor in a way that I had not been struck before. Roberts and Alito passed my attention with scant notice. The only SCOTUS Justice I have seen in real life is Ruth Bader Ginsberg-- and after seeing her I would object to the characterization of "real life."

The impression I am left with is that the SCOTUS is little more than a vestige of an uncomfortable truth: democracy is impossible and authority, in the end, must be absolute. It was too convenient and insufficiently salutary to vest in monarchs the absolute authority of the Divine. Nevertheless, our founders recognized the equal folly in vesting absolute authority in the People. Democracy, capital D, writ large with universal suffrage is not-- in the vernacular-- "doable." There will always be intractable questions, irreconcilable differences, principled debates, and moral arguments that a simple vote could never satisfactorily resolve. Democracy for all its lauded glory is really rather lousy when it comes to governing.

Our founders, conscious of this fact, invented from whole cloth peculiar, anachronistic notions such as the Electoral College and separations of power to blunt the unsavory implications of majority rule. These anachronistic peculiarities are what makes us a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy. Only a finely tuned hybrid with ample trip wires may be counted upon to ensure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I am told that baseball is the national pastime, the game of youth, and as American as apple pie. Fine. I am culturally aware enough to know that Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. That the Red Socks ought to have kept Babe Ruth. That Joe DiMaggio was a big deal. That Barry Bond's head was too big a deal, and that A-Rod simply makes too much. All of this from a profoundly disinterested vantage. What I cannot tell you is the name of a single MLB umpire. Baseball, like any competition is dependent on the skills and actions of its stars and supporting cast. T-shirts, hot dogs, and beer are sold in support of great pitchers, sluggers, and amazing fielders (I even know that Denver's short stop Troy Tulowitzki has a rare unassisted triple play). The obvious but unsung reality of this game is that without the overweight guys in blue uniform, the games would not work, the competition would not function.

In the NFL much debate has taken place over the role of instant replay. Purists believe that the game should play out under human eyes, and that the human failings that result will largely cancel each other out. Others argue that modern technology empowers officials to know in near-real time exactly what actually happened. Perhaps no sport has more officiating staff than football. What with the referee, the umpire, the line judges, etc. it is as if football has seed all other sports and raised them a striped shirt! The debate over instant replay reveals an uncomfortable truth: there is no way for two teams to meet in feats of strategy and strength and struggle to a just conclusion. Only by the inclusion of aging, striped, wise-men of the game, operating under controversial and disputable rules may the contest bear any real legitimacy.

Imagine if Christianity had a Supreme Court. Rather than countless sects battling amongst themselves for souls, a single body would interpret the Bible. They would of course all profess to approach the Bible with deference to its teachings. They would protest that no judge can "make scripture." They would insist that they were faithful to the "spirit of the authors intent." Their rulings would be extremely controversial. Would never be wholeheartedly accepted by all Christians, and would be subject to constant efforts at repeal. Yet, were there to be such a court, all Christians would more or less agree to live under their rulings. Christendom would be much less democratic and diverse, but surely much more uniform and explainable. Religion is not governance, and so there is no such body. It helps to understand the difficulty.

Human interactions, it seems, are complex and frustratingly insensitive to the vagaries of talent and momentum and force. This is why at the end of the day Lord Democracy requires King Justice. This is why 100,000,000 plus votes can be cast in a presidential election, while that election is settled by a single justice. The ugly truth is that human governance cannot avoid authoritarianism. We can reserve it for the rarest of cases, dilute it with as many checks and balances as possible, and wrap it in liberty infused folk lore, but the truth is the same: no society can govern itself without some extremely limited, absolutely powerful force bearing the final verdict.

There is always an exception, a loop-hole, and backstop. There is always someone who gets to circumvent public whims and simply settle matters. No matter our delusions, we need absolute, undemocratic rule to make this great nation go.

If we are to have a demi-dictator. A soft sovereign. The best we can hope to do is to keep a mix of individuals who are wise, collegial, and principled. They won't agree with each other, but they will rule from on high when the masses can't. They will be the fat guys in blue uniforms--er, black robes-- to which (mostly) no one pays any attention.

R.E.M. Was Right

2009-07-11T12:58:00.004-06:00

Driving around for work this past Wednesday I was subjected to repeated top-of-the-hour radio news broadcasts. Each time some ABC news reporter too ugly to make it on television would mention hearings underway on Capitol Hill. Not remarkable as it goes. However, the hearings weren't about the ballooning deficit, health care, or financial regulation. The hearings were being held on the subject of school bullying.

Bullying it seems, is something of a problem in this country. Apparently--and I had to do some follow-up research on this-- middle and high school students tend to be intolerant and often verbally or even physically abusive to other students. I am cognizant of the shock this may provide the reader, but I assure you, if you read the testimony you will see there is evidence. Children have been called names. They have had embarrassing things written on their lockers. They have had their books dumped en route to study hall. This crisis is reaching a boiling point.

It is clearly right and good that Congress should act to halt this abusive environment in our nation's schools. Clearly we need a law. We need a regulation. We probably need federal funding. An anti-bullying program for every classroom. Teacher retraining. Parental accountability. We need zero tolerance policies and detention and a cop in every janitor closet. Congress must not rest until every child is safe and secure and no one hates and bad words are never spoken. Until anger is vanquished and conflict put asunder and lions lay down with lambs.

Or maybe what we need to do is get a grip. Kids are brutal, mean, and insensitive. They are insecure and prone to establishing identity and power in relation to whom they can put down and lord over. Middle school is a gauntlet of emotional, psychological, and physical turmoil from internal as well as external sources. And it should stay that way.

We have reached a point in this country where tolerance is a near-universal cultural norm. The stilted, exaggerated political correctness of the past couple decades has gradually given way to a genuine feeling of deference toward other people, cultures, habits, and beliefs. The country is much more likely to live and let live that it was a generation ago.

At the same time society has been encouraging children toward individualism and self-esteem in historically unprecedented ways. Every child is encouraged to believe that they are--yes-- good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like them. Every action undertaken by every little crumb cruncher is praised, documented, filmed, and shared with relatives at the holidays. Every scribble becomes a prized work of art. Every voice angelic, every mismatched outfit couture.

The combination of these phenomena yields a twisted cocktail. It leads some to believe that anyone can do anything, wear anything, say anything at anytime anywhere and the world around them must tolerate it. This is nonsense. Our society must be tolerant and increasingly accepting of the wonderful differences found in the great human family. However, we must still live with each other. A vast, diverse, wildly divergent population must somehow share a country, a neighborhood, and a school. We are still social creatures, and we still must learn to function in some normative cultural model.

The wages of tolerance and acceptance must be deference and respect.

Anyone who seeks society's acceptance should be willing and able to show some deference for the majority's mores. Unfortunately, lessons about social mores often come in uncomfortable packages. Which brings us back to our bullying problem. Children must learn to function in social groups and they must learn cultural norms. Those lessons come at a point of maturation corresponding to middle and high school. These are the years where each person sorts out both their personal identity and how that identity fits into the larger social fabric. As we hammer out our personalities the often brutal, crass interactions with fellow travelers serve as the fire and water by which we are tempered. Bullying is part of the anvil upon which we form our adult selves.

Middle and high school is a time for experimentation, eccentricity, and individuation. Everyone is "bullied" in some way: aspiring athletes learn the limitation of their talents, others learn the limitation of their intelligence, or are beaten down by the vagaries of physical attractiveness. Others are teased for their style of dress, their mannerisms, their unusual hobbies or interests. Everyone runs into something that rends their perfect self-image. In short, they learn the hard way that the scribble was just a scribble.

Some people will change a little, some will conform altogether, and some will stiffen their resistance as they grow comfortable in the role of outcast. The key is to learn how to strike a balance between accepting other's differences and comporting oneself to different social contexts. In the end nearly all will learn this critical survival skill needed to navigate through life. Shielding kids from the tortures of maturing into socially functional adults is not desirable or even achievable. Which is probably why Congress is so comfortable dealing with it.

(The most poignant arguments, the tearful testimony always concerns young people who have died, often through suicide, and sometimes through murder. Of course these are tragic outcomes that cannot be dismissed. Suicide is always an unfathomable tragedy--especially when it involves the very young. Murder is a crime. Assault is a crime. Criminal activity can never be tolerated, and suicide must always be guarded against. However, I think it is simply going too far to suggest that these rare but tragic outcomes are the result of school yard teasing, name calling, shoving, and other standard "bullying." These outcomes are no more explainable than any other senseless act of violence. I do not mean to conflate the two or to excuse violence.)

The Only Hope We Have is Fear Itself!

2009-06-16T19:56:00.004-06:00

As the customer looked at me and nearly shouted, "Christ Almighty!" I wondered just how far out of whack was the price I had just quoted? In the event, the superlative gasp was directed not at me, but at Nature-- and so in turn I suppose the invocation of the Almighty was completely on point.

Ask anyone with whom I am acquainted and they'll be sure to tell you of my self-indulgent tendency to brag about the climate and weather in my fair Denver. Personally I claim this as a privilege born of my many years in North Dakota, but I allow I may be presumptuous. This past 10 days has been an education to say the least. Last Sunday we witnessed 5 tornadoes in the metro area, a couple of which had the impertinence to destroy a mall very near my home. Since that ignominious day we've endured 9 consecutive near-fateful encounters with flying monkeys. 9 straight days of actual tornadoes, verified funnel clouds, Doppler verified rotation or all three. Clouds, rain, and hail were our daily delivery, and it seemed our much-storied 300 days of annual sunshine may be so much folk-lore.

The interesting thing throughout this macabre episode was my indifference. The television and radio became more digital bleeps and whistles than programming on some days, yet I never ran for cover. I peered out my window to see the wind coming from the east, just before it was coming from the west. The storm sirens on several occasions wailed their ominous message. I stayed where I was, walked the dog, drove around. In short, I had no fear. I'm not bragging, but rather found myself asking: when do we know there's a REAL problem? Surely there is a "no seriously, we f&#*in' mean it this time alert!? It never came, I never ran to the basement, we never experienced Munchkinland.

I tell you that to ask you this: when is it appropriate to be fearful? When is it rational, reasonable, and prudent to worry about the world swirling about you?

So here is the all too predictable twist(er): it is time for the American people to embrace fear... a different kind of fear. Roosevelt's famous proclamation was a good one. In economic crisis fear too often fuels an irrational reticence among consumers which creates a vicious cycle of further contraction. In this recent economic maelstrom, fear of economic Armageddon was unhelpful and counter-productive. We needed to banish fear.

However, like the Prodigal Son, fear is do for an encore performance. In the last six months we have witnessed a breath-taking expansion of federal spending, federal power, and federal paternalism. Much like a funnel bursts forth unexpectantly and before our forecasting capabilities can catch up, the Obama administration has swooped in with blistering speed to expand the reach of the federal government. He is literally seeking to rebalance and redefine the acceptable scope of government while the nation is still peering out its window, wondering whether there is any real danger.

My fear is not that one president can recast the country into a socialist experiment, collapse capitalism, or destroy the financial system. I'm not paranoid of black helicopters circling overhead to enforce the will of the state and stifle the will of the many. I'm not hoarding guns for the coming battle. My fear is not that the president wants to make the government too big. My fear is not that he has a sympathetic Congress, a sympathetic press, and a self-destructing Republican party.

My fear is that the American people are slowly but surely losing their fear of government. Much as we started to yawn after several days of sirens and alerts, the country is losing its natural, original, critical, and healthy fear of encroaching federal power. Fewer and fewer find anything wrong with big government. As long as government helps ME, I'm happy.

Famous last words of a great nation. How long before we're all desperately seeking our ruby slippers?

Dick Rising

2009-06-04T20:29:00.002-06:00

The entertainment business is replete with examples of leading men being made the fool by their supposed subordinates. From the legendary comedy of Peter Sellers' "Pink Panther" to television legends like "Get Smart," to Hugh Laurie's obscure turn as a hapless aristocrat in "Jeeves and Wooster." The idea of a reasoned, experienced, intelligent, and well-tempered man behind the throne is as old as time. Except it seems, when it comes to Richard Cheney.

I am not entirely clear what machinations of thespian virtue it takes to ingratiate oneself with the news media, but what I know is this: it doesn't take much to tip the scales. On barely any evidence, fueled by late-night comedic caricature, and absorbed by an inattentive public, anyone can be made to be almost anything. Perhaps Dan Quayle was the first to learn this painful lesson, but he shall not be the last. Careers, it seems, are made and destroyed on the most perilous of impressions.

So, on a reed thin resume of dubious distinction we have collectively come to believe that Barack Obama is the man of the ages, the savior of nations, and the defender of all. Beautifully prosaic speeches featuring the cathartic cadence of the Black pulpit along with the soaring promise of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy all wrapped up in an FAO Schwartz worthy box of extravaganza has taught us some important things: President Obama is a wise, temperate, just, fair, and benevolent superman who seeks every hour of every day to wake the nation, raise it above all suffering, and deliver it not unto evil! Amen!

By the same thin veneer of hyperbole we have collectively been told to believe that Dick Cheney is a fire-breathing, James Earl Jones intoning, demon of the beyond. A suspiciously balding head, ill health, and a monotone voice characteristic of the mid-west, all wrapped up in a water-boarding, gun-slinging, earth hating package of black peril. The puppet master controlling George W. Bush, destroying America's reputation, and bathing in vats of unrefined oil.

Lately the former VP has been saying a lot of things, and gathering a lot of attention as a result. I wonder whether we all need to consider how quickly a public reputation is made or frayed. What if Dick Cheney was the cool, rational, reasoned voice applying the break peddle to George Bush's emotional, gut-fueled fits of machismo? What if Dick was the moderating voice of the last 8 years? What if he saved us from global Armageddon? What if he was the only one with any experience to step forth and put together a response to 9/11? What if his relationships in the Congress, in the Middle East, and in the administration were the key nexus keeping the world on course in a potentially devastating crisis? What if Dick was right?

If he were, then he suffered the ultimate sacrifice: his dignity, reputation, and honor. He stayed silent--which made him so easy to parody. He stayed in the background--which made him so easy to distrust. He wasn't accessible--which made the media suspicious. He took no glory, asked for no thanks, and expected no promotion. He simply did his job. He simply protected the American people.

I don't know that this analysis is correct, but I think we should ask "what if?" If it is, Dick is a hero, and his modest, post-part em defenses of his efforts are over-do. He may be too much of a gentleman to throw GWB overboard, or to demand thanks and praise, but that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't deserve our respect. Fortunately opinion polls show he is getting more of it everyday.

A Cautionary Fail

2009-05-05T19:33:00.004-06:00

In a little noticed item of not-so-breaking news this week, we learned that the financing of state governments has for the first time ever become a largely federal endeavor. That is to say, federal transfers now account for the largest share of state government finance. More than sales taxes, more than property taxes, and more than state income taxes. Uncle Sam is increasingly the fuel in our states' gas tanks.

It is probably conservative to say "the government that governs best governs least," but it is absolutely part of our federal heritage to say "the government that governs closest governs best." These principles seem to be evaporating before our eyes. The latter is perhaps even more important than the former. It simply means that the closer the government is to its voters, the more accountable and responsible we can expect it to be. Small town mayors are more accountable to the citizens of the small town than is the president of the United States. The state legislature is easier to control than Congress (see my posting here).

Federalism has always been an integral--but threatened--part of our governing system. Our founders recognized the diversity of the states and appreciated the valuable contributions this rich tapestry would make to the national good. However, there have always been those who saw one-size-fits-all solutions as optimal. For these well meaning elitists, imposing national standards was a lofty goal. When the federal government forced the states to enact a 55 mph speed limit on penalty of lost highway funds, my native Montana essentially told them to pound sand with a $5, no points "failure to conserve energy" fine. The state got its money and no one drove 55.

The point has broader implications, if the states become a mere organ of the federal government, then our power to control our government suffers immensely. Why elect a state legislature at all, if their only role is to dole out the federal dole? Who needs a governor if the president is calling the shots from 1600 Penn. Ave.? There are important reasons to have local services funded by local dollars and allocated by local officials. These are accountability, accountability, and accountability.

So why then, does the federal government have the money to fill gaps in state and local governments? Why does the federal share of funding continue to grow? Hmmmm. Could it be that no local government would get away with the reckless borrowing, high taxing, ballooning government strategy the feds are following? Well of course not: their voters would never stand for it. Only the 535 impersonal, distant, and arrogant power-aggregators in Washington can pull off that trifecta.

Red, White, and Blue

2009-05-01T17:46:00.003-06:00

Yesterday I actually heard the President of the United States announce that Italian Fiat was saving Chrysler mere moments before he implored the public to buy "American" cars. The plight of the auto industry has held my attention for any number of reasons I suppose: I grew up in a car culture for one, and I consider myself a capitalist for another. I wrote awhile back that GM might be better called "General Misery" and advocated its deconstruction. However, after the events of this week I find myself increasingly flummoxed. Where are the capitalists?

Everything about Ford has always been embarrassingly unexceptional. From Henry Ford's model naming system ("A"-"T" in that order) to his insistence on black paint only, to the company's hopelessly Madison-Avenue-free logo design: the enduring Blue Script Oval-- nearing its 100th birthday. Ford has long played second fiddle to its larger cross-town rival GM. Ford has rarely entered pop culture the way GM has-- we never drove our Ford to the levee, Lucille got a ride in the Oldsmobile while Valerie never got a go in a Mercury, and Coup De Ville just rolls off the country-western tongue easier than Continental. In any event, Ford has literally been the unsung hero of the American automobile industry.

The minivan may have saved Chrysler (the first time it received a federal bailout) in the early 1980's, but the Taurus saved the entire domestic industry. Ford's bold new sedan went on to sell more than 7 million cars. It was the first domestic vehicle to adapt Japanese manufacturing techniques. Before it was allowed to whither on the vine, the Taurus was the best selling car in the world. Ford's trucks have literally helped build the country. Long before Toyota thought of copy-catting the F-Series with its ill-conceived "T-Series" Ford was outselling all of its domestic truck rivals combined.

Which brings us to today. As the federal government, foreign companies, and the United Auto Workers all peel off pieces of Chrysler and General Motors, one would be forgiven for thinking that these two companies represent the sum total of American auto manufacturing might. The big question now is whether the government will end up with a controlling stake of GM before or after bankruptcy, and whether Fiat will really be able to pump life into Chrysler after bankruptcy. The president prognosticates about the need to preserve "an American auto industry" as though only nationalization of these two companies can achieve that goal. In 1943 it was Ford that took production of the B-24 from 1 day to 1 hour. Pilots slept on cots waiting for planes to roll off Ford production lines. If America needs an example of a domestic manufacturing capability, might it not look to the one who has so often saved the day?

Today Ford has the best mid-sized sedan in the world. The Ford Fusion is not only rated better than Camry and Accord on quality, but its 2010 hybrid version is touted as a strong challenge to the Prius. Sales of the model are up over 20% this month alone. Ford's initial vehicle quality started overtaking Toyota in 2007. It beat Wall Street estimates in the first quarter, is outselling Toyota in the U.S., and has yet to take a dime in taxpayer money.

So why has Ford dropped out of our national discourse?

Why isn't Ford outraged that the taxpayers are propping up its competitors? Why isn't the public looking to Ford as the champion of the domestic auto-industry rather than to Washington? Ford is reinventing itself with product-led quality and design (In addition to Fusion, the new Taurus, Mustang, F-150, and Lincoln MKT are widely praised). It is doing so the old fashioned way-- on its own dime. No one seems to care-- and that scares the hell out of me.

A world in which a business innovates in spite of government obstacles, without government subsidies, and in the face of unfair competition is no world at all. When the government becomes your competitor, installs your union in management of its nationalized companies, and demands unrealistic design criteria you become Atlas to a world you cannot possibly support.

I still think it is possible Ford will sell its product the same way it always has: without a lot of flash or noise. It would be nice if a few more people stood up and asserted that the United States HAS a viable domestic auto industry, if the government would get the hell out of its way.

Revise and Extend my Remarks

2009-04-19T18:17:00.004-06:00

In Congress members often "reserve the right to revise and extend" their remarks. This is a politician's way of sounding parliamentarian while covering his ass. Recent developments have caused me to revisit a couple of previous posts with the benefit of new information.

28 February: on conservatives organizing

Not even two months ago I suggested in what I fully intended to be a somewhat unrealistic call-to-arms that libertarian and conservative voices needed to step outside their comfort zone and start organizing the type of grassroots protest usually the province of the radical Left. I will admit to being quite proud of my feigned union-rally-cum-Rev. Al-protest calls to action toward the end of the piece-- complete with alliteration, rhyme and other rhetorical word play. What I couldn't have foreseen was how quickly this post would come to seem prophetic.

Now, I of course don't intend to claim credit for what followed. I merely want to congratulate the hundreds of thousands of "tea party" participants for taking a step I had sort of tongue-in-cheek suggested they should, while full-well believing they never would.

Specifically, I mentioned school vouchers as a rallying point. This week we learned Education Sec. Arnie Duncan has decided to end Washington D.C.'s successful experiment in voucher funded education.

Specifically I thought I had cleverly coined the phrase "representation without taxation." After Wednesday's rallies I was shocked to see placards the country over with the same protest blazoned in black and white. Apparently the notion that it may be unjust for 50% of the country not to pay federal taxes, while maintaining federal votes has crossed more than just my muddled mind.

Specifically I suggested that some type of political activism was required to provide a "shot over the bow" to the newly installed Liberal majority in Washington. This was a phrase I heard over and over as callers to talk-radio described the event here in Denver (5,000 strong).

Specifically I suggested that conservatives would need to leave their comfort zone. The stories of the tea parties are replete with people claiming that this was their first protest, march, demonstration, etc. in a lifetime.

I think anyone of a right-of-center persuasion should take great inspiration from these outcries in the face of government hegemony. I obviously was only one tiny voice among people believing it was time to borrow the "other side's" tactics. I see that sales of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" had its record year in 2008, and that 1Q 2009 sales have already surpassed all of 2008, and I am heartened! Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell.... etc.

23 March: on gay marriage

In my last post I carefully trudged through the evolving paradigm under which Americans need to view same-sex marriage. While I sensed that there was a lot happening on this front, I could not have foreseen that less than a month later the number of states where same-sex marriage is legal would have doubled, and that states extending these basic rights would seem to pop up everyday. I was heartened to see that both John McCain's daughter Meagan and his campaign manager Steve Schmidt gave full-throated endorsements to gay marriage in the weeks since my post, and that Gov. Huntsman of Utah has endorsed civil union in the face of 70% opposition in his--perhaps the most conservative-- state.

Indeed, events have unfolded so rapidly that I believe additional comment is warranted. Three states have taken decisive action on same-sex unions, and I believe each provides a unique and important example of how this issue is best handled.

It is important to note that Vermont, Iowa, and Washington have acted within days or weeks of each other in very different ways. This is good for our country, and exactly the idea behind federalism: states are the "laboratories of democracy." However, just because three states did things three ways doesn't mean we are limited in judging their respective courses.

It is appropriate to take a moment to describe those actions: 1) Vermont's legislature voted on legislation extending civil marriage rights to same-sex couples. The governor vetoed the bill. The duly elected representatives of the people in both the state senate and state assembly voted by a two-thirds majority to override the governor's veto. 2) Iowa's supreme court ruled unanimously that discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage law was contrary to equal protection, and 3) Washington state's legislative body sent its governor a law extending all marriage rights to same-sex couples, but without the name "marriage."

I think these three provide a unique and extremely important lesson. They represent good, worse, and worser.

Vermont is clearly the example par excellance. An elected government debates and votes on a controversial issue. An elected governor weighs in with a veto. An elected government votes by super-majority to override the veto. That is an unequivocally democratic stamp of approval. Game. Set. Match.

In Iowa the case is more ambiguous. The state has a well documented history of being at the forefront of equality: desegregating schools decades before the rest of the country, being the first to legalize interracial marriage, etc. It is also worth noting that the supreme court ruling was unanimous--and written by a Republican appointee. I am reminded of Earl Warren's work to ensure a unanimous ruling in Brown v. Board, knowing the moral authority such unanimity implied. Nevertheless, Americans always have an ambivalent relationship with the third branch of government. They frequently suspect that court imposed rules are less legitimate than their legislatively imposed cousins. Therefore I am ambivalent about Iowa. The court is a legitimate co-equal branch of government charged with enforcing constitutional rights. One of the great misunderstandings about the American system is that it is a democracy. America is not, never was, and was never intended to be a democracy. The beauty of America's success has been her republican insistence on tempering popular whims and advancing minority rights. To deny this is to deny America's founding principle. That said, while Vermont is the best example, Iowa is no less legit.

Washington is the example upon which I most want to elaborate. In Washington the action toward what is already being called "marriage in all but name" was legislative and executive branch in nature. Both branches endorsed the action. Lots of elections involved, and all very up-and-up as regards the anti-Jurist crowd. However, this does not in any way make their action better. Quite the contrary. Washington's solution is exactly the sort of this I hoped to argue against in my previous post. "Marriage in all but name?" What the hell does that mean? According to articles on the subject, there are somewhat more than 400 state rights associated with civil marriage. After this legislation "domestic partners" will qualify for all of them, but will not be allowed to call that a "marriage." Do we need to summon the spirit of Shakespeare to ask, "what's in a name?" For some same-sex marriage opponents the name means everything. It somehow seems easier to swallow if we extend rights without getting mixed up in "The Word." This bit of compromise is probably the most dangerous one out there.

How absurd is it to think we are protecting marriage by finding innovative ways to extend its privileges without imposing its responsibilities and expectations?! I could retype this 1o times for emphasis, but won't. When NY governor Elliot Spitzer was forced out of office for cavorting with a high-end prostitute, he retained all of the hundreds of state rights afforded a married person--indeed his wife stood and suffered by his side. Mr. Spitzer wasn't forced from office for violating any marriage law (infidelity is not illegal) and didn't lose his marriage rights. He was forced from office for behavior which violated a common sense of decency regarding the behavior of a married man. It turns out that in the word "marriage" vests more than a collection of state and federal benefits. It turns out society still--despite all odds-- has a pretty good notion of what it means to be married. Someone who cannot uphold this unwritten expectations is deemed unworthy of trust on other matters. Words matter!

How much simpler then is it to simply sign up for the benefits without any concern over the expectations and responsibilities? Does anyone think that if this model works for gays it won't be embraced by straights? Anytime one can get without giving, benefit without paying, or in short "get the best of both worlds" they will do so. That is simple human nature.

We are shortsighted and wrong to think this sort of compromise is our way forward. In fact it will be our undoing. Washington is the worsest example of how we might move forward on same-sex unions. I am sorry I have such a great example of the solution I argue so forcefully against.

Paradigms

2009-03-23T21:34:00.005-06:00

OK folks, this one has been building after a barage of headlines... so grab a drink and buckle in!

Many years ago, Harley-Davidson initiated what would become a marketing feat of epic proportions. The company was struggling with a product so poor that it was universally known to have more holes than any cheese its Wisconsin neighbors might produce. The bikes simply didn’t run well: they were wheezing, oil leaking, rattle traps. Once the Japanese jumped into the car market, they were sure to make short work of the domestic motorcycle world. Harley needed a distraction.

What they created was the Harley Owners Group (HOG). Harley figured out that selling bikes was more than selling metal: it was selling identity. Motorcycle enthusiasts had their own sub-culture and identity. By cultivating the importance of this uniqueness, the company saved itself and prospered.

For many people, Harley owners remain a bit of a mystery. You have doctors, lawyers, and bankers trucking off each August to attend beer and bare-skin fueled rallies in Sturgis, SD. You have professionals donning leather and chains and the required tats to demonstrate their HOG bona fides.

Needless to say, our culture contains some unique and interesting subsets. Today the Hog culture of motorcyclists has gained widespread acceptance. This distinctly American culture has manifested itself in different ways: from the Hell’s Angles to the Freedom Riders it is a slice of Americana. While, they are some of our most patriotic citizens, and are prominent in veteran’s parades, they are still easily lampooned in movies such as “Wild Hogs.”

Hogs are just one example of a sub-culture. There are countless others. During our long national story, the “different” has too often been the victim of the “normal.” We have held people in bondage because of skin color, prevented people from participating in governance over gender, denied office because of religion, and shunned countless sects of peculiar penchants. Women were denied the vote. We fought a civil war to settle slavery. We marched in the streets when racial prejudice piqued our consciences. We avoided biker bars. We refused to elect Catholics to national office. We even forced south paws to skip recess to learn to write with the “correct” hand. Today we gawk as skinny boys with dyed black hair, tight jeans, and painted finger nails parade by us at the mall.

Yes, America is replete with examples of sometimes peculiar, always distinct, and sometimes off-putting sub-cultures. Yet, beneath this cornucopia of diverse tastes which forms the fabric of America, there are two distinct paradigms upon which to view each individual sub-set.
The first group of sub-cultures is based on voluntary association. One may choose to buy a Harley-Davidson, add a few tattoos, and otherwise embrace a club of likeminded people. Likewise, a group may choose to dress in eccentric black clothing, die their long, unkempt hair, pierce everything, and call themselves “goth.” The mainstream culture may look askance at these groups, and avoid their haunts.

The other paradigm for viewing American sub-cultures calls upon earlier times. These are the classic “minorities.” Catholics, Jews, blacks, and the disabled. These are groups that in the sweep of our national history we were willing to marginalize at best and outright exclude at worst. Most importantly, these are sub-sets based on immutable characteristics. One does not form a “voluntary association of blacks,” but rather is black or is not. Historically the country never had a problem with these groups assembling on their own terms—in fact, that was about the only assembly some of them were permitted.

So today we can say there are two paradigms: minorities based on immutable characteristics and minorities based on voluntary association. In the past, this distinction made very little difference. Indeed, “difference” of any sort was the source of suspicion or outright prejudice. For many years this country maintained its dominant—and now notorious—white Anglo Saxon Protestant ethos on the backs of any social outlier. In this strapped down culture one couldn’t be seen outside the mainstream. Be that pregnant out of wedlock, divorced, Jewish, black, or blue. The culture enforced a strict set of rules, and to appropriate the words of Heidi Klum, you were either in or you were out.

Over time the difference between these two groups began to emerge. Americans came to terms with the inescapable fact that certain traits were inherent, and therefore discriminating against them was contrary to the natural order—maybe even God’s order. Women may be different than men, but why did this mean inferior? Surely they should vote, attend college, and be elected to office. Blacks had no hand in making themselves black, but surely they are equal citizens. As our country matured, it began to realize that different didn’t mean “wrong.” If you were born black, you were still born American. This has been a long and bitter struggle, but by and large the paradigm of immutable characteristics is no longer questioned in our socio-political culture. In short, we let lefties—like president Obama—be lefties!

On the other hand, there is still a healthy dose of skepticism as regards voluntary associations. There are an infinite number of voluntary associations which individuals might form, but this hardly requires acceptance or even recognition by the “mainstream.” If you want to dress in lycra shorts, blast Poison songs from your stereo, and eat a strictly vegan diet—good on ya, but leave the rest of us out of it. From a legal perspective, we would react with hostility to a request that Hogs be allowed to drive on both sides of the street, or that goths be given special rights to cheap hair dye. Moreover, there is something to the Cher song Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves which more than suggests some voluntary associations are just plain scorned.

It is through these paradigms that we may most appropriately view the cultural hang-up over gay rights generally and gay marriage specifically. For most of American history gays were viewed in the light of the voluntary association paradigm: a mysterious, odd, distinct sub-culture with a peculiar set of behaviors. Much as some men outfitted themselves in leather to ride bikes, other men outfitted themselves in leather to seek sex with other men. Strange, rare, and ultimately abhorrent. As long as homosexuality was viewed as social deviancy, it was easily subjected to social prohibition. We don’t let thieves steal. We don’t let addicts deal drugs. And we don’t condone sodomy.

Today we find ourselves in a new reality. Over the past four decades, society’s view of homosexuality has evolved—with increasing velocity—from the paradigm of voluntary association to the paradigm of immutable characteristic. Decades ago people insisted that being gay was a socially deviant association, which could be dissuaded by firm public policy and reformed by sincere effort and enough familial pressure. In our time, no one with a middling intellectual reason believes that homosexuality is a “choice” or a “voluntary association.” Perhaps I should say that no one under 40 believes that. Those ancient, troglodyte purveyors of dogmatic trope are increasingly losing ground, but still numerous.

This brings us to the cultural struggle over gay rights: the troglodytes are going to lose, just as every interest group aligned against a minority of immutable characteristic has. It took 100 years between a civil war fought for men’s freedom and the actual achievement of that freedom, but the progress was inexorable and the conclusion definitive. Today’s battles over Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, or marriage, find the country divided. In keeping with the best of American tradition, those who see the gay sub-culture as based on immutable characteristics seek the advancement of rights; while those who see homosexuality as an ultimately changeable choice vociferously reject what they see as special rights: not unlike granting the hogs use of both sides of the street.

In the mean time, we have a real fight on our hands in hot spots like California. I recently saw that a couple of Pepperdine University law professors had suggested that marriage be removed from civil law. In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to advocating this position for many years. I long said that the government had no business in marriage. I believed at the time that its involvement was based on an unfortunate historical intertwining of civil and religious realms. Nevertheless, I have come to rethink this view.

George W. Bush described marriage as, “the most fundamental institution of our civilization.” I couldn’t agree more. But this is where I part company with Dubya. It is precisely because marriage is the fundamental institution of our civilization that we should all be ashamed at its incessant debasement over the past five decades. It is an insulting and laughable straw-man to suggest that gays are undermining marriage when heterosexuals have done a fine job of this for years. If our culture truly believes in a self-organizing, self-regulating population, it must defend marriage as the basic building block of the society. To do this requires extending marriage to two loving people regardless of gender, reducing the divorce rate, and expanding the social condemnation of living outside this norm.

It is entirely possible that society is not up to this challenge. However, in the end we either preserve marriage as a fundamental pillar of society or we blast it to pieces. What we cannot do is pretend to do the former while encouraging the latter. The choice is simple: real marriage for all, or a deteriorating institution that slowly dies. “Traditional marriage” was undermined a long time ago. If we intend to reclaim this as a public institution our time is limited and our actions must be radical. If we cling to the dogmas of the current debate, marriage will be diluted for gays, and then happily diluted by straights. In the end, neither marriage, nor gays, nor straights will benefit—but demagogues will surely profit in the short-run.

We now know that 40% of births last year were out of wedlock. How much longer can the charade continue before we realize that the institution we thought we knew died a half century ago, and that our last chance to save it may come in the least likely of places?

Blind Squirrels

2009-03-17T10:39:00.002-06:00

Flipping through channels while checking phone messages, sipping coffee, and gathering paperwork, I caught the following on The View:

The women were discussing the fate of Ruth Madoff (Bernie's wife) and "her" $70 million fortune. Apparently Ruth thinks she should keep it, everyone else thinks not. Whoopi described the ponzi scheme which has landed Mr. Madoff in prison as: taking money from investors, not investing the money in anything, and then giving money back to those who ask--which requires ever more new investors to keep the system running.

Joy Behar replied in a rare moment where her two brain cells fired simultaneously:

"WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES THAT, THEY CALL IT SOCIAL SECURITY!"

:-)

Week 6: Whew! This is exhausting!

2009-03-09T18:10:00.002-06:00

This is a great piece of reporting out of the UK. Apparently our president, after six weeks on the job, is just too tired to deal with a visiting leader like PM Gordon Brown. And who can blame him, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4953523/Barack-Obama-too-tired-to-give-proper-welcome-to-Gordon-Brown.html

Here are some excerpts:

"Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest....

They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister....

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy". ...

a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, ... reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key....The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

Oh boy!

Did you hear the one about....

2009-02-28T17:59:00.004-07:00

Community organizing: it's not just a joke anymore.

During the 2008 presidential campaign it was standard right-wing pundit fare to poke fun at Barack Obama's history as a "community organizer." I freely admit to joining in the revelry. The title seemed as self-appointed and self-righteous as anything Hugo Chavez could cook up.

This is instructive. The fact that "community organization" struck such a minor chord with many Americans may tell more about the country and its conservatives than about Mr. Obama. What if taking one's positions, one's values, and one's principles into the public square requires something more than a single day at the ballot box? What if rather than liberal do-goodism, community organization is really... democracy?

A country founded in the manner of ours always faces a paradox: majority rule is democratic, but minority rights are essential to a free society. A republic cannot flourish when the majority is allowed to rule tyrannically over its minorities. Our first presidents were among the first to point this out. Our country fought a civil war over the concept. Our long, storied progress as a nation has been undeniably marked by the eternal struggle to settle this juxtaposition.

It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that one's perspective on the function of democracy is largely shaped by one's relative position in the majority/minority mix. Now, majorities shift over time, there are regular changes in political party rule, and it is too simplistic to suggest this dynamic is a dichotomy. Rather, dozens, scores, or even hundreds of individual viewpoints may find themselves at any moment in time part of either camp.

For the last 30 years, generally speaking, conservatives have found themselves in the majority camp. Elections might be close, setbacks may happen, but given enough force of will and determination, simply turning up at the ballot box in their numbers would ensure continued dominance.

Meanwhile, others saw themselves on the outside looking in. Blacks, the poor, immigrants...whatever. These were groups often marginalized in practice, if not officially. Enter the community organizer. The concept is as old as time: strength in numbers. Focus. Determination. Collective will to action. The point is to form a single voice out of the chaos of many. It is to stand together to rebalance the political landscape, and reassert the position of the minority in the broader context of the society. Clearly, some of the things advocated by the "community" might be ridiculous, they may be petty, they may be patently wrong. Nevertheless the vital thing is that they find in their unity a certain power. A power to shout out for what they believed is right. A power to demand a seat at the table, or at least a corner in which to stand.

In short: they participate.

Here is where we all can learn. The Libertarian/Conservative message is on the wane. Out of fear people are clinging to Uncle Sam. Maybe the majority/minority mix is changing. In reaction, it isn't beneath us to gather in crowded rooms over cheap coffee to air our grievances. It isn't beneath us to rally around those who share our concerns. It isn't beneath us to spend years to accomplish a goal we think worthy. And it sure as hell isn't beneath us to participate in the democratic process more than once every four years.

And maybe, just maybe those who espouse freedom and limited government need to step up and organize... or be organized.

Let's agitate, irritate, and bloviate over the need to teach economics to every high school student in the country. Why allow the left exclusive rights to be grumpy over educational inadequacy? Organize!

Let's organize to demand school vouchers. Let's reach into neighborhoods where conservatives don't tread, to find allies they shouldn't dread, to promote knowledge for every head. Organize!

Let's create a market driven health care system that isn't hostage to regulation, threatened by litigation, and funded by taxation. Organize!

Let's slow the advance of representation without taxation by making the tax code flat, fair, and fiscally feasible. Organize!

I remember hearing the old union cry: "Early to bed, early to rise, fight like hell and organize!" and thinking what a tired bit of nonsense it was. I also remembering a pastor exhorting our congregation that "O Lutherans, you will tap your toes in spite of yourselves." The pastor's point was that his stereotypically buttoned-down flock would be forced by the moment to express themselves in rhythm. And this is what conservatives must recognize: theirs is not an agitating nature. Theirs is not a marching strand. In short, theirs is not a minority mindset.

Nevertheless, it is time. It is time to stand up. Make a little noise. Fire a few shots over the bow, and never let the country forget the principles which form the foundation of this great republic.

I wonder....

2009-02-26T23:12:00.006-07:00

At one time, did people really run after trains? Hollywood is replete with the gesture. The dramatic moment where our hero must choose between his chugging choo and his loving boo. In a mere moment of musing, I have to ask.... really? I have run to catch a plane, but never with a romantic flare. I was never delayed by a special someone who had to confess a precious something in the last--just the last--precious seconds before my transportation was off sans me. Never did a life transforming moment hinge on the simple fact that this long, steel, coal fired beast would leave me behind.

It must be true that all this celluloid drama meant something. It meant something to the screen writers, and God help us, if it ever really happened, it meant something to us. Perhaps the drama of running to catch a lumbering train had nothing to do with the leaving. Maybe it had nothing to do with the train. Maybe, just maybe, it was all about the time.

In 1920 it was some 3,000 miles between Montana and the east coast. Today it is a few hours, if the connection goes smoothly. I remarked some years ago when I was first forced to deal with Chicago traffic that distance was measured not in miles--which are finite-- but in time, which is not. How far is it to....? "About 20 minutes." What is 20 minutes? That is not a distance. And yet.

In a world where travel required days, if not weeks, and life moved at a corresponding pace, the mere act of running after a train made sense. To miss it might be to miss out on years. A fate could be sealed by the decision to stay or leave. Drama was real.

Today, we too often live in a world that seems always at our command. In an age where New York and Los Angeles are a few hours apart, and marriage and divorce are even handier, time retreats to the background. Whatever we think of our technological prowess, our greatest triumph may have been over time. And yet.

In the end, time is that which we hold most dear, and which we cling to most elusively. When the world seems to quake beneath our feet, and when everything we think we know suddenly rises as so much steam-- let's remember that at one time just making a train on time might have been a life changing event. It might have meant choosing an education over a love, an adventure over a family, or a war over comfort. But in any event it meant a whole lot of time, which was sure to be precious to those who lost out.

Maybe we would all be better off if we had a train to catch.

Deficit to be slashed!

2009-02-21T18:30:00.003-07:00

Well whoop, whoop, whoop. The Obama administration has declared its commitment to slashing the deficit in half by the end of the President's first term. This, they say, will bring it to about $513 billion.

Well grand. During the Bush administration we routinely heard about the unprecedented deficits topping $400 billion. So, President Bush proposed cutting the deficit in half by the end of his presidency--natch.

Imagine our surprise, the slash was overcome by circumstance, the deficit and debt ballooned, Bush left office, and now we get to live the scrip in replay. It isn't that there aren't compelling reasons for the government to be in deficit. It isn't that President Obama's actions are any more gauling that President Bush's.

My point in commenting here is simply this: We are hearing the same old rhetoric that we've heard from presidents for decades. We see the same old earnestness about "needing to spend today, but save tomorrow."

It is all bunk. And most profoundly: It is NOT change we can believe in. Those of us who thought the President's vapid campaign rhetoric would quickly evaporate have not needed to wait long at all. The sad thing is, slowly but surely the country, and then the world will come to the same dissappointing conclusion-- unless the President retakes his message from his handlers.

His weeks of doom and gloom. His calculated public appearances, missteps, and premature announcements. Tax scandals, unfilled cabinet posts. From these he needs not to retreat into a political CYA, but rather to step forth with the boldness that got him where he is.

We're waiting Mr. President, but getting a bit dizzy holding our breath.

The Incredible Socialist Machine

2009-02-13T19:36:00.004-07:00

The Incredible Bread Machine

By R.W. Grant

This is the story of a man whose name
Was a household word: a man whose fame
Burst on the world like an atom bomb;
Smith was his last name; first name Tom.

Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized
In toys, so people were surprized,
When they found that he instead
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!

The way to make bread he'd conceived
Cost less than people could believe!
And not just make it! This device,
Could in addition, wrap and slice!
The price per loaf, one loaf or many,
The miniscule sum of under a penny!

Can you imagine what this meant?
Can you comprehend the consequent?
The first time yet the world well fed,
And all because of Tom Smith's bread.

A citation from the President,
For Smith's amazing bread,
This and other honours too,
Were heaped upon his head!

But isn't it a wonderous thing,
How quickly fame is flown?
Smith, the hero of today,
Tommorow, scarcely known!

Yes, the fickle years passed by,
Smith was a millionaire,
But Smith himself was now forgot,
Though bread was everywhere...
People, asked from where it came,
Would very seldom know.
They would simple eat and ask,
"Was not it always so?"

However, Smith cared not a bit,
For millions ate his bread...
And everything is fine, thought he,
I am rich, and they are fed!

Everything was fine, he thought,
He reckoned not with fate.
Note the sequence of events,
Starting on the date,
On which the business tax went up.
Then, to a slight extent,
The price on every loaf rose too:
Up to one full cent!

"What's going on!" the public cried,
"He's guilty of pure plunder!
He has no right to get so rich
on other peoples hunger!"

(A Prize cartoon depicted Smith,
With fat and drooping jowls,
Snatching bread from hungry babes,
indiferrent to their howls!)

Well, since the public does come first,
It could not be denied
That in matters such as this,
The Public must decide!

So Anti-Trust now took a hand,
Of course, it was appalled
At what it found was going on.
The "Bread Trust" it was called.

Now this was getting serious,
So Smith felt that he must
Have a friendly interview
With the men in Anti-Trust.

So hat in hand, he went to them.
They'd surely been misled;
No Rule of Law had he defied.

But then their lawyer said:
"The Rule of Law, in complex times,
Has proved itself deficient.
We much prefer the Rule of Men,
It's vastly more efficient!

"Now let me state the present rules,"
The lawyer then went on,
"These very simple guidelines,
You can rely upon:
You're gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it's unfair competition if
You think you can charge less!
"A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion...
Don't try to charge the same amount,
That would be Collusion!
You must compete. But not too much,
For if you do you see,
Then the market would be yours -
And that's Monopoly!

Price too high?
Or Price too low? Now,
which charge did they make?

Well, they weren't loath to charging both,
With Public Good at stake!

In fact, they went one better!
They charged "Monopoly!"
No muss, no fuss, oh, woe is us!
Egad, they charged ALL THREE!

"Five Years in jail," The Judge then said
"You're lucky it's not worse!
Robber Barrons must be taught,
Society comes first!"

Now bread is baked by government.
And as might be expected,
Everything is well controlled.
The Public well protected.
True, loaves cost a dollar each,
But our leaders do their best!
The selling price is half a cent.
Taxes pay the rest.

This isn't an original work, nor was I the first to think it was appropriate today.

Why Can't We All Just Fight Like Hell?

2009-02-06T22:54:00.002-07:00

President Obama's signature first act was to be a "stimulus" package of breathtaking proportion. He was to ride into office on a wave of national concensus and push through the Congress one (1) trillion dollars in new spending. He was to wow the members of Congress to such a degree that he would achieve 80 votes in the Senate. He was to heal the nation, bring food to the hungry, heal the sick, and make everyone an expert at Wii tennis.

In turn he has hosted Republicans at cocktail parties and mocked their opposition. He has decried the politics of the past and endorsed Nancy Pelosi's politics of fervent failings. As it stands the "stimulus" is in some trouble. Republicans are standing their ground--or wherever it is Republicans stand. The country is growing skeptical of this breath taking spending plan. Rank-and-file Democrats aren't sure they support $1,000,000,000,000 in government debt. The world has changed since 1.20.09. Reality bites.

In reality our government was set up to dither. It was intended to fret, flail, and falter. It was a train-wreck choreographed by the masters. To steal and adapt a turn of phrase: the process of forming legislation is nasty, brutish, and long. It was never intended to be quick. Never meant to be easy. Does not, and should not lend itself to expediency.

Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, and increasingly Vladamir Putin may issue edicts that abruptly and summarily change course for their nations, but America was formed upon different rules and different ideals. Here even the most pressing issue demands debate, oppossition, and reasoned consideration. Even after a watershed election. Even after a dark period. Even in a crisis.

Second Reactions

2009-01-21T18:04:00.002-07:00

My first instinct was to immediately set down my reaction to yesterday's inauguration. I just caught the swearing in--err, whatever we call it when the Chief Justice incorrectly administers the oath--before darting out to a sales call. Driving across town I contemplated the moment, the man, and the message. I determined to put down fresh thoughts before I was unduly influenced by the endless nattering commentary sure to flow on through the subsequent days.

In the event I did not follow that course, which offers me a great opportunity to instead offer my second reaction. In the intervening hours I have had the opportunity to talk superficially and in depth with several people, to read commentary, listen to talk radio, and even overhear others' conversations. My reaction is one of frustration. A large majority of the country seems drunk on the wine of wishful thinking, while the remainder already ooze the early warnings of a bitter backlash.

Therefore, my second reaction to yesterday's events is that President Obama is the best evidence of the illusion of President Obama. His high-octane rhetorical march into the hearts and minds of Americans has left the country exactly where it has always been: partisan, pollyanish, and prone to swings in political fortunes. The country will periodically get swept up in group-think political movements that will inevitably fizzle out. Eternal struggles for ideological supremacy will continue, and our collective will to ignore these realities will keep us repeating the process.

For all of this, I would like to think there are others who watched the event with a certain awe. As a confirmation of the exceptionalism Americans have often attributed to our republic. As an inspiration in our ability to overcome even the bitterest of social burdens and cultural strains. As a triumph of optimism in the face of tumult.

The inauguration is at root a simple theatrical performance of pomp and circumstance. Yet, it is an important and unique one which should unite Americans in the wonder of our grand experiment. For just one day, we should be able to feel uplifted by patriotism rather than torn by politicalization. We should be able to distinguish between admiration for a moment and adulation for a man. We should acknowledge history rather than indulging hysteria. And we should understand that while there is always a place for skepticism, there need not be a resort to cynicism.

For those who are willing and eager to be swept up in an emotional wave of feel-good hope, get a grip. For those unwilling to grant any quarter for a transcendant national moment, get a clue.

Merry Christmas, Insha'Allah

2009-01-10T18:26:00.015-07:00

The drinking less, eating better, and exercising more has seemed somewhat elusive these early days of 2009. Who really thought those were good ideas anyway?! Nevertheless, my motivation to get my give-a-damn back in order seems more successful. Therefore I thought I would revisit an item I had indifferently passed by in December.

It has been my wont over the course of this blog and in my other writings to vigorously support the sometimes devilishly difficult mission in Iraq. Toward that end I feel compelled to highlight an overlooked development in Baghdad: official Christmas celebrations. It is possible that official government sanctioned recognition of the premier Christian event of the year has not happened in Baghdad since the time of Mohhamad, peace be upon him. Nevertheless, this year found Santa Claus, Christmas trees, and balloons of Jesus treated festively in the city center.

In the words of Major-General Abdul Karim Khalaf, "All Iraqis are Christian today!"

The fact that Iraq's Interior Ministry--once among the most suspected of death squad shenanigan--is sponsoring a high profile Christian celebration could be chalked up to crass publicity. Yet, considering the suffering of Iraq's small Christian minority, and the relatively small domestic audience for pandering, one cannot help but see the jesture as a profound "once-and-for-all" denunciation of sectarian violence. It is if to say, "If Iraq can honor its Christians, its Sunnis and Shia have nothing to worry about."

As Americans have become more familiar than they ever wanted with the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam, and have become accustom to the fighting we were told accompanied a centuries old blood fued, we should take heart in those crudely depicted Santas in the center of the ancient Muslim capitol. Symbols matter, and this was a big one.

Dark is the truth, not the color

2009-01-07T20:24:00.003-07:00

Today was the opening of Colorado's new legislative session, and amongst the pageantry that usually accompanies such events was an historically noteworthy development: the president of the state senate and the speaker of the state house are both black men. This is noteworthy not only because it is unprecedented, but because Colorado has a relatively small black population, and because the state has an unfortunate history of Klan domination.

During the 1920's Klan membership--and more importantly influence-- ballooned in Colorado. It was not uncommon for members of the state legislature to take their KKK whites to the capitol with them in order to avoid an inconvenient trip home to change between governing and rallying. Lest people think of the Klan as an anti-black, racist organization, Colorado proves an important lesson: the KKK of Colorado was concerned with a plan to, "unite Protestants in a crusade that would combat the teaching of evolution and restore faith in God, the Bible, and Christian fundamentals." It depicted as threats Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and blacks.

In 1925 Klan governor Clarence Morley proposed a bill to outlaw sacramental wine. Anyone who thinks the Klan was out to get blacks ought to immediately recognize that this law was out to get Catholics (and I suppose, unwittingly, Lutherans).

I think the lesson is informative. I have written how Colorado was the first state to vote to give women the right to vote-- decades before states in the south. Yet, it is also true that a plague on our nation's conscience--too often thought to have affected the South alone--had a brief but significant life here in our Rocky Mountains.

As we Coloradans look with pride today at our elected leadership, we must remember our dark past. Most profoundly because the ability of bigotry to rear its ugly head in a surprising and dramatic fashion is often unrecognized until years later.

When you consider the mission of the KKK in Colorado: which was to combat an increase in crime, moral laxity, new dances and "titillating" motion pictures, and to unite Protestants to promote Bible fundamentals, one cannot help but wonder whether we are really that far removed from the white hooded menace.

Dr. Dobson call 250. Dr. Dobson call 25o.

Better Days

2009-01-01T20:40:00.003-07:00

I am not the first to say that it has been difficult for me to blog these past weeks. Anyone with a pulse has been affected and dejected by the harsh developments of our world. In these last few months I have come to question some very fundamental aspects of my life: my business, my politics, my economic philosophy, my confidence in my country, and indeed in my own decision making. I don't know what depression is, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn I have experienced it. Nevertheless I remain hopefull.

I've never been one to hold much relevance in New Year's. It has always seemed frightfully arbitrary to me to assign so much significance to one tick of the clock. And yet this year seems in need of a tick and a tock. It is simplistic to categorize a year, and yet it is so easy to castigate 2008 and find in it nothing but hate.

Perhaps celebrating the new year has purpose after all. Beyond the excuse to get plastered mid-week, and to create a pyrotechnic inferno six months before Independence day. It is such fundamental human nature to fall into habit. Steven Covey says that it takes just 21 days to form a habit. 21 days! 21 days of eating wrong, of not exercising, of drinking too much, of giving too little. 21 days of falling into any of a thousand failings and we are set. And so it is that it matters that we restart the calendar. It is an opportunity to focus on resetting out lives. It is a chance to begin 21 afresh. It is a chance we mostly pass up.

So as we embark on this great unkown that is 2009. With a new president. A new start, and a new chance. Let us find 21 days worth of new beginnings that will become a year's worth of better days. In the words of the Goo Goo Dolls-- let's hope that "tonight's the night the world begins again."

General Misery

2008-11-19T20:11:00.007-07:00

In 1953 Charles E. Wilson faced Senate confirmation hearings to ascertain whether he should become Secretary of Defense for President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the event he was asked whether he could make a decision to the detriment of the company over which he presided. He answered in the affirmative, but noted: "for years [I have thought] that what is good for the country is good for General Motors and vice-a-versa." This quote has often been retold as: "what is good for GM is good for America." Regardless of how out of context the quote, it is clear today that neither permutation is accurate.

When Mr. Wilson was giving his testimony, GM was the largest employer in the world. It commanded 54% of the American auto market. It sold more than one out of every two cars in the country. Other than Windows, I'm not sure we've seen such a dominate brand.

By 1979 GM had reached its peak employment at some 853,000 global employees. By 1996 its market share had fallen to 36%. By 2007 to 24%-- BEFORE any financial crisis-- its lowest market share since 1925. In 2008, GM's employment base had fallen to 266,000 global employees. Clearly this is a company in full-on failure mode.

Today the CEOs of the "big" three automakers have been pan handling at Congress for a massive taxpayer backed loan. They have come under the guise of "financial crisis" so as to intimidate the lawyers who pack Congress into believing that the US economy will collapse without them. The facts are clear: the US economy will thrive without them. While they shed jobs and lost market share, the US economy boomed. While they fiddled and their customer base burned, the US did just fine. Today hundreds or thousands of hard working Americans are building cars that Americans want to buy: they work in states like Kentucky and Alabama and North Carolina and Indiana building cars called Toyota and BMW and Subaru.

It is instructive to keep in mind that GM's founder declared bankruptcy and died running two bowling alleys. It doesn't matter how painful-- GM must go.

I Could Hide Out Under There...

2008-11-17T18:38:00.003-07:00

This weekend I sallied forth and did my part to advance the struggling economy of a great nation. I boldly went where I had not gone in a long time: into the land of the discretionary purchase. I put America first.

Simply told I have been quite frugal this past year. After buying a business and leveraging myself into next century, I have found any non-caloric purchase to be excessive. I buy myself food, the dog food, and the car gasoline, but beyond that, nothing else holds much sway with my checkbook. (In the interest of full disclosure I would be remiss if I did not point out that beer is full of calories.)

In our current economic woes it has become clear to me that American consumers are in such a psychological funk that they have deluded themselves into believing that they need not buy anything.... anything at all. This remarkable turn of events has caused what financial big-wigs like to call "a serious recession." Sounds--well--serious. It is toward ending this malaise that I sprang into action on Saturday. I walked into Costco with a list of caloric necessities and a rebellious idea in mind: I will--I committed in the parking lot-- buy something I do not need. I looked over my shoulder to ascertain whether anyone had caught my capitulatory thought. None of the hockey moms hoarding copious amounts of peanut butter seemed to have caught my devious musings.

Inside I had the world at my fingertips. Flat-screen TVs, the latest iPod, books, jeans, water filtering devices. Where to go, what to do? In the end, I bought a 3-pack of underwear. Lest you diminish my service to country, understand that underwear is the most discretionary of all purchases. It serves such little function that a minority cohort of men have forsworn its usage altogether. Underwear is a nasty little garment. It bunches, gathers and pinches in places that leave the bearer to writhe and squirm in agony or risk an unseemly public gesticulation sure to embarrass. Men loath its laundering much less its purchase.

And so it was on this bright November day that I began a new paradigm in American consumer thought. I hate to brag, but I think I have taken one for the team. I encourage all Americans to make a similar sacrifice. If we all do our part, our greatness knows no bounds.

And if nothing else, I did make you say "under where?"

We need to (s)chip away at it

2008-11-10T18:16:00.010-07:00

As should have been manifest in my last post, I have long since made peace with the idea of an Obama presidency. Like many--even most conservative--Americans I am proud and hopeful at the election of an obviously impressive man. This does not mean that I am immune to the recriminations about what has cleaved the G from the O-P. I was born into Reagan and came of age with Gingrich. While the GOP has lately rendered me as skeptical as millions of others, I am not willing to completely abandon ship.

So far the learned opinion I have heard bounced from commentator to commentator offer scant solace. One suggests that the GOP is "wrong to demand sacrifice from the social/religious right," but rather must abandon an increasingly untenable capitalist orthodoxy. The next insists the problem is the party lost its way on fiscal matters and must re-assert its conservative bona fides, but must get past the "failed and divisive social issues." And alas, it is upon this unified foundation we are to rebuild a once great movement.

I cannot here suggest a policy by policy prescription for the party's triumphal rebirth, but I thought I would follow-on a previous lament with a constructive bent.
Incrementalism--as I have written-- is one of my least favorite "isms." Incrementalism has led Americans to accept sweeping encroachment by government that would never have been possible in a transparent proposal. This is a country fundamentally opposed to government control, in love with freedom, and predisposed to self-reliance. Yet, eight decades of gradual, incremental government grasping has produced a nation more at ease with government intervention that ever before. Propose an income tax to punish the very richest with a 1% tax and get the current tax code that is measured in feet-of-shelf-space. Offer basic health coverage to the elderly, expand it to children (the State Children's Health Insurance Program: SCHIP), the poor, government employees, and prescription benefits, and soon the socialization of the whole kit-and-kaboodle is but a pen stroke away. The system is the perverse, but seemingly inexorable force of our republic.

And thus my message for the forlorn of the libertarian and the right: figure out what you hope to accomplish. What adorns your wish list with the greatest of importance? Toward what windmill is it worth the tilt? Upon which hills are you prepared to die? When those questions are answered; take the goal and divide into into a thousand little pieces. Pieces which are innocuous and harmless; primed for compromise and detached from the end. A thousand little "means" which can be checked off in a hard slog toward the "end." Ronald Reagan used to say that he was happy to get 80% of what he wanted and then return for the other 20% later. The real long-term victories have been won by settling for 10% of what is desired every 10 years.

Too often the GOP has painted its goals in sweeping strokes: Eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Amend the Constitution in dozens of ways to allow school prayer, protect the flag from desecration, balance the budget, and impose term-limits on Congress. The party has flailed at "ending abortion" as if such a goal is even possible. Too often it has simply asked voters to indulge its fancy at restructuring government beyond all recognition. But too often it has simple joined the band-wagon: gorging on the largess of government so long as the money goes to the "right" causes. Neither is an effective means of long-term governance.

This approach ought to work better for those of the right, as they have several built-in advantages: at heart, the people are with them; they are far more likely to view government service as a temporary stop than a life-long career; they are by definition more concerned with long-term paradigm than short-term profit. To wit, progressives will vote you a rebate check today while conservatives will ensure an investor friendly environment that guarantees economic prosperity over time. It has been the progressive ability to offer "short-term bang" (for the individual voter), with "long-term gain" (in the movement's agenda)" that has proven so effective at reshaping the political-economic reality we face.

Finally, I suggest that this incremental approach is needed as much within the movement as without. The reunification of the party should start with tiny changes that begin to move disparate factions back together. Nothing should dissuade us from believing that this reunification is required. The inchoate rapprochement between unrelated factions should not be papered over. Rather, leaders within the movement must begin the careful reconstruction of the coalition. Compromise will materialize more rapidly if it occurs block by tiny block.

It seems the only way to advance in American politics is to move so slowly or so stealthily that others are not threatened by your forward progress. The Left has understood this for decades. It is time the Right begin to play for the long-run. Long drives are great for show, but it is the simple putt that wins the dough.

The Lost Five Years

2008-10-27T20:45:00.002-06:00

In the off-Broadway musical "The Last Five Years" a couple tells the story of their relationship from opposite ends of the time perspective. Cathy starts at the end of their marriage and works back to the first date, while Jamie moves in the opposite direction. The two characters meet only once in the production: in the middle, at their wedding.

I cannot help but wonder what this artistic device could teach us about what I'll call "The Lost Five Years." If one character could start today and work backward, and another started in 2003 and moved forward--perhaps meeting on election day in 2004-- what would the story be?

The character moving forward would start with a shocked, angry, and determined nation looking to shake off the dot.com bust and, much more importantly, the grief of 9-11-01. The character moving backward would start with an anxious, angry, and exhausted nation looking to shake off the housing bust, and the legacy of years spent at war in dusty places. Unlike Cathy and Jamie, the intersection would not be a zenith of joy, but rather a surreal moment of uncertainty.

It now seems all too clear that the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 was based on careful strategy rather than electoral enthusiasm. Under Karl Rove's Machiavellian machinations the country went to the polls to reelect W for two reasons: 1) Fear of terrorism, and 2) Fear of gays. By stressing the continued threat posed to "a nation at war," Rove was able to convince a great number of people that John Kerry was not trustworthy. He was in a word: risky. At the same time party activists ginned up panic over the suddenly omnipresent threat of gay marriage. By putting "marriage amendments" on the ballot in key swing states, and riling up the social conservative base, Rove's minions reached record conservative turn-out where it mattered most-- places like southeast Ohio.

Today we are faced with the results of this cynical approach to power: results that we can only realize in hindsight, or through the eye's of our time-twisting characters.

In reality we may need to expand the scope of our project. We could call it the lost 10 years. It seems to me that the country has just wasted a decade. It is probably too early to draw this type of sweeping conclusion, but I pose the question: what has the last decade been about? What major advance have we made? In the span of the 1980's we went from the height of the Cold War to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The economy transformed from industrial to service. In the 1990's we went from an Internet used by a handful of academics to a dot.com for every conceivable product. The economy was internationalized and productivity soared as information technology took hold. Perhaps it is appropriate that we don't even know for sure what to call this decade-- the zeroes? That seems to be exactly what we've gotten out of it.

I submit that the entire decade has turned out to be a non-stop attempt to paper over problems and apply bandages to festering wounds. After the stock bubble burst in 2000 we received massive monetary and fiscal stimulus to prevent the economy from tanking. After 9/11 we received massive monetary and fiscal stimulus to prevent the economy from tanking. The result was a massive growth in cheap credit. While we weren't creating many new jobs or transforming the economy in a meaningful way, we were getting inflated home prices and a false sense of wealth. Unable to catch bin-Laden or even defeat the Taliban, we were busy molesting old ladies at airports and confiscating shampoo. Meanwhile Pakistan, Iran, and Russia slid further into instability as our war strategy for Iraq leered and veered to the point of virtual defeat before being turned around at the eleventh hour. The tax cuts that were keeping the economy out of the morgue were working, but the government was ballooning out of control under the strains of such "quick fix" political posturing as the bloated farm bill and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

The Republican Party ceased to govern effectively or even responsibly while the Democratic Party achieved near hysteria every time Dick Cheney drew a breath. Divorced from its historic principles at home and abroad, the GOP held itself together through 2004 in the way described above. By 2006 the gig was up and wheels were visibly coming off the cart. Not long after, the credit glut the country had feasted on for 8 years was showing signs of strain as housing prices began to collapse. So today we are left with two lingering wars, a who's who of international problem spots, a financial system in crisis, a government rapidly grasping control of the private sector, and a public exasperated and casting about desperately for a solution. At the same time one of our political parties is flirting with a generational collapse.

And so I find myself with the greatest level of cognitive dissonance. I voted for George Bush twice and always very enthusiastically. I still believe that given our choices at the time and knowing what we knew at the time these were the correct choices. However it now seems clear that regardless of whether W is to blame, he has presided over a period of striking disaster. We will never know how things might have ended differently but here we are. So how then to proceed? As the country has bumbled along trying to keep its head above water, it has achieved the late stages of an addict: strung-out, irrational, depressed and staring into the abyss of self-destruction.

And in this lies my dilemma: Electing John McCain seems somehow just another band-aid, another short-term fix with no long-term view. I find almost no manner in which I think John McCain would have a transformative presidency. I don't see a reformed entitlement paradigm, no ownership society, no decline in the growth of government. With a hostile Congress, a weak economy, and a cantankerous populous I'm afraid a President McCain would bob and weave with the same reactionary incoherence displayed by his campaign. At the same time the presidency of Barack Obama seems highly risky. No candidate has had a thinner resume or a more leftist instinct than Sen. Obama. I disagree with virtually every policy he proffers and harbor serious doubts about his foreign policy proclivities.

I cannot and will not vote for Senator Obama. It is against my judgement and my convictions to actively support a man who stands against so many of the things I believe. But if he is to win, I hope that the victory is decisive and the judgement clear. I hope the public will regard the victory as a sort of reboot, and that this restores confidence and a sense of purpose. I hope the country can start to rebuild itself in all the myriad ways it has gone of the tracks. I hope that the Republican Party uses the shock therapy to rise from its own ashes. And I hope that our next five or ten years are about some as yet unknowable progress in the fascinating story that America still has to tell.

Ain't That Quaint

2008-10-16T20:40:00.002-06:00

In 1860 Abraham Lincoln uttered words that ought to ring through to today. Had he not been such an immortal figure, and said so many profound and transitory things, we might remember these few words a bit better. In this current time of our own trial, it is worth noting Lincoln's timeless advice:

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage earner down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

There are countless constituencies in today's Democratic party that profess to advocate this or that freedom. Outrage is easy to muster over a singular and particular civil right. Get real! There is no freedom if there is not economic freedom. You may be this or that minority. This or that underserved class. This or that what-then and who-ever. Our freedom rests upon our self-determination--which is our dreams.

What is the American Dream if it tops out at $250,000? Senator Obama wants every American to go to college, but God help him if he lands a good job. Once you have crossed that delicate line, may you rot in hell you selfish son of a bitch. I don't mind the R rated language, because these people are exploiting and sacrificing our innocence.

As for our current crisis, fail if you're a failure. Retire if you're dead weight. Rise to the occasion if you embrace the spirit of this country, and pray that your fruits will not be stripped from you in the brutal manner of a man who seeks to "spread the wealth around." How disgusting.

"Shooting Kills 4, No One Dies"

2008-10-09T09:08:00.003-06:00

Imagine that on a recent visit to Denver you heard throughout the day the following stories:

1) "An elderly man was brutally shot yesterday as he left National Jewish Hospital."
2) "A black man took a bullet to the back yesterday as he crossed Denver's notorious Colfax Avenue."
3) "A disabled male was a victim of gun violence yesterday. The incident happened at a busy intersection east of downtown. After shooting, the gunman turned the gun on herself."

How many people died? Well, if you are like most people, you will be rethinking your visit to Denver, based on the fact that in just one day you have heard about four shooting deaths the day before.

In fact, there is a broad range of possible answers to the question, ranging from 0 to 4. An optimist may rightly point out that the stories all recounted "shootings" but not "deaths." A discerning listener might see similarities in the stories, and wonder whether they were really separate incidents.

What if the story were told this way:

"An elderly man was caught in the crossfire of a domestic dispute yesterday as he rolled his wheel chair across Colfax Avenue at the intersection of Colfax and Colorado Blvd. The unidentified victim was a black male in his 60's, and was leaving National Jewish Hospital when an apparently enraged wife fired wildly at a man believed to be her husband from across the street. The shooting victim suffered a serious injury, but was listed in stable condition. Eye witnesses said the enraged woman appeared to turn the gun on herself, but that the gun never fired. Police speculate she was out of ammunition at the time of the possible suicide attempt."

Rather than a serious crime wave with four unseemly deaths, you realize a single random act of violence left one man hospitalized but no one dead. This may not dispel the notion that something terrible happened, but it does mitigate your perceptions of crime in the city.

This is a silly scenario, but I think it captures well what unwittingly goes on everday. We are bombarded repeatedly and relentlessly by snippets and sound-bites relaying the sketchy details of one news story or another. Eventually we have heard the same story so many times, and perhaps told in so many different ways, that one single event creates the impression of a widespread calamity.

'The Media" is almost as easy a target as "Wall Street Greed" and "Congress" as bogeyman out to destroy the "People," but I think we need to remember that there is no cabal of news companies plotting every Monday to drum a single story to death. It just happens. No one needs news that isn't compelling or interesting. No one tunes in CNN to hear about cats stuck in trees. In order to sell newspapers and especially to earn TV ratings and advertising dollars, news needs to grip people. When every medium and outlet finds new ways to relay a story in a compelling way 24/7, we unavoidably get the "0-4" scenario I described above.

The key is to be that optimist and a discerning listener and sometimes simply find the off button on the remote.

Cure For the Common Congress

2008-10-01T11:43:00.002-06:00

These days, large, ancient and venerable institutions are failing faster than one can say "mortgage backed securities". However, the destruction is not limited to the financial houses on Wall Street. Indeed, it isn't hard to observe the 110th Congress and conclude that the "People's House" is as vulnerable as the House of Morgan ever was. The functioning of the Congress seems to have devolved to simply earning its 10% approval rating. The latest debacle over the financial investment package serves only like a cruel highlighter drawing across pages of unwelcome news.

It has always been popular to bash Congress, and it has frequently been said that this or that particular Congress has been particularly prone to "doing nothing." Congresses have rarely been popular, and were certainly more corrupt in the past. I do not intend to rehash and rebash. I mean to suggest a remedy for the contagion that grips the cloakrooms of our assembled representatives.

Contemporary political frustrations have usually found one popular remedy for which to champion: term limits. Without delving into the sordid details of gerrymandering districts and other incumbent advantages, suffice to say that the old-fashioned cure of "throw the bums out" just doesn't seem to work very well. Even when bums do find a hard landing, one bum it seems, simply begets another. Term limits, it is argued, ensure that no one bum gets too comfortable, too powerful, or too corrupt. Forced retirement therefore preserves democracy. There are a lot of sensible arguments for this cause, but I have never been comfortable with the concept. In fact I think term limits are counter-indicated.

What then to do? 1) Send more Congressmen to Washington, and 2) Let them stay there longer. For good measure, I would encourage but not insist upon paying them significantly more.

The founder's concept of federalism relied on the notion that the government closest to the people governs best. This is still a worthwhile principle, but we have long since past the Rubicon when it comes to the power of central government. Moreover the country has been experiencing "representation inflation" which serves to compound the problem of moving government to the center.

The Constitution states that, "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand." Over the years the number of Congressmen expanded as the country grew. However, in 1911 the number of Reps was fixed at 435. In 1911, the country had about 92 million people and only 46 states. 4 states and 213,000,000 people later, we still have 435 Reps. This means that a Congressman today represents on average about 700,000 people. In my home state of Montana, one Congressman represents just shy of 1 million. In 1911, each would have represented about 211,000 souls.

In contrast, the British House of Commons has 646 members for a nation of 61 million, the German Bundestag has 614 for its 82 million citizens, Japan's lower house has 480 for its 128 million, and Brazil's Chamber of Deputies sees 513 member for 188 million. This represents a per capita range from 95,000 per MP in Britain, to 366,000 per Deputy in Brazil. Japan at 1 Rep for each 267,000 people is closer to the 1911 level in the US.

This matters. An MP in the UK represents the equivalent of a big town. He is much more likely to know, meet, and be concerned over his 95,000 fellows, than a Congressman who has most of a million voters to reach. Reaching so many people makes politics less retail and less local and much more expensive. Rather than reaching out to friends and neighbors, Congressmen must reach out to television ads. This also makes political campaigns more expensive.

Beyond that, it encourages pet projects. Much easier to justify an ear-mark for the benefit of a million people than 100,000. With more voters in ever more gerrymandered districts, it is much easier for a Congressman to become distant and removed from direct scrutiny.

The representation inflation is compounded by time deflation. An hour is simply far more valuable than in 1789. The trip from Virginia to New York was at the time a harrowing, uncomfortable journey measured in days. Now, Joe Biden famously commutes from Delaware to DC. During the Civil War transportation was breathtakingly fast at 35 mph. Information moved much more slowly. Telegraph wires and phones shortened the time dramatically, but by 1948 information still moved so slowly that Truman could laugh as he held the morning's paper declaring Dewey the winner. No polls had been taken in that race for weeks if not months before the election!

Paradoxically, as the power of an hour has grown and each minute has been packed with more and more information, each one goes by more quickly. Therefore, when larger, less connected constituencies require ever larger sums of money to win elections while a term in office remains a short two years, the focus of members shifts from representing their neighbors to raising money on a perpetual election cycle. The problem isn't money in politics as we often hear. The problem is too few people representing too many people for too short a time.

At the same time, service in the House is such a low-paid, short-term, and risky bet, that many members are simply passing through on their way to a lobbying job. As the Congress has less time, more responsibility, and less experience, the country is increasingly governed by lobbyists and career bureaucrats-- a key reason term limits are a bad notion.

Adding member to the House would accomplish a few things: 1) Reduce each members relative power, and therefore potential for corruption, 2) Reduce the cost of running for and retaining a seat, 3) Increase the familiarity between a Rep and his constituents, thereby making each member more accountable to those he serves, and 4) decrease the feasibility of single district pet projects while simultaneously increasing the competition for funds. This reform is easiest in that it can be accomplished by an Act of Congress.

Extending the length of term is trickier, as it requires amending the Constitution. Anyone thinking they are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, here is where a reform revolution could require foot soldiers. House terms should be 4 years long. Elections can still be timed to provide the "reaction" elections that serve to check over zealous presidents a la 1994. Importantly, the time frame is a more realistic 21st century tenure that should discourage the perpetual fundraising and campaigning that is the breeding ground of corruption. It enables members to learn on the job and to take proper discretion in decision making independent of both bureaucrats and re-election concerns.

The combination of smaller constituencies and longer terms would go a long way in reducing the worst dysfunctions of the Congress. Finding the political will to accomplish both is probably as impossible as, oh, passing appropriations bills on time.

Pitch Forks and Well Trimmed Bushes

2008-09-28T15:09:00.004-06:00

Like most 20 somethings, I spent last Friday evening busily preparing for a big night of excitement. With beer and snacks in abundant supply, I sat down to watch the Presidential debate. I was quickly underwhelmed.

I think it is obvious that both of these men are completely ravaged by the demands of a campaign cycle approaching its third decade. No one can travel thousands of miles, sleep a few hours a night, be constantly guarded in their remarks, and keep abreast of world events for month after gruelling month and be expected to remain anything other than a sound-bite spewing zombie. Such was the train wreck on Friday.

Each man revealed that his well-acknowledged weakness really is. For Sen. McCain it was almost painful watching him flail about on economic matters. His knee-jerk recourse to "ear-mark" spending says more about his fundamental lack of economic understanding than it does about his budget discipline. It seemed clear to me that to John McCain a "hedge" is a well-trimmed bush.

As for Sen. Obama, it is safe to say the man is a quick study. He is now feverishly trying to prevaricate on his more leftish primary comments. His dissembling on "pre-conditions" for talks with ne'r-do-wells versus "preparations" revealed the type of academic hair-splitting that doesn't lend itself to situation room hair-trigger decision making. It suggests a man who views foreign policy like faculty meetings. Everyone hearing everyone out and coming to a learned consensus. It seemed clear to me that to Barack Obama a "Trident" is a three tined fork.

So each man lacks omniscience. Good news then--they're human. The important question is which weakness matters more? For most of the post-war period the verdict of the American people has be crystal clear: foreign affairs trumps economic policy. Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections while Democrats have retained control of the Congress during much of this time. Voters, it seems, aren't as stupid as they seem. They recognize that the President's primary job has become the role as Commander-in-Chief. While Congress may masticate over the vagaries of tax policy, subsidies, the welfare state, and regulation, only the president guides foreign policy, negotiates treaties, free-trade agreements-- and let's be frank, wages war.

There is an exception that proves the rule: in 1992 after Messrs Reagan and Bush had ushered out the Soviet Union, won an overwhelming victory in the sands of Arabia and convinced the American people that they were suddenly exempt from history, Bill Clinton convinced everyone that the economy trumped all else.

Unfortunately, while the Clinton administration was busy making it "about the economy" the world was busy moving through history. Repeated signs of growing threats from the Islamic world went unheeded as we built dot.com fortunes overnight--and seduced interns as we went.

Today, we return to the status quo ante where the president's job is to defend the country, encourage our interests, and manage trade. Whatever else we may believe about the presidency, it does not control or direct the economy. He does control and direct our ambassadors and the Armed Forces.

If John McCain lacks on economic matters, he will have advisers and he gets the big picture. He is right on the areas where the president matters: lower taxes--and yes-- lower regulation.

When it comes to Barack Obama, he will have advisers on foreign policy, but he doesn't get the big picture. America can't make friends through weakness, and where the President matters he gets it wrong-- failure to appreciate the Islamic threat, and an over estimation of his own power of persuasion.

Each of these men is flawed. I'll take the flaws that don't matter over the ones that do every time.

Enough of the Greed Garbage

2008-09-19T17:58:00.006-06:00

There are few concepts more intentionally misunderstood in American discourse than the broad target of "greed." When politicians fail, and markets falter, and people lose money we can all count on an army of commentators rushing forth to dispense the cause par excellance of all that ails us: greed. Corporate greed, Wall Street greed, five little letters to whip the masses into a frenzy of anger and self-righteousness. Greed unites religious rhetoric with the Marxist variety. It turns a Republican into a populist overnight, and turns a Democrat into a Socialist by lunch.

What a heaping pile of stinking, putrid, vile garbage.

According to the dictionary, "Greed" is "a selfish, excessive desire for more of something than is needed." Fine. This is, after all, a cardinal sin.

What then, does it mean to "desire more of something than is needed?" The Pied Pipers denouncing greed would be well served to open their wee-little minds a crack to ponder that question. I would suggest that "need" for a human being could be defined as the following: 2000 calories per day, 48 oz. of water per day, a dry bed, and enough clothing to maintain an approximate body temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. These conditions are what are needed to maintain life. Perhaps the inclusion of a degree of psycho-babble should be allowed: I am willing to include the "need" for 1 other human being for companionship. With these ingredients man could survive, worship his God, and return upon his death to the elements of the planet.

Too harsh? Isn't anything else a selfish, excessive desire for more than one needs? After all, if I desire 2,500 calories, I am robbing 500 calories from another living creature. If I desire water beyond my 48 oz. I am taking water from another. If I secure a living space that keeps not only my bed dry, but my cooking spot as well, I am seeking shelter that another could use. I am being selfish and excessive. I don't "need" any of these luxuries to survive. When food runs short, you can bet my neighbors will demand my extra 500 calories. I am a greedy sonofabitch.

Our world and our great nation have been built by the process of greed. The righteous hunger within each breathing human is to do a bit better than his parents, his neighbor, and his rival. This quest led man to stop wondering and start planting; to stop hunting and start grazing; to give up needle and thread for loom; ox for steam engine; slave for gin; and sweat for thought.

Greed is the quest for the writer to be read, for the poet to be understood, for the artist to be appreciated, the song-writer to be heard, and the athlete to be rewarded. It the quest for the father to give his children their own room, for the mother to prepare more than her family can eat, and for the businessman to sell more than he did last year. It is the quest to stretch the bounds of human accomplishment; to shoot for the moon because we think we can. To make music portable, bathrooms sanitary and indoors, transportation faster and safer. It is the quest to live in climates that are too cold and too hot and too dry. It is the quest to read, watch, and enrich ourselves through song and thought. It is the quest to build temples to our gods, shrines to our heroes, and amusement for our children.

Greed is a trillion steps trod by an army of generations and civilizations in the battle to express the human spirit--which is the Holy Spirit-- on a battlefield of trial and desperation. It is the tears and laughter of Ages. The dreams of those who came before and the promise of those who follow.

The desire for more of something than is needed is the mission of our race, the purpose of our breath, and the reason of our being.

The real sin of excessive want comes in the form of those who have not earned and do not deserve the fruits of others' labor. The leeches who stand ready to suck dry the accomplishments of the intrepid souls who brave the new frontier. The yawning mouths of baby birds who wish to feed on the surplus of others while uselessly taking up space. The victims who count on the blood of heroes to secure their sad and hollow existence.

Let not he who has never created attack the creator. Let not he who has never risked attack the gambler. Let not he who has never added a new thought, an innovation, or an efficiency criticize those who reach beyond, imagine the best, and strive for the better.

To those impotent, cynical, parasitic drones who lash out at the game changers and the front line capitalists who rise and fall on their initiative, creativity, and luck; who bring us iPods, and the Internet, and hybrid cars; who save our lives with mind-boggling chemistry; who keep us in touch with cell phones I say: all you really need is to eat, sleep, and die.

Finger. Dam. Finger. Damn. Hello!.... Hell...o...Hell hole.

2008-09-15T19:21:00.015-06:00

I am very nearly too exasperated to bother commenting on the financial crisis (and by now it is a crisis) facing Wall Street. There seems to be near unanimity from Obama to O'Reilly and from Cramer to McCain: greed and a lack of government regulation is to blame for the current crisis. Everyone is tripping over themselves to denounce the greed of Wall Street bankers and the failure of the federal government. Like a good lawyer joke, you can never lose the audience with this type of tale. Unfortunately it is all balderdash. Financial problems are not the result of a lack of regulation, but a product of regulation and the social engineering which represents real greed.

Our current woes stem from the drunken indulgence in home mortgages that occured over the last decade. Lenders gave ever greater quantities of money to ever riskier borrowers to buy ever larger homes. The question is, why? Why would companies whose job was to value risk suddenly lose all perspective and grant $200k home loans to a household earning $30k/year? Why would banks offer up loans for 100% of a home's value, or with no proof of income. Was it that they were predators? Was it their greed? No. It was the typical unintended consequences of government's good intentions.

Beginning in the mid-'90s the Clinton administration sought to dramatically expand the level of minority home ownership. Through regulation and incentives it encouraged quasi-governmental agencies--like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-- and actual government agencies like the FHA to make lending easier for people on the margins of home ownership. In the name of good social policy and justice, the federal government actively encouraged lending to people without the ability to repay. Once Fannie and Freddie began buying mortgage securities with the full faith and credit of the taxpayer behind them, they could out-compete private lenders. With low equity requirements and almost free borrowing capacity as government guaranteed entities, Fannie and Freddie created an enormous upset in home mortgage lending.

Perhaps we should digress. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created as so-called "government sponsored enterprises" or "GSE's." Technically the companies were private and publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. However, the implicit guarantee that the federal government stood behind them, gave them a huge advantage in debt markets. The riskier a company is, the more it has to pay to borrow money. With the feds as a backstop, Fannie and Freddie could borrow money more cheaply than any of their private sector rivals, that is, banks.

With Fannie and Freddie borrowing ridiculously cheap money to buy ever more mortgages, private banks were put in an uncompetitive situation. In order to make loans at all, they needed to find ever more creative and lenient ways of writing mortgages. This created a vicious circle. Banks outcompeted each other while Fannie and Freddie Hoovered up the mortgage backed securities that resulted. As mortgages became cheap people bought ever more expensive houses, which pushed home prices up.

Eventually too many people found themselves in houses they couldn't afford. Prices collapsed, the banks lost money. All the mortgages Fannie and Freddie sucked up went bad and the tax payer got the check. All this because Bill Clinton and others wanted to give the poor a shot at the American dream. If only government could make houses easier to buy.

However, what they were really doing was creating a short-cut to the American Dream. An express lane paved with Treasury gold. Rather than work hard, save, obtain and education, give your children the best you can and hope they can achieve more than you dreamed--this was the patht to the American Dream--government would tell those mean (might we say greedy?) bankers to loosen the purse strings and dole out loans.

And they were mighty successful. President Bush was able to crow early in his presidency that minority home ownership was at record levels. Millions of Americans took lavish vacations, upgraded vehicles, and added an RV on the sudden equity they found in their homes. The good times were rolling along. Unfortunately, like all artificial meddling in the market, we created unavoidable consequences, and it turns out, we were simply surfing on the crest of the Tsunami that would destroy us.

Mark My WORieDS

2008-09-12T20:26:00.003-06:00

October 1, 2oo8 and Barack Obama continues to trail McCain-Palin. The Democrats are in a panic. The news media are apoplectic. How could the Messiah not be running away with this? A pasty white senior citizen with a penchant for war is losing to the Dear One?

Bee-dee-beep, beeedeeedeeee beedeee: Here is the breaking news with all the news that is news across the nation:

I Joe Biden, with severe regret and deepest sadness come to you today to announce a personal tragedy. With severe ingrown hair plugs plaguing me, I must focus on my health, and will unfortunately be unable to serve as your vice-president. No, no. Please, please... you are too kind. I want nothing more than to fight for you as I've always fought for you. I want nothing more than to go to Washington---errr return to Washington---to begin--err resume-- my efforts to remake government. I thank you all for your kind wishes. God bless you. God bless America.

October 2, 2008 and Democrats are reeling. With the sudden, unexpected, and tragic loss of Joe Biden, the Democrat ticket is in a panic. The news media are apoplectic.

Bee-dee-beep, beeedeeedeeee beedeee: Here is the breaking news with all the news that is news across the nation:

I Hillary Clinton, with great humility and deepest respect come to you today to announce that upon great reflection, and in service to the nation, I have agreed to replace the ailing Joe Biden and fortunately serve as your vice-president. No, no... please, please... you are too kind. I want nothing more than to fight for you as I have always fought for you. I will go to Washington---errr return to Washington-- and do my best to be an imperfect replacement for the great Joe Biden. God bless you. God bless America.

9/11

2008-09-11T20:02:00.001-06:00

It was shocking
It was unprecedented
It was horrible.

We came together
We came to wonder
We came through.

I hope we remember
I hope we reflect
I hope we endure

It still rattles
It still saddens
It still matters.

Life is like a box of....

2008-09-06T18:26:00.002-06:00

So if you are going to be wrong it helps to be proven wrong by degree. Thinking Sen. Lieberman was John McCain's most radical choice, I endorsed it. My idea of shaking things up, reclaiming the mantel of change, and appearing "grown-up" was only one-uped by Mr. McCain in the end. Gov. Palin was a humbling experience for me: I follow politics closely, delve into details, and have been doing so for a long time. Mrs. Palin caught me just as off-guard as the next guy.

While the media initially thought the choice was a desparate attempt to woo Hillraisers, the truth was revealed in the past week. Brilliant. Brilliant. Brilliant. Facing the first executive decision of a lifetime Sen. Obama flinched. John McCain showed why he is a major party nominee at 72 and despite quibbles with the establishment. The man understands what America needs. Good on him. Good for us.

I wonder how far this limb will bend...

2008-08-27T09:56:00.003-06:00

The Wall Street Journal opinion page featured an article arguing that Sen. Lieberman is a bad veep choice for McCain. The link is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121979692393374851.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

I know this debate will be moot within 72 hours, but to ensure future laughs at the expense of past follies, I will perpetuate this misbegotten notion one step further.

I disagree with Mr. Olsen's premise. I do not believe the McCain-Lieberman ticket represents a "war ticket." I don't suppose it necessary or even useful to have Mr. Lieberman on the ticket on the basis of foreign policy at all. Lincoln may have calculated he needed Johnson to preserve the union, but Mr. Olsen is quite right in saying that such an effort is uncalled for here.

Rather I take as my premise that the country is in a terribly foul mood. That Mr. Obama has energized people to an astonishing degree as a result of his incessant invocation of "Change," and that he is such a light-weight that in my opinion his presidency could be a disaster.

I further hold as self-evident that Mr. McCain respects and listens to Mr. Lieberman. He will be influenced by this counsel, with or without the latter in the West Wing. Also, Mr. McCain will almost certainly face if elected, a large Democratic majority in the Senate. Working with Democrats won't be an option, it will be of necessity.

Therefore, given Mr. McCain's demonstrated willingness (some might say eagerness) to work across the aisle, the numeric realities he will face in the next Congress, and the potential juggernaut of a re energized Mr. Obama: he might as well shake up the race through a bold, unusual step.

In my opinion, Mr. Lieberman uniquely lends himself to this role NOT because he is a hawk, but because he has demonstrated himself to be a man of unusual character and principle. This is true in risking his senate seat to support the war, but also in risking his political home to demonstrate incredible personal loyalty to Mr. McCain. If he can do this on the campaign trail, he can certainly be expected to do this in the White House.

The added "downside" conservatives might fear in having Mr. Lieberman officially inside the West Wing as opposed to unofficially inside do not outweigh the narrative of a novelty ticket that would empirically "change the way politics work in Washington," as opposed to some dream sequence conjured up in the loquacious prose of Mr. Obama.

Fear and Trembling

2008-08-24T17:02:00.003-06:00

I was going to blog about life in the police state that Denver's LoDo has become since the Democratic Convention arrived, but I thought better of it. Too many men with intimidating weapons lurking on every corner to risk having the post read by someone deep within Big Brother.

So I thought I would take a different sort of risk. After rather broad but shallow thought (this will be about politics afterall), I think I am ready to endorse Sen. Joe Lieberman to be John McCain's Vice-Presidential nominee. There are a number of things I think this accomplishes:

1) It forces Democrats to attack a man who was their own VP nominee just 8 years ago. It would be very interesting to see Democrats argue that everything that recommended Lieberman for the vice-presidency in 2008 has vanished.

2) Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden makes the Democratic ticket look like Daddy Daycare. It was a gross admission that Barack needs an adult looking over his shoulder. McCain-Lieberman screams: "Let the grown-ups talk, dear."

3) It completely destroys what might be left of Obama's "Change" message. It would be a razor sharp signal. You want change? You are tired of the same old Washington politics? You want to fundamentally change the way things are done in D.C.? OK. Here's how real leaders "do change." Let's try the first bi-partisan ticket in 150 years.

Whearas Obama reverts to the 5th longest serving man in the Senate, and somehow passes this off as change, McCain can point to a truly fundamental change. Game. Set. Match.

4) Lieberman would still be the first Jew nominated for the vice-presidency. While this takes a backseat to Obama's cache, it could certainly help McCain with an Obama-skeptical Jewish constituency that could mean the margin of victory in Florida.

5) Joe Lieberman is a man of genuine, deep religious faith, and a man of universally recognized good-will. I think social conservatives would be more accepting of Sen. Lieberman given what he clearly adds than conventional wisdom might suggest. It is also easily established that McCain is the pro-life president, leading a pro-life administration, and appointing judges. Out of pure conjecture I think Lieberman is possibly more acceptable than a Republican in the mold of Rudy Giuliani.

The counter-argument is also compelling, though:

-1) No Republican is being groomed by means of the vice-presidency to himself run for president in the future. McCain would in effect be cutting the farm team off at the knees. However, few vice presidents actually go on to win the presidency. Just ask Presidents Rockefeller, Mondale, and Gore. Perhaps the better farm team is in the governor's mansion.

-2) At age 72, there is the unusual risk of Joe Lieberman actually becoming president without running for the office. This would up-end the politics at the top, and seriously damage Republican policy goals. To answer this I would assert that a couple of years of President Lieberman as an outside possibility strikes me as decidedly better than a guaranteed 4 years of President Obama.

-3) Any enthusiasm the conservative base has been building up for McCain would be lost overnight. They'll stay home and cost McCain the election. In reallity if the prospect of 60 Democratic Senators, the Pelosi House Part II, and President Obama with 2 or 3 retiring Supreme Court justices doesn't motivate the base, then I'm not sure they deserve to be pandered to.

Here I stand. I can do no other.

Booze Report II

2008-08-18T19:02:00.003-06:00

USA Today reports that about 100 university presidents have signed on to an initiative designed to pressure lawmakers to lower the drinking age from 21. This is a debate with which cynics will have a field day. It is only, the argument will go, to avoid their own liability that these presidents are attempting to corrupt our youth.

I say high time we have a serious debate on a questionable policy. My perspective on the issue is one of my more enduring.

In 1997 as a tender pup I had the experience of serving as a Montana Boys State delegate. This week of soon-to-be high school seniors playing politics actually carried a tone of seriousness that I hadn't expected to find. Perhaps too much seriousness.

Having been duly elected to a Boys State Senate seat, I spent my time in debate and parliamentary procedure while my fellows played basketball (an early education in who gets elected and why). While the BS Senate was happy to pass a number of resolutions by acclamation, I sometimes found myself standing alone or nearly alone. Not surprisingly this often involved issues that offended my libertarian leanings (a cause to which I am no Johnny Come Lately.)

One of these issues was the drinking age. A proposal to announce that the sense of the Montana BS was that the drinking age ought to be lowered from 21 caused a lot of debate. My fuzzy memory is that the prevailing opinion was that we would not be taken seriously if we proposed lowering the drinking age. Precisely the sort of irresponsibility expected of adolescent boys. Sure to convince our elders of our ineligibility for leadership. Therefore by a yawning majority we voted to maintain the 21 status quo. And by "we" I mean "they". Despite the fact that I was probably one of the few there who actually abided by the law (where it was the law), I rejected the notion that bona fide adults should be denied a basic freedom.

Then as now I think one thing is clear: appearance is more important than substance. At that time a bunch of 17 year old boys had the presence of mind to determine what the broader audience wanted to see and to believe about our conclave. Keeping up appearance was better than supporting principle (I wonder how many of my colleagues are now in actual elected office?).

Today it would seem that keeping up the appearance of condemnation is more important than the practical consideration of whether the law is useful, just, or even the best way to discourage youthful indiscretion. If we just say we're against it, then we've done our job. No matter how many college kids die in binge drinking escapades. Hey, we said it was illegal, didn't we? This effort to wash the collective hands, while avoiding the demands of liberty and even outcome is all too common in our politics. Perhaps we should listen to the learned whose job it is to oversee our tender youth.

35,000,001

2008-08-17T18:17:00.003-06:00

It seems I may be the only person in America who's not read "The Purpose Driven Life." Rick Warren's runaway best-seller notwithstanding, I had very little insight on the man until last night's presidential forum. I watched out of boredom, and must say I was duly impressed. I think the Rev. Warren may have accomplished more than the Commission on Presidential Debates has managed in decades. In mirror image hour-segments with each candidate, the pastor served as journalist, spiritual leader, and all around American-Everyman. He asked difficult questions that extracted thoughtful answers. I cannot help but think that virtually every journalist in the country should have been embarrassed to watch. I thought I would give my brief commentary on the exchange.

The first observation is that-lo and behold- both men are, well, mortal men. What better place than a church to be reminded of this.

Because the forum focused on substance, John McCain performed far better than Barack Obama. Nothing illustrated this better than each man's answer to a question about their most gut-wrenching decision.

Obama: Whether to oppose the Iraq war as a Senate candidate in 2002 given that Saddam Hussein was a bad man.
McCain: Whether to accept early release from a North Vietnamese prison camp when in severe physical condition.

Also highlighting Obama as a lightweight was a question that asked an example of crossing party lines to potential detriment.

Obama: Working with John McCain on ethics reform (2003)
McCain: Opposing President Reagan's plan to send peace keepers to Beirut (1983)

Also telling is the untold details of this answer. Obama abandoned the bi-partisan effort at the last minute to back the Democrat proposal--resulting in an angry letter from McCain. McCain proved precient when an October bomb killed over 100 U.S. Marines in Beirut resulting in their hasty withdrawal (and an early signal of American "weakness" to al-Qaeda).

Each candidate had good and bad moments. Obama's gaffe was picking on Justice Clarence Thomas as a bad Supreme Court pick because of his lack of experience! Well, looked in a mirror much Senator? McCain's was his irritating reliance on two phrases: "My friends" and "a cause greater than our own self-interest." Put them to bed already. One is annoying, the other silly (I'll let you decide which is which).

Best moments:
Obama on Evil. He seemed to get that evil is a cosmic force that manifests itself in myriad ways. He also acknowledged that its defeat is the purview of God. McCain in contrast conflated Evil with the evil of al-Qaeda and so played to a stereo-type of always returning to war when in a pinch.

McCain on education. Simple direct 'yes' to merit pay for teachers, choice, and vouchers. His best line may have been, "... and help bad teachers find new lines of work."

Equal-opportunity criticism:
Marriage. According to many commentators they both, "said what they needed to say regarding marriage." The subtext here is that Obama may offend evangelical voters re: abortion, but at least he is "right" on marriage. Considering that each man defined--this is what Pastor Warren asked--marriage as, "a union of one man and one woman," I have to ask, Really? Is that the definition of marriage? We have sunk so low as a society that marriage is literally defined by what it is NOT? Perhaps those who purport to value marriage might consider expanding that definition to something like taking another person to have and to hold for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health... until death parts them. Call me crazy. Forest. Trees.

On balance I think the contrast offered was quite good. Senator Obama is clearly a thoughtful, intelligent man. He noted that he likes to surround himself with a diversity of opinion so that he can fill any "blindspots" that he might have. This seems like exactly the sort of thing an inexperience young man ought to do. Probe. Question. Absorb. Debate. John McCain carried the clarity of years and the school of life. He was decisive, quick, witty, and sincere.

Kudos to Rick Warren for freshening the political season in a meaningful way. If only everyone hadn't been watching the Olympics.

The (Evil) Empire Strikes Back

2008-08-11T19:20:00.004-06:00

I have spent most of the day trying to concentrate on business, the dog, anything other than my growing outrage over Russia's invasion of Georgia (the country, not the bell of the south). I must admit, I was initially sort of ambivalent. Today my mind has been focused and the resulting conclusions are neither warm nor fuzzy.

On November 11, 1918 the world ended a grizzly conflict of unspeakable human tragedy. World War I was so gruesome many thought Mars had taken his last gasp. However we now know what really happened. The victorious parties took revenge on the Central Powers, stripped them of territory, and left them feeling weak and humiliated. New countries emerged from nowhere overnight. The map of Europe changed.

In the wake of this Germany stirred restlessly. She struggled politically, socially, and economically. She seethed and bid her time, until 15 years later she found a leader with great promise. This leader came to power through democratic means. He gave the nation hope and helped heal her wounds. Over time he started to consolidate power. The legislature became a rubber stamp. Though he was chancellor, he soon assumed the powers of the presidency as well. As he led on, Germany rallied around him. With growing confidence they ignored his autocracy. They felt comfortable exerting themselves more forcefully in European affairs again.

In 1991 the world saw the end of a long grinding conflict that corrupted and distorted the politics and economics of the world for decades. Its battles were fought in places like Korea, Greece, Vietnam, and Cuba. It kept the world in fear of annihalation. At the end of the Cold War the loser was stripped of territory, left feeling weak and humiliated. New countries emerged overnight. The map of Europe changed.

In the wake of this Russia stirred restlessly. She struggled politically, socially, and economically. She seethed and bid her time until a leader with great promise burst on the scene. The leader came to power through democratic means. He gave the nation hope and helped heal her wounds. Over time he started to consolidate power. The legislature became a rubber stamp. Though he was Prime Minister, he continued to assume the power of the presidency. Russians rallied around him. With growing confidence they ignored his autocracy. They felt comfortable exerting themselves more forcefully in world affairs again.

What comes next is the frightening part. It has been about 7 years since I read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," but if I remember correctly, Hitler started his war in Europe by ginning up a crisis over a separatist part of Czechoslovakia. The Sudetenland was dominated by ethnic Germans, and Hitler's argument was that Germany would defend Germans wherever they happened to be. Of course we know the rest of the story. Chamberlain declared "peace in our time," gave Sudetenland to Germany in September, and by March Germany had gone ahead and taken the rest of Czechoslovakia as well--just for good measure.

Today Russia has ginned up a crisis over a separatist part of Georgia. South Ossetia has ethnic ties to Russia and Russia has given the Georgian citizens of South Ossetia Russian citizenship. Surprise, surprise Russia now asserts that she will "defend Russian citizens wherever they may be." Much as European powers encouraged Czechoslovakia to comply with Germany to avoid conflict before 1938, Europe and the U.S. have been urging Georgia to appease the Russians.

Russia has invaded Georgia. A red line has been crossed. We need Churchill, not Chamberlain.

This outrage cannot stand.

Sunday-Go-To-Meetin'

2008-08-09T18:17:00.011-06:00

It is a rural colloquialism that would be at home in Dan Rather's Texas I suppose, but I remember it from my hometown as well: "Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes". That one suit owned by a man of modest means. A farm wife's best dress. The article of clothing you wore to all the important events: church on Sunday, weddings, funerals, and the occasional community meeting. This is a mentality that has substantially faded if not entirely disappeared in much of American culture, the notion that one needed to look one's best, portray a not-quite-true image. A nice suit that suggested you could afford a nice suit. A new dress that disguised the sacrifices made to buy it. An effort to appear at one's best despite the hardships of one's worst.

The Olympics have reminded me of this tradition. The press have gone above and beyond to stress to an American audience that these Olympic Games represent an ascendant China. A nation that will supplant America and make the 21st century theirs. Upon watching the Opening Ceremony of the XIX Olympiad I can certainly see the enthusiasm. China threw a party of truly spectacular and dramatic proportions. I was impressed. The newly constructed venues are visually compelling. The show orchestrated for the ceremony was breathtaking in its scale and scope. This of course is the underlying metaphor for China: so big it is hard to comprehend. So then the 21st century is to be the Chinese Century according to the fawning commentators gasping for air in the Beijing smog. I am not so sure.

If the 20th century has been the American century is worth considering why it was so. It is not that the United States became the world's largest economy. Not that she floated the largest Navy, nor that she thrice saved the world from tyranny. Not that she served as the breadbasket for the world, nor that she created its most universal cultural icons--music, fashion, movies. It isn't that Americans created enormous scientific and technological breakthroughs that advanced the standard of living for all. It isn't that America became an aspirational destination for 10s of millions of people from around the globe. It is that America did all of these things simultaneously through good governance, sound institutions, and sweeping personal freedom.

China through sheer size will most likely have the world's largest economy soon. It is certainly a country to take seriously-- no longer an exotic land of silk and fortune cookies. But what on earth suggests it has risen to rival America's place of world leadership? It is a nation of enormous poverty, creaking, corrupt institutions, and a totalitarian, single-party governing system. It lacks natural resources and agricultural lands. It has no personal or religious freedoms, and no tradition of integrating foreigners. It has not earned prosperity through innovation, but by "virtue" of having an enormous, dirt-cheap labor force. Not even the accurate saw that "the West invents and Japan perfects" has yet become applicable to China.

The nation may aspire to the tallest building, the largest shopping mall, the biggest dam and the largest number of gold medals, but to what do these things amount? These Olympics seem to be proving the ability of an autocratic regime to compel grand projects and feats from its people, but after all the Pharaohs long ago taught the world what could be accomplished with an endless supply of cheap labor and a whole lot of vanity.

Geo-economists have been talking for a decade or so about the "BRIC" countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. These are to be the emerging countries that will change the global economy and possibly balances of power. I realize that the letter are arrange phonetically, but I would put them in that order of significance as well. Brazil is a resource rich nation with a solidifying tradition of competent, competitive democratic government. It can draw the South American continent together into a much more significant world role. Russia has an infrastructure of empire, is resource rich, and geopolitically important from Europe, through the Middle East, and into Asia. This is a country that borders Finland, Afghanistan, and the United States. India has a messy but solid democratic tradition and an incredibly resourceful people. Its economy remains hamstrung by a disastrous 20th century daliance with socialism, but the success of Indians in every field--medicine, technology, entrepreneurship, and politics--outside of India, show the nation's potential.

Meanwhile China has a dangerous political regime. A demographic crisis which sees far too many boys for the number of girls (a generation of men unable to find wives is rarely a civilizing force), and a yawning gap between its rich cities and its impoverished countryside. It faces environmental challenges of--well--Chinese proportions. It has a hunger for resources that it cannot satisfy at home. Its people have been traumatized into a collectivist insecurity.

The 21st century may very well see the decline of universal American hegemony, but I find it quite hard to believe China will take her place. So enjoy the games, marvel at the bird's nest, and by all means be impressed by the opening ceremony.

But remember that the choreographer for that ceremony--Shen Wei--came to the United States to perfect his dance craft and has lived here since the early 90s. Consider that Shen Wei nearly backed out a year into the project to protest China's treatment of Tibet. And realize that the Beijing Games are nothing more than China's Sunday-go-to-meetin' clothes.

2036 Here I Come

2008-08-04T20:01:00.002-06:00

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.

I come here today, without presumption, and in deep reflection to declare my candidacy for the presidency... in 2036. I will be 56 years old. Comfortably mature, but not yet old. The country needs change, and I am just the candidate to bring it.

This journey will be long. It will be tough. Together we can be the change we have been waiting for. Now, granted, this will require a lot of campaigning, fund-raising, and rallies, but what is 28 years here and there? It is important to start early. To fight the good fight. Will you join me?

No? Rats.

Our interminable campaigns are starting to show their folly. It is impossible to know 2 years in advance what the "big issue" will be 2 years hence. It is impossible to have such clairvoyance as to predict the winning issues, the miracle message.

In 1992, Bill Clinton became an official candidate in the fall. In 2008 Hillary Clinton had already been a candidate since 2002. Barack was official in the spring. The folly that follows is absurd.

Hillary was pro-war when pro-war seemed cool. She expected to ride strong national security credentials to the White House in a country that was fervently post 9/11. Rudy Giuliani expected to do much the same.

Meanwhile, the world changed. Barack Obama arose from the dust of Chicago to give hope to a new vision: war was wrong, is wrong, and will remain wrong. After more than a year of campaigning, the Democrats stumbled there way into an Obama candidacy.

Ooops! Imagine our surprise. Success in Iraq now seems probable, making Hillary prescient while Obama's raison d'etre evaporates before his eyes. Meanwhile, the economy supposedly sucks. OK, Obama's reprieve. Nope. It turns out economic woes have much to do with energy prices, and Obama just seems a little behind the curve.

Ergo, John McCain's strength: national security seems to be on the rise. Barack's strength: anti-war seems amiss. John McCain's weakness: the economy seems rather in hand if energy is the issue. Barack's strength becomes fleeting.

Recall that George W. was elected on a domestic agenda in a post-history America flush with cash. He quickly became the national security president we needed. NOTHING in the 2000 campaign would have suggested 9/11, and therefore it was never contested.

The lesson here is simple. The person matters. Trying to lure the public's vote on narrow issues is sure to fail when the campaign stretches to years. BUT, electing a man of experience and character will ensure success in any event. Maybe this year that man was Hillary Clinton, but it sure isn't Barack Obama.

Campaigns are too long. The attempt to pander foolish. The need for leadership enduring.

Did I beat David Gergen!

2008-08-02T18:19:00.003-06:00

I figure that the catalog of hymnody for Barack Obama is probably growing rapidly. In an effort to be on the leading edge, I decided to employ my deepest Lutheran conditioning to offer this hymn to the One:

(Tune: "Immortal, Invisible, God only Wise")

Immortal, so visible, B'rack only Wise,
Your voice on our TV brings tears to our eyes.
Most blessed, most glorious, the future of days,
For change sake, victorious,
Thy great name we praise.

Protesting, still growing, and our shining light,
Power wanting, presumpting, you'll rule us in might.
For justice raise taxes high on all below,
Your platform needs
Mountains of money to go.

To us change you bring forth, cut down great for small,
'till all of us live just as broke as them all.
None blossom nor flourish or make real money,
That's fairness and justice,
As determined by thee.

Hurray for tomorrow, with change we need now,
No trouble or sorrow for us thanks to thou.
We've passion and fervor, young age on display,
We're endlessly rooting
Barack on his way.

Great brother of glory, our beacon of light,
The press corp adore thee, keep you in our sight.
Be good and be gracious, free healthcare impart,
Bring cheap gas to us,
and unions to Wal-Mart.

In case you missed it....

2008-07-16T15:20:00.001-06:00

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

All Creatures Great and Ill

2008-07-14T17:19:00.003-06:00

I just returned home from an erand, but the trip is the important part. As it was timed, I had just enough road to get me through one story on NPR. The story struck me not only in its content, but also in that it brought a host of other recent stories to a focal point in my mind. I'm not sure how to write this smoothly, so bear with a series of digressions as we go along.

The NPR piece was on the advancements of veterinary medicine. The lead in case study was about a man and his goose--Boswell. Boswell it turns out has had a bad run at being a goose. While many geese can live for decades, Boswell has suffered from cancer. This story might have ended with Christmas dinner, but not so for Boswell. This goose has received surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and asundry related medical care to the tune of $20,000. No, I mean that many zeros: $20,000. Boswell's owner--err, human companion--paid $8 for him at a feed store. I don't mean this for shock value, stay with me.

Boswell's story reminded of something I thought I remembered glancing past in today's New York Times. Upon returning home I retrieved the paper and sure enough there it was--whereas the New York Times prints ALL the news that's fit to distort, I hadn't taken time to read the article originally--an editorial piece of Spain's recent legislative action to grant legal rights to apes.

Then I thought of my employee who has missed a not-insignificant amount of work over the past several months to care for his ailing cat which is almost as old as he is, and has required repeated surgery as of late. I thought of the pet sitter who listed for me the elaborate ritual of preparing the wards meals and the delicacy of providing the dog enough bed space. I thought of the veterinarian who advised me that whereas my dog may have food allergies, she advised a diet of duck and potato (at least it wasn't goose!).

Now, a post to this blog in the distant past reflected on the unique importance of dogs, and indeed there seems to be some scientific proof of this. I have heard it reported that dogs seem not to replace human companionship, but rather to complement them in unique ways. For example, studies show that during periods of extreme stress a dog can serve to lower one's blood pressure, where no human can: not a spouse, child, or friend.

Back then we go to Boswell. I clearly have a different view of animals than those who would give them legal rights, spend $20,000 to care for an ailing goose, or feed their dog a gourmet diet of duck and potato. I love dogs and see their value, but that value comes precisely from their nature as serving the utilitarian needs of their owners--err, human companions. But, I think there is a larger point to illustrate here on social evolution.

In the story of Boswell, the reporter noted that many pet owners--err, human companions-- find it "emotionally distressing to learn that treatments exist for their pets that lie beyond their means." In other words, not everyone has 20 grand to drop on a goose who's--well, you know-- is cooked. Where have I heard this kind of thing before?

Mark my words, some day, some where a charasmatic politician will decry the suffering of "hard working Americans" who are forced to watch pets die because they cannot afford to treat them for an ever growing range of dreadful ailments. At that time it will surely be up to the government to guarantee everyone's "right" to veterinarian care. The financial and emotional burden to families--nay, to children--will simply be too unfair for the richest nation on earth to continue to ignore.

If this seems like a bridge too far then I have achieved my objective. This should sound crazy. Every monstrous encroachment of government into people's lives that has come to be taken for granted as status quo would have appeared far-fetched and absurd before the change had started. Piece by piece, year after year, campaign after campaign, these absurdities get wittled away until they become a way of life. Just as someday, we will think it barbaric that anyone would ever have euthenized a 20 year old cat dying of feline leukemia. Shouldn't the wealthy sacrifice just a little so that valued animals can go on? Isn't it only fair?

Follow-Ups

2008-07-08T09:51:00.002-06:00

To revise and extend my remarks on a few recent posts:

A Nod:
I was reminded over the holiday weekend that my observance of the cultural differences between the American West and other regions of the country truly does have very deep historical roots. The example at hand is women's suffrage. Wyoming was the first state in the union to provide the franchise regardless of sex, and this occurred in 1890 when Wyoming became a state (but the right had been there at the territorial level since 1869). Three years later Colorado became the second state, and the first in which a full vote of the people (that is the men) extended the right to women. Idaho and Utah followed shortly thereafter. It is important to note that this extension of individual liberty happened in the west a full 30 years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote nationwide. And of course my native Montana elected a woman to Congress in 1916, four years before most women in the country could vote!

Now consider the contrast with the South. While the 19th amendment was adopted in 1920, South Carolina did not ratify it until 1969, Georgia and Louisiana in 1970, North Carolina until 1971 and Mississippi until 1984. It is telling to realize that these Southern states did not think it was worth endorsing a woman's right to vote until 100 years after Western states had begun extending the franchise.

Ego:
It's official: Senator Obama will accept the nomination at Invesco. Yip, yip, yip.

Fourth:
Yesterday Senator McCain was here in Denver and a local radio remarked that McCain was making a lot of hay out of Sen. Obama's energy positions. When it comes to energy, Sen. Obama's slogan should be "No We Can't," went the line. Nationally the GOP has run its first ad on the energy topic, and a lot of commentators seem to agree that it is a potentially powerful issue for the Republicans this fall. Not surprisingly it is something to be "For." For expanding access to domestic oil and gas production, for building nuclear power plants, etc. When Senator Obama has to be the candidate saying "no, no, no," the issue favors McCain. Hopefully Sen. McCain finds additional contrasts that force Obama into the "No We Can't" column.

What then are we fourth?

2008-07-04T17:15:00.002-06:00

This July 4th: Independence Day is one of the unusual ones spent at home. By coincidence it has been my tradition to travel--often abroad--over this holiday weekend. Because I have been a student of politics since I was old enough to know what government was, and because I believe the day means more than a day to cook brats on the grill, I spent the day 1) working (what could be more American than that?), 2) reading Friedman, and 3) pondering the state of our politics... imagine!

We seem to have one political party led by Senator Obama which is FOR a lot of very troubling things, and another which seems to be FOR not much of anything. On this fourth, let us consider what we ought to be for.

Senator Obama is increasingly troubling to me. I have moved from a backbench admirer to an increasingly alarmed opponent. He brazenly showed up in Colorado Springs the other day--brazenly because the Springs is the theocratic stronghold of Dr. James Dobson and his brotherly band of bloviating bigots, as well as the United States Air Force Academy, Cheyenne Mountain, Peterson Air Force Base, and countless other conservative bedrocks. While in the Springs, I understand, the good Senator proposed compulsary national service. A student I heard interviewed first hand expressed the view that national service was "honorable" and that "requiring" it while "compensating" participants would lead to a better country. George Orwell couldn't have written anything more absurd. As 1984 says, "compulsary is voluntary."

Of course Mr. Obama is also for nationalized medicine. Some may think the current state of economic affairs has changed the dynamic and necessitated government intervention in healthcare. Unfortunately liberals have been making this argument for more than 30 years. Indeed Sen. Kennedy argued for universal, government mandated healthcare when he ran for president in 1979. Everything old is new again.

In contrast Republicans or by extension, conservatives, don't seem to be FOR anything. They are against abortion, against taxation, against gay marriage, against social medicine, against immigration, and against "pork barrel spending." Now, I am aware that every "against" has a corresponding "for". Conservatives could just as easily be described as "for" the unborn, for low taxes, for marriage restrictions, for status quo medicine, for border security, and for budgetary restraint, but this rings hollow. When all the options on the table are proposed by one party and the other party simply stands against them, we have a crystal clear dichotomy in our politics. Americans tend to be FOR things.

Perhaps the only exception to this rule is a guiding light. Republicans are arguably for defeating terrorism. And it is upon this that I think we need to build a new agenda.

As I have learned more about the political tradition in which I place myself, I become more comfortable describing myself as a "Goldwater Republican." Considering the man lost in one of the worst landslides in electoral history, I am aware of this dubious identification. Nevertheless, we have good role model in Mr. Goldwater. None other than John McCain once said of him, "America, the only nation ever founded in the name of liberty, never had a more ardent champion of liberty than Barry Goldwater. Simply put, Barry Goldwater was in love with freedom."

Barry Goldwater advocated freedom consistently and at all cost. He famously observed that, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," and bravely observed that, "the income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government," while also defiantly stating that, "I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

The Supreme Court recently confirmed by an all-too-close vote that Americans are free to bear arms and defend their homes. The proper way forward for Republicans is to boldly embrace the freedom agenda. Freedom abroad may require military action to catalyze nacent movements as we disarm violent foes. Freedom at home provides the coherent narrative so lacking today. Freedom to invest, free of confiscatory taxation. Free to live as one chooses. Free to learn in the best schools. Free to offer the best product at the best price. Free to protect oneself. Free to conduct oneself in one's home. Free to entertain oneself in the manner of one's choosing. Free to pursue happiness in one's own way.

Being against things is the conservative nature. It is also a loser. Being for freedom can sometimes be too etherial, but when given proper context and truly championed, it is still the greatest expression of the American Spirit.

Go forth and be "for" on this fourth!

We're gonna need a bigger ego containment vessel

2008-07-03T20:58:00.003-06:00

Rumors around Denver are that Barack Obama is preparing to deliver his nomination acceptance, not at the sight of the Democratic National Convention: the Pepsi Center, but rather across the river at Invesco at Mile High. The former is the home court of the Nuggets and Avalanche and seats about 22,000 people. The latter is home to the Broncos and seats about 80,000. Clearly Mr. Obama cannot be limited to a mere 22,000 member audience. Someone of his great oratorical magnificence, someone for whom house wives will faint on command, someone that can say anything and mean nothing. We're gonna need a bigger building! Let the hew and cry go out: more space before the ego kills us all!

I just hope I can get home without a full body search. Egads.

I Propose a Toast...

2008-07-02T18:34:00.002-06:00

Progress is a hard thing to measure. Some people who would love to take the country back to the '60's deceptively call themselves "Progressives." Progress in Iraq is an even more bedevilling concept, given the political rancor than has predominated the discussion of that particular struggle.

But now we have what is in my humble opinion a truly worthwhile metric. McClatchy Newspapers reports today that "alcohol is flowing again in Iraq." To take a twist on an old Benjamin Franklin quote: beer is proof that Allah loves us and wants us to be happy.

The article sites the example of Saif, a 19 year old Iraqi Christian who owns 4 liquor stores in Baghdad. Several times Saif's stores have been attacked and bombed. Each time he has repainted, rebuilt, and reopened. At the hardest times his businesses were shut down for weeks or more at a time, and only open for a few hours on the good days. Now, he maintains hours from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Business is booming.

Then there is the story of Abo Do'aa:
Abo Do'aa is a Muslim Iraqi in his 40s who travels more than 50 miles from Balad, in Salahuddin province north of Baghdad , to Sadoon Street in downtown Baghdad to buy liquor. "It's very safe these days, and I can go back to my town even at 2 a.m." , he said. "I came to buy liquor for me and my friends. It's expensive, but we can afford it. We used to drink for a long time just to enjoy ourselves."

If that doesn't bring a tear to every red blooded American's heart, I don't know what would. I say the country that imbibes together, thrives together. Whatever other yard stick used to measure progress in Iraq, I think it behooves us to remember Abo and his friends. Here's to Abo and Saif: Bsithak! (cheers)

Has to be Said Dept.

2008-06-30T11:26:00.002-06:00

Every once in a while you find an important truth that rarely gets said, especially in the press. I stumbled across just such a passage in The Economist in an article regarding Bill Gates:

...Whatever the corporate-social-responsibility gurus say, business is a force for good in itself: its most useful contribution to society is making profits and products. Philanthropy no more canonises the good businessman than it exculpates the bad...

A Nod to Todd

2008-06-29T10:13:00.008-06:00

For years I have been telling anyone who would listen just how misunderstood Western politics are in other regions of the country, and for years it hasn't seemed to matter much. After watching this mornings Meet the Press, I feel a bit vindicated.

Much hay has been made recently about the "transformation" of Western politics. State after state has seen Republican governors replaced by Democrats, so too with state legislators, and congressional delegations. So much so that both the McCain and Obama campaigns consider the American West to be the swing region to watch this November.

I have frustratingly endured all this talk, knowing full well that very little has changed in Western politics. This morning NBC's political director Chuck Todd explained this point very clearly to Tom Brokaw as they sat in front of Wyoming's Grand Tetons. Western politics is largely based on a libertarianism that doesn't translate easily to other regions. (Take for example Ron Paul's success in Montana, where he won many counties, finished second only to Mitt Romney, and created a heated nomination fight at the state's GOP convention just a week or so ago despite the fact that John McCain is the settled nominee.)

According to Mr. Todd, as the Republican party has become more dominated by the moral conservatism of the religious right, it has created a huge vaccuum of center-right libertarianism. Democrats have become successful in the West only insofar as they have moved to occupy this territory.

To illustrate the point I offer two quitessentially Western quotes. One of them was by Republican hero Barry Goldwater and one was by Democratic darling Brian Schweitzer of Montana.

- I own more guns than I need, but not as many as I want. (regarding gun control).

- You don't have to be straight to shoot straight. (regarding gays in the military).

Of course, the former was Schweitzer and the latter Goldwater. Both seem at odds with predictable liberal or conservative, and Democrat or Republican orthodoxy, but both have the simple, no-nonsense formulation of the American West. Note that Ronald Reagan, himself a Westerner, was sensitive to this reality and able to hold the Republican coalition together, while George W. Bush, a southerner, is not and has not. The role this plays in the parties current troubles cannot be overstated.

Finally someone in the Washington press circle gets this.

The Good War

2008-06-28T16:59:00.013-06:00

Somewhere in the back of the world section of the local paper, and on the air between stories about high gas prices and low stock prices resides a story that no one seems overly anxious to talk about. The battle for Afghanistan appears to be going badly, and perhaps increasingly badly. While Iraq continues to improve markedly and the media and public shift their respective attentions to Barack and JohnnyMac, no one appears to have the energy to tackle the implications of another dose of Taliban barbarity.

The implications here should be instructive. For too long Afghanistan was "the good war." The struggle to exact revenge on al-Qaeda in a remote, land-locked "something-stan" started in 2001 with the incredulous scene of U.S. special ops forces mounted on horse back leading a rag-tag band of Afghans in the overthrow of the Taliban, and has been something of a dove's national defense poster boy ever since.

However since that time, it has provided an historically unprecedented dichotomy by which anti-war politicians, journalists, nation states, and members of the public could compare and contrast the Iraq War. Afghanistan: a war of necessity. Iraq: a war of choice. Afghanistan: about the people who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq: about oil. Afghanistan: about rebuilding a war ravaged land. Iraq: about occupying and controlling sovereign territory. Afghanistan: popular in Europe. Iraq: a national embarrassment. And so on, and so on. One was free to be as big a dove as could be found, so long as one offered the caveat that of course he supported the war in Afghanistan. Some politicians even doubled down: Not only is Afghanistan the Good War, but the U.S. should be spending its blood, time, and treasure there in greater quantities, rather than in Iraq.

Well now an inconvenient truth (liberals are big on inconvenient truths I've heard), Iraq is for the while going fairly well. Violence is down dramatically, provincial elections are due by the autumn, the prime minister is gaining popularity and respect at home and abroad, and Iraqis are beginning to dare thinking of tomorrow. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is short on food, long on opium, and increasingly slipping back into a Taliban world. Europe refuses to step-up despite their lip service to the importance of the NATO mission there. Canada is acting nobly but in over her head. Pakistan is AWOL in the border hotbed that nurtures bin Laden to this day. The good war seems to be going bad in a hurry.

Before turning to what this ought to mean to U.S. policy and whether the American give-a-damn has any remaining endurance, let's consider what Afghanistan is about. First, by way of contrast, I would frame Iraq as being about traditional geo-politics and economics. It was about a form of government and the conduct of that government vis-a-vis other nation states in the world. It was about the ability of a henchman like Saddam to potentially hold the world's oil supply hostage by repeatedly threatening instability in the Middle East. Whatever else one might conjure up as motives, there were and are clearly discernible national interests at stake that may or may not have required a war to resolve. At present, Iraq is about reforming a country.

Afghanistan is different. That struggle is not about a change in government; it is about a change of millennium. It is about dragging a piece of geography (country may be overstating it) through 1,000 years of human history in a decade. It is about globalization's impact on the forgotten places, and more importantly about the impact the forgotten places can have on a globalized world.

Oddly Afghanistan has been trampled by the boots of every power from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to Imperial Britain and the Soviet Union, but has through it all somehow avoided the civilizing influences of any of them. Rory Stewart describes in his compelling book "The Places in Between" a fascinating land that has been touched by a dizzying array of peoples and traditions, but has brought all of them to ruin. The great Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban shortly before that group's own overthrow are but one spectacular example of a land perpetually at war with its past, barely able to endure the present, and mystified by any notion of the future. From the story we see a land where each village literally knows little of the world beyond its gates. Tribal, language, religious differences (some areas have only been converted from paganism to Islam in the last 100 years), and a shocking lack of modern technology and conveniences, contribute to misunderstandings, mistrust, and all too often armed conflict. A point made poigniantly clear in "The Kite Runner." It is closer to the Europe of Charles V than it is to even today's Iraq.

As the world's powers occasionally stumbled through, the remote patch of central Asia ultimately reverted to its ancient ways. The modern world, and the increased connectivity of globalization make the old cycle untenable. Today we know only too well how a lawless patch of real estate is a welcome sign to a nation-less fanatic and his motley band of disaffected fools. "The Looming Tower" describes how truly spartan and tenuous was bin Ladens base in Afghanistan. But in a land of little, little is all it takes. So the modern world is forced to confront the ancient, and forced to do something to bring it up to speed.

Unfortunately this isn't as easy as it seems. You do not modernize a people by showing them electricity and flying machines and expecting they will learn to love it. At stake is a fundamental conflict in systems of organizing society. Afghanistan continues to revert to its tribal instincts. It exhibits the characteristics of a pre-modern society organized on rigid traditions, tried-and-true customs, and an inherent distrust of the Other.

All peoples on earth can trace their history to such a culture. In fact, we have a widely available tutorial in the Old Testament. Just read Leviticus to get a sense of the ancient Jewish purity rules which are simply anachronistic and bizarre to the modern ear. These were the peculiar rules that had developed among the tribes of Israel. These rules gave them certain practical benefits, but they also gave them something very important in this type of culture: identity. This foreign system of clinging to civilization is the one most likely to pervade in Afghanistan. Sadly, the only modern influence they have received may be our weaponry.

It is important to understand that so that we can accept this: Afganistan is a much more challenging and transformative project than Iraq. Iraq has at least 100 years experience in the modern world. It has a history of a highly and technically educated population. It has a healthy history of secularism and multiculturalism. The recent conflict between groups is an illustration of what happens when civilization breaks down and returns to its darker instincts. Iraq was reverting, Afghanistan has never verted!

Anyone who argues our project in Iraq is too imposing, too ambitious, and too culturally ignorant should be running from Afghanistan like a camel with its tail on fire. To understand each country is to understand that what we are attempting in Afghanistan is far more imposing, far more ambitious, and far more culturally normative than anything we've dreamt of in Iraq.

Therefore we are reminded that wars ought to be driven by compelling objectives and not political expediency. Personally I support the objectives of both our wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. However, I believe that years hence we will be more bedeviled by Afghanistan than Iraq. Iraq has potential: Afghanistan has pitfalls. The battle of Afghanistan will likely be the longer, harder slog of the two. It will be tactically and strategically more challenging. It will take longer. The effects will be more etherial. I foresee an American public completely exasperated with the constant cuts of Afghanistan long after Iraq is a triumph.

I wonder then, will the cynical liberals who used Afghanistan as their "good war" stand up for the Afghans, fund our troops, and dig in their heels for the long run? Will they continue to see Afghanistan as the only legitimate fight of this new era? I doubt it. Perhaps Afghanistan will emerge from their American experience much as they have from every other great power dalience. We should hope not.

Mammon the Magnificent

2008-06-10T18:39:00.002-06:00

When I was a child I experienced an interesting education. For a time I took to the collection of baseball cards. Now, I had no natural inclination toward baseball (although I also played little league: a lifelong willingness to try things manifest at an early age), and I didn't see much in terms of the intrigue that fuelled the collectors. But, the boys around me seemed awfully wrapped up in the thing, and therefore I impressed upon my parents the need to drop money at every possible opportunity on little pieces of cardboard. (As an aside, I think this was the beginning of the end of my participation in social bandwagons.)

The education was perhaps only realized in retrospect, but it began with the realization that my peers would pay me for some of my scraps of cardboard. Now here was an interesting realization. This hoarding I had been engaged in, much to my confusion, suddenly seemed lucrative. 50 cents here a couple of bucks there, and suddenly I felt the brilliance of the endeavor. Only after the fact would I realize that the card I gladly parted with for 75 cents was then worth $10. Nor would I much care. Sitting across from me on the playground, surely any of the wheelers and dealers could have physically extracted the cards from me without much difficulty. Nevertheless, they came expecting to pay, and left congratulating themselves on their business prowess. This is instructive.

Money, it turns out, is a profoundly positive influence on the world: it is the thing that very likely kept me from getting beat up on the playground. Money is the sophisticated arbitor that stands between civilization and barbarism. There are two ways and only two ways to get something of value from someone else: 1) Give him something of more value, or 2) Physically demand the item at the end of a sword, spear, or gun. Option number one seperates us from the barbaric and is most clearly expressed through the symbol of the almighty dollar. From this perspective, money is less the thing that "makes the world go 'round," as it is the thing that makes the world go forward.

Many years ago a woman from my hometown, and a member of Our Lady of the Bake Sale Methodist Church, remarked to my mother that church at her son's place in California was "interesting." A very well appointed, very socially involved church, with a very gay congregation. Jumping past any theological or ecclesiastical concerns with this matter, the woman summed up the connection: "'they' are the ones with all the money."

I was reminded of this upon reading multiple articles regarding California's newfound acceptance of gay marriage. The numbers are simply staggering: $684 million expected to be spent on wedding related services, $64 million in new tax revenue for the state, $9 million in county revenue just from marriage licenses. Gov. Schwarzenegger is quoted as saying, "I hope California's economy is booming because everyone is going to come here to get married." (He also added a few "Von-Tastics" in for good measure.)

California's budget is in such bad shape, that this windfall is actually worth talking about. In fact, it is suggested that the financial benefits may be overwhelming enough to tip the balance in a fall constitutional measure to ban gay marriage (thereby overturning the courts).

It has often been remarked that the American miracle is to vehemently disagree on policy in a completely non-violent way. Such was noted in 2000 after the peaceful settlement of Bush v. Gore. It is remarkable to think that such a supposedly divisive issue may very well be on its way to settlement simply because money talks and bullshit walks.

Stop and Snap the Clouds

2008-06-07T19:42:00.002-06:00

The other day, my ever-so demanding dog insisted that he needed a walk to relieve himself (despite the fact that we had already been out once that week). As soon as I left the building I realized that the weather was unstable. The sky to the east was ominous, dark, and foreboding. Once I got beyond the building I looked up and discovered a truly wondrous sight. I hate to sound so gushy, but it really was amazing. A massive cloud had formed--it would be more accurate to say it was forming-- directly overhead.

Because of the time of day and the location, the cloud climbed to ridiculous heights and could be seen rapidly growing and expanding. The position of the sun was such that the sky to the west was a brilliant blue. As for the cloud, the base was a cotton candy pink, above this was a deep purple, above that a baby blue. Going further up the massive column you saw an impressive amber. Finally a the very top the billowing reaches were a brilliant white.

It was huge, it was beautiful, it was extremely dynamic... but would it be noticed?

I observed a bevy of people coming and going without paying one iota's attention to the painting in the sky. Then it happened. A woman wearing a smart suit and tennis shoes, carrying three bags: one a purse, one a brief case, and one (I assume) a change of clothes and shoes, listening to her MP3 player and texting on her cell as she power walked out of the city, caught my eye. She was a 20 or 30 something urban clone: in a hurry, weighed down with a host of varying responsibilities and interests, and digitally connected to everything.

Suddenly she came to a screeching halt, ended her text, and aimed her phone at the sky. She stopped walking, she changed her behavior, and she took a picture of the amazing cloud with her cell phone.

For a moment, a fleeting moment, she was a part of the world and not just its victim. I thought this was rather amazing. It occurred to me that this was the 21st century version of stopping to smell the roses. In our harried, connected, multi-tasking world, taking a second or two to snap a photo of an amazing display of nature seemed worthy of comment, and encouragement.

Blog Blog

2008-06-02T20:30:00.003-06:00

I have been giving some thought lately to the intrinsic value of blogging. I have intended and attempted from the beginning to avoid turning my blog into an open diary--a verbal regurgitation of every happening, concern, stress, passion, and piss of my day. I have also steered clear of becoming a daily news pundit. Each of these blog structures serve great purposes, but they didn't seem to suit my purpose.

I have questioned therefore, whether this blog serves any purpose at all. Is it simply vanity? Is it great charity? Is it a way to stay in touch with others? Or is it a way to lecture others? Should it aspire to greater circulation? Am I too revealing for such a public forum?

I think through a serendipitous encounter with a throw-away line from a throw-away pundit on some throw-away cable news program, I may have found my answer. The moment was fleeting, I may not be quoting exactly, and I missed the attribution, but the thrust of the comment cut through. The speaker was referring to a newspaper columnist frustrated by a press strike somewhere and some years ago. The basis of the comment was, "how do I know what I believe if I can't read what I think?"

What at first struck me as rather silly, suddenly struck me as rather profound. Perhaps the process of thinking, and the discipline of writing are integrally linked. Perhaps our college professors knew what they were doing with all those papers and essays. In fact, there seems to be something about the function of the human mind that works things out most clearly when forced to commit them coherently to print. From this viewpoint, "daydreaming" is rather ineffectual, and the person staring into space, lost in his own thoughts may be missing the point. Only in slowing down and committing thoughts to print, and critically, to exposing them--no matter how theoretically--to a broad audience of potential critics, can he truly develop thoughts that get reformed into beliefs.

It also seems that a printed form of our thoughts encapsulates them and protects them from that all-too-human tendency to re-create our own memories. Committing words to print forces the creation of a track record (every corporate citizen knows this as CYA) that can be referenced. Putting the words down literally makes them real. We may change our opinions, alter our conclusion based on new evidence, or stand-by our old credos, but we must be much more honest about our own present views when we have recorded our old ones.

Therefore, I think this blog does have intrinsic value... I'll let you know for sure once I've read it.

Ordinary Exceptionalism

2008-06-01T16:56:00.002-06:00

According to 'A Prairie Home Companion' all the children in Lake Wobegon, Minnesota are above average. This is truly exceptional. International discourse and media often raise the phrase "American Exceptionalism" to invoke a wide range of characteristics or properties deemed to be uniquely American. America is more religious than its rich counterparts, it is more capitalistic, more militaristic, more hard working, more this and more that. Most of this can be boiled down by saying that the United States is NOT Western Europe. Other countries are religious, others hard working, others militaristic, it is simply unusual to find these characteristics in one place, which makes us, as the story goes, exceptional.

In listening to the interminable presidential campaign I have been forced to square the circle. How can America continue to be exceptional when so much of our political diatribe--I mean dialogue--is consumed with rhetoric that suggests anything but the ever-optimistic, ever-free, ever-creative American spirit? To hear Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton as they race to determine who can cleverly uncover an America sadder, more desperate, more destitute, and less confident than the other, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Pax Americana is over. Sen. McCain is scarcely better, harping constantly on the need for collectivism and self-sacrifice to the greater social needs of the time.

When people seem to have decided that America's role in the world is unsustainable and unaffordable, that health-care should be abandoned to the nanny state, that the international economy is too daunting for Americans to compete, that peasant Mexicans are a threat to American educated workers, that people cannot be trusted to invest in their future, or to budget their own housing expenses, and that oil company greed is driving them into the ground, one cannot help but stagger back and wonder whether this is the country that invented republican democracy, defeated tyranny, looked down communism, created modern entertainment, and developed the most inclusive, prosperous civilization the world has ever known.

My purpose in hashing through this comes down to a recent conversation with an immigrant (legal, green card holder) regarding energy consumption, prices, conservation, and all that accompanies it. I suggested that Americans were finally reaching a point where energy price pain would force them toward a paradigm shift at home and on the road. I further suggested that Europe was at an economic advantage because it had already made the painful adjustments. They build more efficient houses, drive much more efficient vehicles, and generally conserve far more than Americans.

My friend simply laughed. Yes, he intimated, that's what Europeans do: they throw up their hands, resign themselves to a fatalistic outcome, and see virtue in suffering through. Americans, he assured me, would approach the energy "crisis" quite differently. Americans, sufficiently motivated will simply create solutions that get them through these problems. They will invent, tweak, modify, and otherwise unleash the forces of creativity, of trial, of error, and of failure, until a new energy dynamic develops and once again saves the world. America, it seems, may be late to the party, but it is the guest expected to bring the keg.

This wasn't a deep or philosophical discussion, and this reaction truly caught me off guard. It was simply a prima facia case that this would be the outcome. As obvious as it was to the outsider, it was not at all as obvious to me.

There are a number of valuable lessons here. First, when we hear a constant drivel about the need for sacrifice in America we should react with skepticism or outright hostility. Prosperity is not built on sacrifice. We have heard this notion invoked as regards the war in Iraq. As the talking points go, the American people are willing, but have never been asked to sacrifice. What a nutty notion. A world in which everyone sacrifices is a world in which everyone is worse off. Contrary to certain notions, America didn't sacrifice its way through World War II. It worked and fought its way to victory. Imagine if Churchill had said, "As the Nazi's destroy our buildings, we must come together and sacrifice. We must learn to make do with fewer bricks!" What nonsense. Britons and Americans as the arsenal of Democracy, came together to work, to invent, to fight, and to defend their homelands, their democracy, and their way of life. They didn't turn to hand rubbing and consternation. No one suggested businessmen stop selling, farmers stop growing, or inventors stop creating.

Second, we are all better off when America acts like America. Though the world may grouse about our power, our culture, our influence, and our disregard for the UN, it cannot do without us. When America is at her best, she solves problems others can't or won't, she provides hope in place of despair, and shines as an example to those who cling to hope. Molding our society into the collective, social blanket of Europe will kill the only thing that makes us us. Germany can out engineer us, Japan can out perfect us, and China can out build us. But, unless we allow it, no one can out create us. This means allowing failure, recognizing that some can and some can't and others simply won't. This also means accepting that when one person is much better off, everyone is somewhat better off.

Third, we must recognize that immigrants serve many valuable purposes, not least of which is reflecting back to us and reassuring us of those things that make us unique in the first place. Far easier for an outsider to teach us about ourselves than for us to recognize our own exceptionalism.

In place of self-sacrifice we ought to talk about self-awareness and self-fulfillment. When each of us works at something worthy of our talents, expresses our desires, and refuses to submit to a collective despair, the country prospers and triumphs. Long live the individual and her goals. Down with sacrifice and collectivism. Forcing people to the mean and holding hands in the common cause of shared misery is better left to others. It is no way to shine on a hill.

Five: Twenty-One

2008-05-25T15:21:00.004-06:00

(I thought I'd try something entirely new: a poem)

Through our glasses dimly,
What can we see?
A sunset, a mountain,
A building reaching tall?

A Universe of wonder,
So vast, so great, so small.
What does it say to us?
To you? To me? To all?

Of creation: old and new and awe.
Of things yet discovered,
Of things decried by law.
Of "truths" that rise and shine and fall?

Life comes forward sideways,
Foresakes politness in its wake, and
Its broken, empty, cold embrace,
May force us to a crawl.

True, our place is but a speck,
A blot upon it all.
But, our purpose rises bolder,
Fueled by guts and gall.

To each man is a challenge;
To each a seperate call.
To find the dream that matters most,
And never let it stall.

Blind Squirrels

2008-04-30T21:55:00.003-06:00

Last year I wrote about the newfound respectability of Michael Moore. While I thought him to have once been a big, fat slob, he seemed to have cleaned up his act and toned down his rhetoric to promote his healthcare propaganda film.

On Larry King today, Moore was back to his unkempt shenanigans. Touting anti-Bush blather and other socialist talking points. However I want to highlight one point he made.

In a discussion on gasoline prices, Moore rightly dismissed our obsession with fuel prices to focus on a seldom discussed topic: the other uses of petroleum. Plastics may, as the commercial goes, make is possible, but what makes plastics possible? Hmmmm. That would be oil. Everything from clothing to eyeglass frames to shampoo bottles rely on petro-chemicals: i.e. substances derived from and dependent upon oil.

But this can be taken-- and Moore did take it-- another step. Most agriculture fertilizers are petro derived. That's right. The most common source of our most common fertilizers is natural gas. In fact, a major shift has occured under the radar as fertilizer production has shifted offshore to low-cost natural gas markets. We now import natural gas derived fertilizer rather than producing it in North America. By the way, I know this not because M.M. says so, but rather because I worked in the industry for 6 years.

For those who are not familiar with the industry, natural gas-- being a gas-- tends t0 be less fungible than oil-- a liquid (really a goo). Therefore, natural gas has tended to be far more local in production, price, and delivery. An easy demand destruction has already taken place in the fertilizer industry. Becasuse natural gas is now so valuable, shifting fertilizer production to overseas sources was an easy fix.

This avoids the underlying issue: the primary source of fertilizer for our domestic agriculture comes from a diminishing global petro-based product. As oil and natural gas become more expensive to recover-- if not outright more scarce-- we do not endanger simply our transportation fuel, but our food source and our source of one of modern societies most important materials. We may replace oil with nuclear or solar power, but where is the replacement for plastic? How do we grow food-- or make ethanol!!!-- without petro based fertilizers?

There is no easy answer. Michael Moore emphasized this very point on national television. While I continue to loathe his political views generally, even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

Taxing Time

2008-04-15T19:54:00.002-06:00

I thought from the time of my waking today, that I owed an obligatory blog on the onerousness of the tax code: It is April 15th. I am anti-tax. Connect the dots. My concern was that I couldn't think of anything worth writing about.

Now, it will be necessary to betray an uncomfortable truth in order to get to my point. I expect you will all overlook this transgression and focus on the object of my compelling argument.

Thank you.

Today on "The View", the topic of taxes was of high interest. Whoopi Goldberg, as moderator, brough the topic to the fore. She lamented the dozen or so taxes and fees affixed to the typical cell phone bill, and she lamented the injustice of paying more in taxes simply because she is famous (by this she means rich).

According to Whoopi, it is unjust that someone who makes $1 more than someone else should pay a higher tax burden. I was highly attentive and on the edge of my seat. What would the bleeding hearts on the panel say to this most conservative of tax arguments?

Joy attempted to subvert Whoopi's argument by maintaining that she had called the "Danish Consulate" and learned that the Danes pay 50% in taxes, but unlike Americans receive a host of social benefits not worth repeating. Her fundamental comparison was that Whoopi pays 50-60% in tax and so do the people of Denmark. Why then, she asked, do we get so little in return?

Of course the answer is that in Denmark 50-60% is the average, while here Whoopi is in the top eschelon.

The important take-away for me is that all is not hopeless. Everyone seemed to "get" Whoopi's point about the injustice of paying more just because you make more. They also were sympathetic to her cell phone illustration of tax nickel and diming. From this I have to believe that the American People remain fundamentally fair-minded and apoplectic as regards the tax code. The idea of a flat tax was unabashedly advocated by Whoopi Goldberg on "The View" whether she realizes it or not, and I find this very heartening on this tax day.

Politics and morality

2008-03-30T18:39:00.002-06:00

For some the use of the words "politics" and "morality" together will appear an attempt at oxymoronic humor. The jokes and common attitude toward politics and politicians being what they are, the two may seem at odds. For others the juxtaposition of the words will bring to mind an ideal. A principle that the two words should be joined, with the latter integral to the former.

A comment posted to a previous posting posed the question whether there ought to be (I paraphrase using "ought" because it is the word which conveys moral obligation) a unity between personal and political ethics. Is there one morality for the personal and a second morality for the public? Does Eliot Spitzer's betrayal of his wife necessarily mean a betrayal of his oath to the people of New York? Although this question was thrown out rather casually, it lead to a great deal of pondering on my part.

Whether Eliot Spitzer's indiscretion with high-paid call-girls, or Bill Clinton's with poorly paid staffers, or Larry Craig's bizarre behavior, or Hillary Clinton's dishonesty regarding Bosnia, or Duke Cunningham's bribery, the news is replete with stories highlighting just how human our politicians actually are. Ought we to then seek to elect people based on some moral litmus test?

My instinct is to respond that of course we cannot. We cannot impose a morality test to political leadership without infering the kind of enlightened wisdom claimed by Iran's clerical elite. They get to qualify and disqualify candidates before the choice is thrown to the people of Iran. How much franchise vests in the voter if the candidates are hand-selected by the priests on high? Not much. Because none of us is in a position to judge the character of another, and because many of us may disagree on just which moral code should be enforced, it seems readily apparent that a person's personal moral code has little relevance to their public positions and policies.

However, something about this explanation didn't seem salutary. I kept asking myself what was Bill Clinton's impeachable offense? The shock value may lie with the sex acts, but the legal question reverts to perjury. So then can we state that personal behavior is irrelevant? Bill Clinton's failure was not his sexual mores but rather his subversion of the law? On the face of it this seems right. Anyone can do anything so long as they are not using their power to circumvent the law and avoid private or public embarrassment by virtue of their elected office and the perquisites thereof. That is, personal morality is not germaine to the office until in infringes on a principle of law.

Again this seems incomplete. The question stills lingers: "Can a man who will not honor his oath to his wife be counted on to honor his oath to the republic?" If a man would steal from his children's college fund to cover gambling debts, is he not a theif? Can he not be expected to betray his fiduciary responsibilities to the public treasury as well?

This line of thinking lead me to the word "integrity." We would say of these people: "He lacks integrity." The dictionary defines this as "strict adherance to a moral code." Again, this seems to miss the point: who's moral code? What I was really looking for was the other definition of "integrity:" Wholeness, uniformity. When we say we want a politician to have integrity we really are saying that we want them to be consistent throughout their dealings, to have a wholeness about their conduct. We expect that someone who lies to his wife, lies to the the country. Someone who would sell his influence would sell-out the country. Moral integrity doesn't speak to probity, but to consistency. The Nazis were terribly prudish about a lot of "moral" questions, but killed and maimed with reckless abandon. The overarching moral code lacked wholeness.

Where does this leave us? Seeking men and women of unimpeachable character, about whom it can be said, "he has never betrayed a friend, told a lie, stolen a dime, or taken the Lord's name in vain?" In the end I am forced back to my original opinion: we cannot expect this. Human beings are both fundamentally good and fundamentally flawed. We cannot cull from us a race of superior men who embody every virtue. The test of wholeness is too high a burden.

Everyone compromises somewhere, and everyone rationalizes his own compromises. "I couldn't tell her she is too fat to wear that... it would have devastated her." Lie. Rationalization. Moral infraction. Each of us constructs an hierarchy of moral commitments. Mitt Romney seems fiercely faithful to his wife, but appears to me to have a loose relationship with the truth. Ronald Reagan had an undeniable devotion to his country, but an arguably neglectful approach to his children. Politicians, like all human beings, cannot demonstrate the level of uniform moral conduct demanded by the integrity test. A man may be doggedly loyal to his friends, but betray his employer. He may tithe to his church, but steal inheritance from his family.

Therefore I conclude that there likely is a gray fuzzy no-man's land between personal and public ethics. A politician should be judged by his record and conduct in his public duties, not his personal failings. Since this started with a New York governor, I will bring the discussion full circle with another. The new governor of New York is respected in Albany, popular, and by all accounts likely to oversee good governance in New York. He has also admitted to past drug use and repeated infidelity. Whether he is a good governor will be written after his tenure, based on his public actions, as it should be. When a political leader breaks the law, he should pay the consequences, when he offends someone's personal sensitivities, he need not fall on his sword.

Lo Tho I Walk Through the Valley of the Shadow of Debt

2008-03-18T19:18:00.002-06:00

As a nation we have a significant savings problem. Economists howl endlessly about our low to negative savings rate. The practical result of this is the need to borrow capital from foreign sources, high consumer debt burdens, and ultimately economic contraction. We may be reaping the low saving rate we spent the last 10, 15, 20 years sowing.

Today we seem to be faced with serious economic challenges that resemble periods in our past. Most concerning is the possibility of replicating the "stagflation" of the 1970s, which witnessed economic contraction at the same time as price infation. Normally these two phenomena are opposites. When they occur at the same time we have a particular challenge at righting our course.

After a long period of relative quiet, inflation seems to be rearing its head. Oil, gold, wheat, and most commodities are off the charts. At the same time, credit is tight and the housing sector is experiencing a collapse.

I have recently been reading a weighty and worthwhile tome by Niall Ferguson called the Cash Nexus. Ferguson is an author I have enjoyed in the past, and this work is equally fascinating. It would be a great disservice to the author to attempt to restate his argument, but in an admitted clunky paraphrasing, he argues that money has not historically made the world go 'round. Rather, war has precipitated the need for increasingly sophisticated financing structures. As countries became increasingly sophisticated at raising funds to wage war, so the nation's macro finance system evolved. From this we developed central banks, bonds, interest, and more to the point-- inflation. If I have interpretted Ferguson correctly, he argues that most national debt has been dealt with by inflating it away.

Given the soaring level of our national debt, as well as the disgraceful spending binge Congress has taken us on in the past decade, it seems reasonable to think we are due for a period of "inflating away the debt."

The ray of sunlight in all of this, as far as I am concerned, is that it is far better to be long in debt in a period of inflation that it is to be long on savings. While inflation erodes the real burden of debt, it also erodcs the real value of savings. I am hoping against hope that my debt erodes in time to experience a revival of fortunes and a corresponding period of frugal savings!

Outrage and Satisfaction

2008-03-13T17:27:00.002-06:00

This is far from a subject I would have expected to address: ElliottSpitzer--the Governor of New York-- and his prostitute problems. Yet, the more I hear the media yammer on about the scandal, the disgrace, the daughters, the wife, the resignation, and the federal prosecutor, the more I feel there is something more valuable at stake here.

Let me stipulate, I loathe Elliott Spitzer. I find him the vilest and most repugnant sort of politician-- the sort that bought his way into office, sustained himself through a self-righteous sense of moral superiority, and elevated himself through crass manipulation of the law. For those who are not familiar he used his position as NY Attorney General, assigned himself the nickname "Sheriff of Wall Street," and in the process exploited white collar criminal laws to earn himself the governorship. It is therefore quite satisfying to see the indignant law-and-order man who so deftly manipulated rarely enforced laws to his benefit succumb to just such a law in the end. If there is such a thing as Karma, this is it.

On the other hand, when the case is examined a bit more closely it takes on a disturbing flavor. Just how many wiretaps and email purusals did it take the federal prosecutors to ensnare Mr. Spitzer in the crime of prostitution? How much of his personal life did the feds sift through to make this unseemly discovery? Surely it took a rather robust trolling of data to come to this result.

Maybe our focus should not be on whether Mr. Spitzer engaged in some untoward behavior with an overpaid hooker, but whether our government ought to be able to dredge up this sort of thing in the first place. I would go a step further and ask why untoward behavior with overpriced hookers is illegal in the first place.

Who is the victim in this case? Perhaps Mrs. Spitzer, but is it the federal government's job to root out unfaithful husbands? No. The criminalization of prostitution is something I oppose, but the abuse of power required to expose a discreet "john" who happens to be a duly elected governor disturbs me greatly.

I could belabor the point, but I will not. I will simply say that while we are all entitled to feel uncomfortable with Mr. Spitzer's indiscretions, we should take time to feel even more concerned with the breach of liberty required for this case to come to light in the first place. Prostitution laws may not affect many of us, but liberty concerns all of us.

A simple story

2008-03-09T19:09:00.002-06:00

I come from a small town in rural eastern Montana. In fact there are VERY small towns in eastern Montana. On a business trip in 2003 I encountered a unique experience that I think provides a nice illustration of the current housing market.

Although my reach in business development literally stretched from southern Louisiana to Alaska and Michigan to Utah, this particular opportunity was close to home. My colleagues and I joined our counterparts from Canada, Texas, and beyond to tour an asset located in "our neighborhood." This meant dozens of people driving from one tiny farming community to another. Because our company operated in the neighborhood, some of us had family and relatives sprinkled throughout these towns. In one such instance, a colleague of mine knew a purveyor of baked goods in a town of a few hundred people in one of the most rural corners of a rural state.

Our team decided to stop, say hello to an acquaintance, and pick up a doughnut along the way: the long johns were rumored to be the best. In an interesting turn of events, each of the other competitors followed us into town to make the same stop.

The local market for doughnuts experienced a sudden rapid expansion. Fortunately, the week's baking had just come out of the oven, so the stock was large. Because distribution was faster than calculation, the doughnuts were laid out for each man to grab at will. Once each of us was satiated, the owner was glad to take our payment on the honor system.

Theoretically, the owner sold product before knowing our ability to pay. In the end she was paid, and it was a great day for business.

Imagine now that the next day the baker decided she would sell 5 dozen doughnuts everyday. Afterall, the day before she had nearly run out. Surely the market was ripe for the picking. If the next day she baked 5 dozen doughnuts expecting to sell them, she would likely be stuck with surplus inventory. Ultimately, she may have to throw some of the goods away.

This may be a silly example, but it is illustrative. Markets sometimes experience exceptional anomalies. There are occasional bubbles that cannot persist. Today's home market is largely suffering from too many doughnuts. They experienced a busy day and decided it was a lasting phenomenon. Now they are left with way too many tasty morsels and find themselves back in a one horse town.

Likewise, since they'd given away doughnuts (I mean houses) the day (I mean few years) before without worrying too much about each customer (I mean homebuyer's) ability to pay, they have disocvered their serving tray (I mean loan portfolio) is out of balance with their cash registers (I mean asset backed derivatives).

Obviously houses take a lot longer to build than doughnuts, and this is the point. The problem developed slowly based on bad credit standards, which encouraged the baking...errrr... building of way too many houses over time. It is only over time that the bakers....errrr.... builders can get rid of their over production. And it is only in time that those who passed out the doughnuts....errrr..... houses quickly without worrying about payment can recoup their losses.

This is a natural market reaction to incorrect market signals. One day's rush does not a doughnut market make. I am confident our small town baker knew this: shame our nation's lenders and homebuilders did not.

Media Midgets, Press Pinheads

2008-03-06T20:35:00.002-07:00

The Fourth Estate. The essential element in the defense of liberty. An institution uniquely sanctioned by the Constitution. Does today's news media seem to rise to these definitions? The ability of the press to gin up one hysterical story after another in an endless quest to attract the tiny attention span of the American People is truly remarkable. Allow me to remark.

Americans are busy: studies show we are busier than most people on the planet. We work harder, longer, more efficiently, and for fewer days off than our counterparts in every part of the world. We must be forgiven for having little attention for nonsense. The news media get this. They have become masters at exploiting the 5 sec. moment. Shark attacks today, gasoline prices tomorrow. War woes when there are woes, economic woes when there are victories. Something, anything to keep the public on edge.

It seems today that the presidential race is a prime example. Barack Obama was the darling of the news until he started dominating, then everything suddenly became tenuous. Before Texas and Ohio Hillarity had to win "big" just to keep going. After she won "barely" the press shifted direction. By keeping her alive for weeks they had prolonged interest, the story, and the advertising dollar. When the expectations weren't met, all they needed to do was shift the criteria. Now victory was most important. A squeaker of a win, a net zero delegate gain suddenly results in a paradigm shift. Now it is a race 'til the end.

Likewise the economy. I am convinced that until the war began to yield results the economy was a non-starter to the press. Once the war lost its luster because we started WINNING it was time to focus on the next failure of America: the economy.

The press seems determined to keep alive any story which inspires fear, gins up ratings, and distorts reality. To do any less would be... umm... fair and balanced.

Response: Charitable Giving, not Social Compulsion

2008-02-24T15:06:00.010-07:00

To those of you who may read these rarely reliable random rants, I would like to introduce you to a blog of greater substance and intellectual rigor: I was a Difficult Child at http://www.iwasadifficultchild.blogspot.com/.

I would like here to revise and extend the remarks of my colleague at Child. Please check the original post for reference.

In the post, Child laments the growing frequency with which retail establisments embelish their purpose by sticking a hand out at the cash register. Every possible charitable cause seems to have found its way to the counter. Jars, cardboard quarter holders, giant symbols you can write your name on to show your generosity on the wall of fame, and even automatic deductions from your credit card.

Child accurately points out the awkwardness of these situations, and suggests that the semi-compulsory nature of these efforts undermines the true spirit of charity. It may be true that, "Abideth these three, and the greatest of these is charity," but that doesn't mean Wal-Mart should be in on the act.

Beyond concurring whole-heartedly with this thesis, I wish to add my own corrollary. Corporate charity is misguided and disingenuous. It is pandering and distorting to economics. It is a tax imposed by management on its owners, and it too should be eliminated.

Let me step back a bit to assert that corporations are a vastly misunderstood entity. The word corporate comes from the latin corpus, which is body. A corporation is nothing more than a large group of individuals working together as a single "body." The concept is highly democratic. Rather than having commerce controlled by a few, wealthy actors, as was the case 150 years ago when land and title were fixed and class pre-determined, the concept is to allow many less-well-off players to share in the commerce that drives the world.

Somehow this democratizing, wealth creating, people empowering concept became corrupted by leftist polticians and thinkers. Today "corporation" is almost a dirty word, and adding the adjective "big" drags the concept into subscription cable realms as goes proper decency.

In a misguided effort to curry favor with the masses, big businesses have suddenly become big charities. Corporations champion every cause from the environment to special olympics to prove their social bona fides. The ability of the United Way to manipulate corporations toward its fund-raising goals is but one egregious example. The problem is a corporation has a very narrow purpose: to pool investor or owner money, apply it to a commercial venture, and return the profits. Nothing about the corporate level ought act outside these bounds.

By funding countless social experiments and charitable causes, the management of these companies are failing in their fiduciary duty to the owners. The proper purpose of a corporation, at the administrative, as well as the retail level, is to engage in providing goods and services that compete favorably and win customers. They should cease trying to work as social services, return their profits to their owners, pass savings to their customers, and leave the business of charities to individuals.

I STILL Support Rudy...

2008-02-15T21:07:00.002-07:00

I have supported candidates. I have supported candidates heartily. I have tilted at political windmills. I have been contrarian. In 1988 I supported Bush, and I have the crayon colored signs to prove it! In 1992 I supported Ross Perot, and I have the books to prove. In 1996 I bleed Bob Dole. In 2000 I was for Elizabeth the First, and I have the Watergate photo to show my dedication. I supported--and support-- George W. Bush.

But this year I sensed something unique was afoot. I donated money like I had never so done. I provided website commentary like I had never so done. I truly believed. I gave my all. I wore the t-shirt. I sported the ball-cap. I displayed the bumper sticker. Yet, before I was even eligible to vote, my guy, my candidate, my hope, was completely humiliated and outdone.

I am here these weeks later to say that I STILL support Rudy. I still believe in his leadership, and I still believe the Republican's last best hope was America's Mayor.

Maybe he ran a lousy campaign. Maybe the party didn't accept him. Maybe I was to idealistic in my support. So while I'll retreat in the face of defeat. I will not take back one jot of my support for the man who ought to be our next president.

The BIG Endorsement

2008-02-02T12:55:00.000-07:00

My sources indicate that God was a bit upset over the attention paid recently to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. In response, the Lord allegedly summoned the major candidates to a meeting, presumably to help Him determine who He will endorse.

According to eye witness accounts, each candidate stood before the great I Am and was asked a simple question: "What do you believe."

God first spoke to John McCain. "John," He said, "What do you believe?"

Sen. McCain responded decisively, "I believe in God, Country, Honor, and Sacrifice."

"Not bad," said God, "Have a seat here on my right side."

Next He turned to Senator Obama. "Barack, what do you believe?"

"I believe that the love of God for all people is universal, and that the hope and promise of the American Dream must likewise be universal, said Obama."

"Not too shabby," replied the Lord, "Sit here on my left."

Next God turned to Mike Huckabee. "Mike, how would you answer the question?"

"Well, I'd answer it the same way I answered it when I addressed the Communion of Saints at our annual meeting the other day. I believe that wide and easy is the path that leads to the IRS, and narrow and hard is the path that leads to rewriting the Constitution to be the Word of God."

"OK," said God, "I believe there is another seat down there to the right a ways. Please sit."

God turned next to Mitt Romney, who had been hanging to the back of the pack: "And you sir, what do you believe?"

To this Mitt smiled and replied, "I don't understand the question."

Caught of guard, God quickly refocused on Mrs. Clinton. "Hillary, what is it that you believe?"

Mrs. Clinton responded quickly and cooly, "I believe you are sitting in MY seat!"

At press time it was unclear which if any candidate God had chosen to endorse.

Blogs as Excercise

2008-01-19T20:53:00.000-07:00

Perhaps there is something inherently narcisistic about writing a blog-- far be it for me to deny narcissism-- but the duty of keeping up with it is a bit like a New Year's Resolution to exercise: great in theory but tough in practice.

I have to say I think I've done reasonably well. But it has been two months, and that is a sign of flagging enthusiasm. Whereas my enthusiasm is alive and well, I can't be seen to be flagging.

What's up lately? I've got a new business. I recently travelled to Europe. We've had the holidays. Winter has come to Colorado. The election is as maddening as ever. Perhaps I should take each in order.

The new Denver Shutter Company is going reasonably well. The weight of providing a livelihood for not just myself, but a half dozen others weighs on me. Complying with the appalling, atrocious, absurd, unconscienable, diablolical, evil (have I grabbed enough adjectives) number of rules and regulations that seek to destroy business people has weighed on me. However, on balance it is great to labor at something for which I genuinely care.

We spent my birthday in Germany embibing on fine Bavarian wheats and eating more sausage than physicians would counsel. Despite the occasional (read: constant) rain and snow, the trip was a huge hit. German mulled wine (Gluewein) is exceptionally soothing in a strong winter rain.

I was able to spend Christmas to New Years at home, and even managed to slip away to Bismarck for an overnight. This enabled me to pin down my realtor, stay in my finished home, use my remodeled shower for the first and only time, and spend time with my good friend N8. All things considered it was a nice trip.

I had long boasted that temps had not fallen below the mid 20's here in Denver, but was reproached unceremoniously by the 1 degree wind chill this morning. Cash even seemed to feel it in the paws. Oh well, by March we will be golfing.

I have supported, and continue to support, Rudy Giuliani's bid for presidency. It is furstrating to me that he seems to have lost his way. Perhaps this was inevitable. Perhaps he, and I, are too distant from the base of the party to really win. Pitty for the country. Far more troublesome is the sociopathic attempts the Clintons have made to secure their party's nod. Her deft attempt at fake tears pales when compared to her odious, but brilliant, machinations toward making Barack Obama a mere "black candidate." If anyone has wondered how low the Clintons will sink, they should only pay attention to this subtle but all too real example of politics at its worst.

Now, you ought feel caught up. I am happy, busy, outraged, appalled, and above all fabulous. Just what I had hoped for in '08. May you all realize the same.

End of the curse!

2007-11-12T16:53:00.000-07:00

In February I blogged that remodelling "was my curse." I was embarking then on an ambitious plan to remodel a significant portion of my main floor. I removed storage, closets, cupboards, halls, doors, walls, and completely refashioned portions of my dining room, kitchen, a bedroom, entry, and bathroom. At the time I was caught in the grip of a conflicted nature. I had been trained since childhood to undertake such ambitions, but found the going often tedious and frought with frustration and physical pain. I said then that I was pleased to craft my own space. I said then that I wanted no part of cookie cutter homes.

Recently I turned my back on the house, threw in the towel on remodelling and now live in an apartment. It is just like dozens of others. It is all the same color: white, with shades of off-white and beige. There is a dabble of tan here and there. I am at peace. This dramatic transformation in the space of 9 months ought not to be alarming. I overdosed on customization. I burnt out on remaking and settled on banal in exchange for simplicity. I have no pressing project, nothing to worry about, nothing to spend a fortune at Home Depot over. I have only to wake, eat, sleep, and walk the dog.

Of course, this isn't entirely the full story. The motivation behind this dramatic change of heart was the opportunity to purchase a small business in Colorado. I have moved to central Denver, and am soon to embark on a much larger challenge than building a new bathroom. In some ways I think the remodelling filled a necessary void: allowing me a creative and productive outlet where one was not always provided at work. The time I spent retooling the house has helped provide some of the capital required to buy the business, and therefore turns out to have been mentally, physically, and financially rewarding. Nevertheless, I have had my fill, and I'm looking forward to the mundane and mass produced for awhile. Maybe once the business is chugging along I'll look at tackling another home.

If I do, I will count on all of my friends to stand in my path screaming "NO!"

This just in!!!!

2007-10-18T15:10:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts noted for being the first Democrat to run for the Republican wing of the Republican party, has stopped the presses to day. Mr. Romney-- breathless after running 26.2 miles to declare the news-- pronounced that the United Nations is a "failure." For those of you who have been marooned on a desert island since before Gilligan or living in a bomb shelter since the Nixon administration, this must come as quite a shock. Take a few minutes to let it sink in. I don't mean to overwhelm you, but it may be beneficial to know that Santa Claus isn't real and that the daytime sky is blue.

I cannot figure out why Mitt continues to generate buzz, let alone support, in the Republican primary. Perhaps it is just the media trying to create a tough fight, or maybe it is the millions being poured into his campaign by manufactureres of hair gel. All I know is that it is well past time for the vacuous wind-bag to flutter off the stage like a deflating balloon.

I guess on the one hand you have to admire him. He is running as a conservative's conservative in the face off all historic evidence. He has made a lot of money. He has really nice hair for a 60 year old.

As far as I am concerned a man who voted for Democratic presidential candidates as recently as the 90's, donated to Democrats, distanced himself from "the Reagan/Bush era," supported abortion before he was opposed to it, was more gay-friendly than Ted Kennedy before he was more gay-phobic than any living person, brought socialized medicine to Massachusetts, raised taxes and fees in his state by three-quarters of a billion dollars, and proclaimed he would let the attorneys decide whether the president could defend the country (there must be a rule about how many commas I can use in a single sentence!), has no business calling himself the "real" Republican in the GOP primary. But then, I guess he's taking a tough line on the UN, so that makes it all ok.

Based on his bold hypocracy, I guess we can at least say he has the courage of his un-convictions.

Thor v. Gore

2007-10-12T15:42:00.000-06:00

Quick! Think of three Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Go! OK, I picked three because that is the number I could think of without consulting Google: Teddy Roosevelt, Yassir Arafat, and Nelson Mandela.

I can't help but wonder if they come to mind because they actually helped the cause of peace. Mr. Roosevelt brokered peace in the Russian-Japanese War a century ago. That seems simple enough. Mr. Mandela avoided armed conflict in South Africa by championing non-violent resistence to the racist policies of Arparteid. Mr. Arafat (jointly with Yitzak Rabin) won for negotiating with his Israeli counterpart in an effort to settle the decades long struggle between Palestinian Arabs and Jews (this despite a lifelong record of violence).

So here you have one man who established peace, one man who kept peace, and one man who sought peace. In my mind, these all seem relatively germaine to the concept of the Nobel Peace Prize. Today we learn that Albert Gore, Jr. and an United Nation's committee no one in the world has heard of before today have been awarded this year's prize.

I am sure a lot has and will be said about the idiotic incongruity of a "peace" prize being awarded to an hysterical Hollywood fear-mongerer and a bunch of global wind-bag-bureaucrats, but I just couldn't help add my 2 cents. I have to conclude that in the vacuous value system of modern Europe, leading thinkers lack the historical and moral compass to rationally think through issues of conflict, war, and peace. I truly believe the Norwegian Nobel committee, like much of 21st Century European society, has become so disengaged from any notion of principle, that it no longer even understands the concept of peace.

War involves fighting for a cause; a cause involves valuing something so desperately that one is willing to sacrifice; sacrifice implies a grander purpose to life and a concept of legacy. When life no longer has purpose other than existence, that existence paradoxically becomes more important. It is, after all, all that one has. Without purpose, there is little to value and ultimately nothing for which to sacrifice.

In that context, war becomes an irrational concept. From such a world view, principled stands in defense of causes are capable only through the actions of madmen. The very idea of standing and fighting for something--anything--ceases to make sense at all. In the end, such an idea becomes analogous to suicide: Something so profoundly foreign to the human instinct, that it can only be understood in terms of disbelief.

This is the state of European--and much of American-- intelligentsia. They have become hysterically opposed to George Bush, because they are incapable of viewing his principled stands in any context other than irrational insanity. They are dubious of the armed forces, because their bravery and penchant for sacrifice is alien.

Therefore, recognizing the legitimacy of the quest for true peace--which is NOT the same as the absence of war-- becomes by proxy a recognition of the rationality of war. Because they cannot embrace the glory of human will, they increasingly succomb to the scurge of human laziness. Because they cannot stand on principle, they increasingly stand on the vagaries of cultural whims. Because they cannot fathom war, they increasingly do not recognize the importance of peace.

And in these warped minds, the concept that an Oscar winning documentary about melting glaciers equates to the bravery of Nelson Mandela, somehow comes into sharp relief. The truly frightening thing is that in a world where nothing is worth fighting for, everything will ultimately be fought over. In a world without principles, the only language that will prevail, is the language of force.

Perhaps the Norwegians should consult Norse mythology: Thor--the god of war-- was a hero because he made life for humans possible by defeating the race of giants. War and peace each have their role in human events. We forget this at our peril.

On defining "responsibility"

2007-09-14T14:32:00.000-06:00

"The war is lost." - Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) (That's Democrat speak for "we should surrender.")

General Petreus' progress report on Iraq requires "the willing suspension of disbelief." - Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) (that's Clinton speak for "he's lying.")

"Iraqis...have not demonstrated any readiness to stand up and take responsibility for their country." - Harry Reid

"All the tribes agree to fight al Qaeda until the last child in Anbar!" - Ahmed Abu Risha (brother of slain Sheik Abdul Satter Abu Risha)

(That's Iraqi speak for "we'll bear any burden, pay any price...we will never surrender." Seems like those words should be familiar somehow... hmmmm??)

O summer, where hast thou gone?

2007-08-14T20:02:00.000-06:00

There it is in all its predictable, resplendent glory. The calendar: a year in the life. It isn't much different from the one that preceded it nor the one that will follow. It indicates my birthday is on a Sunday this year. That must mean that it was on a Saturday last year; I really don't remember. It is better to have birthdays on a weekend... at least it used to be.

The calendar used to matter. It used to mean something. Time was marked in understandable blocks. Beginning in late August freedom was sacrificed for structure. School. It was bitter sweet. The loss of the carefree summer giving way to friends and the excitement of new challenges. Then Christmas with a predictable break: at least ten days. Family and cookies and gifts and maybe a ski trip. And so on and....

Somewhere along the line it all comes crashing together. It merges into an amorphous 365 that is neither structured nor carefree. Each day passes as quickly and as anonymously as the last. 365 days or 525,600 minutes: what's the difference? Eventually the whir of days and the momentum of the ordinary overwhelms any sense of time and we are left to wonder where the years have gone.

It is in the summer when this phenomenon seems most acute. How I used to welcome the summer. Days spent gardening with Grandpa, riding bike, visits from distant cousins, vacations, evenings with Dairy Queen ice cream, fireworks, and fishing trips. This was the essence of life and we learned to pack it into a few precious months. Now summer seems to be the most hectic and least relaxing of seasons. Some have mentioned the dearth of blogs in the last couple of months. It seems almost too easy to chalk this up to "summer". Always busy and yet increasingly unfulfilling. Always hot but never special. Many years have passed since I ate fresh carrots and peas from Grandpa's garden... so many. I can't remember the last fish I caught. The occasional golf game seems a pour substitute; I'd trade them without reservation for one more summer with him.

And so it is: I've grown up. Responsibility and maturity trump the special and the enjoyable. Summer no longer has any unique properties. Christmas is only hectic and commercial. Each day is like the last and the next. The calendar becomes our enemy. I know I feel this the most this time of year when I start to realize how little I've actually accomplished on my list of summer goals. How little time I've spent in the sun and how much I've spent under flourescent bulbs. And as one more summer slips from our grasp I can't help but wonder: Is anyone else ready for fall? Football games and trick-or-treating? Maybe a chilly evening playing ghost-in-the-graveyard? We should probably make the most of it... before it snows.

Big, Fat.... Gentleman????

2007-07-11T20:08:00.000-06:00

Michael Moore is a big fat slob. He is an uneducated, poorly dressed, unshaven idiot. He deserves scorn and scepticism, and every manner of derision. Michael Moore also has an agent. Someone is advising him. Someone is whispering in his ear. Someone is adding common sense.

In a very real sense I am horrified. To some degree I am stunned. But I can't help but notice. Let me be clear: Michael Moore has gone mainstream. He has foresaken his nylon sports jackets, he has given up his ball caps, he has-- say it isn't so-- shaved!!

The most recent public appearances feature a clean shaved, well groomed, suit coat sporting, Michael expounding on his latest brilliance, "Sicko". Nevermind that the substance of the "documentary" is obsurd flim-flam that doesn't even meet CNN's criteria for journalism... how can Michael Moore convert himself into someone respectable so quickly? I was loathe to realize that I was taking him more seriously. I was at least listening. He didn't seem so ridiculous. And then I realized, it was his appearance. He was out to fool me. He was tired of resembling a 16 year old drop-out... he wanted to be a serious political figure.

I was truly taken off guard by this, but now I say bring it on. If Big Mike is willing to go mainstream, all the better. Finally the sane and reasonable will be able to go head to head with the crazy and deluded.

Please just tell me when I need to shave!

It's all gone to the dogs!

2007-06-18T19:22:00.000-06:00

Dogs. What is it about dogs that so draws people in? Afterall, they say that dog is man's best friend. Politicos repeat the trite expression that, "if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." It has become a universal feature of our culture. It has spawned all manner of industry. From the pretension of dog shows to the humility of yard cleaners, all sorts of people are making money off our obsession with dogs.

In my experience, having a dog was an insatiable appetite, until I had one. They were cute and cuddly, and all manner of reason told me that having a companion--albeit a canine-- was better than none at all. I'm not sure where my pooch comes out in the scheme of things. I look at some pampered mutts and think, "my God!". How can people lavish delicacies upon a mere dog. Gourmet treats at specialty shops?! Special sweaters to keep them warm?! Steps that enable them to seemlessly transition from floor to bed?!

At the same time, I am often taken off guard my my four legged friend. Whether he is staring at me in my recliner, begging for attention, or wagging his tail because I've set him free after a day in his kennel, he sends signals of unabashed affection.

And yet, he is a pain in the ass. His dog door breaks, requiring me to sacrifice a Sunday afternoon. He craps 5 lbs. for every 1lb. of food, requiring me to scoop poop. He jumps into bed and wakes me at 3 am.

I've decided that dogs serve a useful purpose, and that we must remember that dogs serve a useful purpose. They are unconditionally loving. They need us. They give joy and loyalty and servitude where no other creature will. They need us. They would perish without us. It is rare to find human beings for which this is true, so we look to dogs to fill the emotional gap. They are remarkably optimistic-- always assuming we'll throw the ball or take them for a walk-- and immune to neglect. No matter how log we leave them, they are ecstatic when we return. Their love is unconditional.

As long as they serve us and we do not serve them, I say God bless the dogs. They give so much and need so little. Perhaps our human interaction would profit from the instructions of dogs. Pet one when you can. Walk one if you must. Benefit from one no matter what.

On Rudy

2007-06-05T20:13:00.000-06:00

I am somewhat frustrated by presidential politics, not least of all because it seems so early to be thinking about presidential politics at all. However, since we seem destined to spend 2 years electing one, I'm starting to think we really need to get on track, and this is where my frustration starts to grow. I see my party--the Republican party--headed into major trouble. Polls seem to indicate that the party is seeking a savior rather than a candidate. They seem to be seeking perfection rather than a president. Ideologues can be pure and run as Libertarians or Greens or whatever else, but they cannot be elected. If the Republican party insists on some narrow vision of purity it will lose in 2008. Period.

The deck is clearly stacked against the GOP in 2008. In order to overcome the electoral obstacles, the party will need to be decisive and strong. There needs to be real focus on getting behind a candidate and allowing that candidate to build momentum. A bloody mess next January will only aid Mrs. Clinton.

In this light, I continue to recommend Mayor Giuliani as the guy to get behind, and more importantly, to get behind with enthusiasm. To me he is head and shoulders ahead of the pack. What he did in New York was the best of conservative governance. His insistance on keeping the world safe is exactly right. His insistance on the free market is exactly right. His view on personal freedom is exactly right. He has the energy. He has the track record.

If Republicans succumb to a reluctant view that embraces the "lesser of evils" we are destined to experience President Hillary. If we are divided we will lose. Period.

I encourage everyone to take a closer look and consider Rudy's strengths.

We few, we unhappy few, we band of loose associates

2007-05-31T20:02:00.000-06:00

I am growing exhausted and weary of the creeping defeatism and outright cowardice of the American people. According to Shakespeare: "Gentlemen in England now a-bed, shall think themselves accurs'd they were not; And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks, that fought with us upon St. Crispin's day."

Can we imagine Americans who are daily "a-bed" regretting that they were not among the few and proud who fought to establish an outpost of liberty on the far side of the world? Nay! Most seem content to worry about declining home prices, all the while demanding that the festering inconvenience of Iraq be brought to end. Do they not see that this is EXACTLY what al-qaida has predicted?! Do they not get that our enemy's time frame is literally hundreds of years long?! Where is the fire in the belly? Where is our Churchillian conviction that we "will NEVER surrender!"? Can we have fallen so low? Is our society truly so base that no cause is worth sacrifice, no mission worth striving against the odds, no hope bright enough to fuel the engine of conviction? Why are we not relentless? Perhaps this truly is Rome before the fall.

Today brings two noteworthy pieces of news. First, American forces have finally reached their escalated levels. Just now they are at full force and ready to engage the enemy. Second, Sunni arab residents of a neighborhood in Baghdad rose up against the armed terrorists of al-qaida who were holding them hostage. These hate-filled fascists sought to soak the neighborhood in blood, shooting randomly and preventing the attendance of school. The locals called upon American forces for help, and a fierce battle raged.

We are engaged in the struggle of our time. We are met in battle with a force that seeks our elimination. Because we don't think in these terms, because we have been acultured to "acceptance" and "diversity" and "harmony" we no longer even understand an enemy that is focused on absolutes, who's frame of reference is thousands of years long, who is willing to commit suicide for a moments glory.

If our country does not begin to grasp what we are up against and truly engage, I fear that my generation my be left to mop up the pieces of a civilization in ruin. On second thought, we might be too old by then, but we will witness it, and we will weep in disbelief. Remember that Rome was succeeded by 1,000 years of darkness before civilization climbed out of the abyss and returned to its previous heights. It has happened before. It is supremely naive to think it can't happen again.

The Iraqi people are our brothers. We may stand alone in defense of freedom, as Churchill's Britain did in an earlier era, but we should proudly proclaim that "we few, we happy few, we band of brothers" will strive evermore to right the world and expand freedom. With increasing desperation I hope we can all get a clue. Our future depends on it.

Bienvenido

2007-05-29T18:58:00.000-06:00

In 1994 I was a freshman in high screwal. I was also a virgin member of the debate team with a particularly weighty topic to digest: immigration. The country was being besieged by illegal immigrants and it was in the hands of we brave high school debaters to determine the proper method of addressing the egregious problem. I took the task seriously.

Though it was controversial, I soon settled on a course of action that I was resolute on-- if not entirely willing to advocate. The only way forward, I was sure, was to issue black-and-white orders to the border patrol: shoot on sight! Any miscreant, money grubbing, welfare sucking, law-breaking, Mexican scum who thought he could slither into the U.S. of A. had better take notice: there is a new sheriff in town, and he isn't taking any prisoners!

That was, it seems, a lifetime ago, and indeed, my opinion of today bears little resemblance to my opinion of then. I have written a nice polemic statement on immigration on my website, but I felt compelled to comment here, given the timely nature of the debate in Congress. I can't think of something less American than resisting immigration. No one can intelligently maintain that immigration has been bad for America. I can't imagine anything less capitalist than restricting the free exchange of labor. I can't imagine anything less compassionate than turning back desperate father's trying to feed their children. In short, I think it is appalling to take the callous position of so many in the anti-immigrant community.

Anyone who risks his or her life to come here and work for menial wages is welcome in my book. If our law doesn't reflect that, it is OUR failing, not theirs. I don't pretend to have read the current legislation being considered. I almost certain my view would be more lenient than the compromise legislation.

What I must plead is for thinking, well-meaning people to consider that this country has enemies and that this country has dead-weight and that this country has social problems, but that none of these are due to immigration--illegal or otherwise. Our strength depends on the renewal of those who seek a better life. Our future will be built on their dreams. Let's all take a deep breath and think where our energy should be devoted. I say bienvenido.

Follow the yellow brick road

2007-05-22T18:26:00.000-06:00

I've been thinking a lot lately on the question of Home. Where is Home? What makes Home home? What impact does where we live have on who we are, and what we are able to become? Can you have more than one Home? Is Home where you are from or where you live?

There are several reasons why my attention has focused on this matter at this time. I have two friends who live--or rather lived-- where I live, that have recently chosen to live somewhere else. I have one friend who wants to move back to where she is from, but must suffer the injustice of abandoning her current address for the county jail before she can move. I myself feel very restless, and am not entirely sure that where I live is where I should live. I have a house that I've been shaping into my own creation, and to which, I am therefore quite attached. I have aspirations beyond what my house can ever provide. I have friends that live very far away. I have family that is very close--and who cherish my proximity. I have dreams and desires which seem too big for where I am. I don't ever want to be too big for from where I come. I am torn.

I have travelled around the world. I have slept on a bunk bed on a mountain top in Peru. I have slept in luxurious hotels in Colorado Springs and London and Santiago. I have stayed in seedy inns from Baker, Montana to Rome. I have returned to my house and my bed, only to wish I was back at the hotel, where the bed was plush and the towels fresh and the shower sparkling. I have felt guilty for wishing I was there.

I love London and New York and San Francisco and Berlin and San Antonio and Boston and Prague and Chicago and Santiago and Denver and Madrid and Seattle and Stockholm. I do not care for Houston or Rome or Lima or Los Angeles.

Yet I am Glendive. No matter how much time passes or how many miles I log or how many distant lands I visit, in Glendive vest the unique and timeless qualities that seem to embody Home. I am a product of its peculiarities that may not be peculiar at all. Perhaps they are the parochialisms of every small town from Vermont to Ventura. But whatever they are, they are inextricably me. Whether a swiss brat at the Beer Jug or cruising down main laying on the top of my car, clinging to the luggage rack for security, and belting out the songs on the radio; whether selling carpet and paint and producing pictures worthy of walls or hiking past cacti in Makoshika, Glendive has infused me with itself.

But I am more. Could I live there? Today? Tomorrow? Someday? So many of those I love are there, and yet, I am more. I am Valpo and Chicago and Europe. I am theater and espresso and music and art. Met in me are city and town, culture and country, Mozart and Montana, Baroque and Badlands, plaid and searsucher.

Which leads me to believe that where we are is not so important as where we go and who we are. I could live--and indeed may seek to live-- in places near and far and big and small. What is more important is the places I am committed to returning. Those places which time and space and circumstance cannot disconnect us from. Those places that contribute to the fabric of our beings and which contain what and who we love.

Perhaps it is uniquely American to have the luxurious freedom to move easily from a dizzying array of places and climes. Perhaps it is only given to we priveleged to experience everything we wish to and then go home. All I know is that wherever I venture and where ever I hang my hat, what is truly important is those places that have made me who I am and those places that I choose to return to time and time again. More important yet, are the people I love and the knowledge that no matter how far away I may reside, they are are the closest in my heart.

Oh...gag Canada...

2007-05-01T23:28:00.000-06:00

I just returned from a 3 day trip to Canada. Traversing the prairie for some 5 hours is bad enough without having to face a ridiculously absurd border enforcement on the part of Canadian Immigration. Picture a tiny border town in the middle of the wind-swept prairie. Here is a duty free shop looking tacky and out of place. Here is a farm house on the American side displaying a large American flag, maybe overdone. Here is a few hundred miles of unpatroled no-man's-land that is the 49th parallel. But fear not! If you happen to decide that this particular outpost of hinterland is where you shall perpetuate untold crimes against the proud people of Canada, you will be thwarted!

For about an hour my colleagues and I were detained by soft-spoken, yet freakishly manly Canadian women who were out to vet our credentials and stop evil-doers of any stripe. Our passports were ceased and scrutinized for about 30 minutes. Then we each had a private interregation that would have gotten the Pope to confess to sins that would make a sailor blush with shame. Had I ever hired an attorney? No. Really? Yes. I mean no. Sorry, what was the question? Had I ever sought legal counsel. No. Really? No. Yes. Really. What? Have you ever appeared in court. No. Never. No. You're sure. No. I mean Yes. Sure. No. No court. No lawyers. No charges? No. Never? No. You're sure? Yes. I mean, I don't think so. Ahhhhhhh!

Eventually we were freed to enter the great land that is Canada, but not before I tearfully recalled a moving violation involving a Ford Probe in 1996.

I see very little redeeming value to being Canadian. As far as I can tell being Canadian involves wishing desperately to be American while simultaneously resisting any hint of pro-Americanism. It means waiting around until 1965 to finally decide to be a real country, and then fighting with the French speaking citizens about whether they really ought to have a single country. Canadia is full of natural resources and devoid of any character. It lives in the shadow of America, is completely subject to our whim and woe, and may cease to exist once the tax rate finally reaches 120%.

I was profoundly glad to return home. I don't care if Roots does make some snazzy ski gear. I thank God NOT to have been born Canadian. If I go OAT and ABOAT to engage in some PRO-cess, I will do so with God Bless America blaring in the background of my mind.

Brave until bravery is required.

2007-04-19T22:02:00.000-06:00

Senate Majority Leader, the corpse-like Harry Reid has declared today that the war in Iraq is lost. The Democrats, it seems, have decided to declare defeat as the precursor to bringing the troops home. What better way to support the armed forces than to declare them failures?! I'm sure the entire country breathes a sigh of relief this day, knowing that our foreign policy is in the hands of such capable cowards.

In the old days we might have needed to elect a genuine coward as president--Jimmy Carter for example-- but now we can just recognize the incompetent congressional leaders in the stead of the president. This allows us the luxury of picking and choosing.

I for one am relieved. Now that we as a nation are failures, we can slink back into our caves and hope no one attacks us. What a relief not to have to worry about the world. Thank God the Dems are in charge. Heaven forbid we pursist in our needless and foolish idea of influencing world events. Good grief NO! Let's just declare defeat and cuddle up! Long live the lilly-livered fools who run the Congress. Land of the weak and home of the fickle! God shed His grace on we.... screw the rest of ya'll!

Netflix vs. Blockbuster

2007-04-08T18:42:00.000-06:00

The video wars have taken the place of the cola wars. Commercials attack me from every direction-- TV, Internet, mail. Netflix offers convenience; Blockbuster offers convenience plus inconvenience. Receive videos by mail, no late fees, return them in a prepaid envelope. Because this sounds good to me I've been a Netflix member for many months. Blockbuster has decided having people get videos by mail is bad for business, and has therefore decided to offer a mail service that also works with their stores.

This represents a significant dilemma for me. In general I joined Netflix because I was pissed off at Blockbuster. What kind of business succeeds when its customers come in the door and are routinely told that the product they seek is sold out? Only a video store can get away with charging outrageous prices for hit and miss service. With Netflix there is no doubt. I place the movies on my list, and they are mailed without fail, one after another. The problem is that mail service is somewhat unreliable. I may recieve a movie on Tuesday and not be able to watch it until Friday. Afterward I mail it on Saturday. It goes out on Monday, is received on Wednesday, and I get a replacement on Thursday... or Friday. The delay between getting what I want and getting the next installment can be irritating.

In comes Blockbuster with a brilliant solution: if you are willing to wait for the mail, great. If not take your movie to the store and select a replacement. On the surface this is a superior service. Therefore I suppose that from a purely economic point of view, I should transfer my membership from Netflix to Blockbuster. However, the economic idea of the purely rational actor has been significantly debunked. In this case I am a real world example. I strongly suspect my better value is with Blockbuster, but there is no escaping the fact that I have a strong aversion to throwing my business Blockbuster's way.

My take-away is that service matters. A business which pleases its customers may be subject to competition, but one which fails to provide adequate value is truly disadvantaged vis-a-vis its competitors. We don't necessarily make purchase decisions on lowest price. At the end of the day we want to feel good and feel treated fairly. For now I'm sticking with Netflix.

Jim Cramer, American Hero

2007-04-04T19:20:00.000-06:00

It was a shameless bit of self-promotion, and I admit that my knowledge on the subject is pretty thin, but NBC ran a story today on the cult status of Jim Cramer on college campi around the country, and I find the notion fascinating.

His show Mad Money appears on CNBC-- NBC's 24-hour financial reporting arm-- and is by design an insane, high-energy, seemingly out-of-control atmosphere wrapped around the heretofore hopelessly mundane subject of stock trading. I find the show insufferable and have rarely been able to watch more than a few minutes. (Mr. Cramer seems to relish leaving his audience with the impression that his head may explode at any moment.) Nevetheless, it is a popular and ultimately serious show.

The idea that this self-proclaimed "stock geek" is something of a cult icon among college aged youth is, to say the least, improbable. However, there are college clubs devoted to his cause. The audiences he received on the college tour of his show would rival those for any homecoming champions in terms of roudiness. One girl even called him "sexy".

I find all of this interesting because if true it is a wonderfully positive development. We may have a generation of young people who not only aspire in their college years to wealth , but keenly understand that smart participation in markets and capitalism is how to achieve their objectives.

College is typically thought of as the time in life when idealism reaches its zenith. When young hearts bleed for world peace and an end to poverty and of course that talisman of all things noble: "social justice." In this case, it appears that the idealism has not diminished, but the objectives have. Rather than fervent belief in the power of goodwill to heal the human condition, these students have faith in the market to make them rich. More importantly, they are unapologetic about it. They line up in their school colors and cheer wildly for a man that encourages them in the idea that they can become billionaires.

One thing that Mr. Cramer said resonates especially loud: he suggested that students max out their student loans and invest the extra money in stocks because student loans have such low interest rates. Now, bear in mind that a top agenda item for Democrat's upon taking power in January was to cut the interest rate on student loans in half. What an interesting juxtapositon that provides: these economic fatalists--who believe Americans very existence depends upon the federal government-- may inadvertantly be helping to create an entire generation of investor-class capitalists who understand that wealth is made, not redistributed. I hope I'm still an idealist, and I have to say, that certainly fits my definition of "social justice"!

Down with the Asses; Bring on the Frogs!

2007-03-30T17:35:00.000-06:00

I've tried to use constraint in this blog; while I'm willing to comment on political matters, I prefer to visit less controversial topics. However, the latest bit of legislative chicanery to emerge from the Democratic Congress has so piqued me that I feel compelled to comment. The so-called supplemental funding bill passed by the House and Senate is such an outrageous affront to the common-sense of the voter as to beggar belief.

The Democrats rode into town on a tidal wave of frustration over government largesse and corruption scandals. No one was as frustrated with what the Republican majority had become as me. The GOP deserved to lose. They deserve to be discontent. They deserve to be sweating 2008. However, the Dems believe that they rode into town as a posse on white steeds ready to stand up for Justice and the American way. Instead they are standing up for foolishness and the French Ideal.

President Bush has requested funding in the neighborhood of $100 billion for the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats took this request and sprang into action. The action mostly entailed acrobatic contortions that would make any yoga master proud. Unable to unify their caucus behind any coherent position, they instead set about to slice down the middle and create the worst piece of legislation to see the light of day since Mrs. Bill Clinton proposed socializing our health system. OK, maybe it is simply the worst legislation since the last farm bill. In any event it is atrocious.

In order to win the slimmest majority possible in the House of Representatives, and a mere plurality in the Senate, Democrat leadership had to load in some $40 billion in absurd pork to literally buy the votes of reluctant members of their majority. The resulting legislation calls for funding the troops, funding peanut storage and other pork give-aways, and requiring our troops to retreat by March 2008. In a display which we can only imagine was meant to seem indignant, the corpse-like Harry Reid insisted that "not another drop of American blood should be spilt in Iraq." Wow, so we need to devote another year to a hopeless cause that isn't worth fighting for. Not only has everyone who has fought, died, or been injured to date done so in vane, so will the poor thousands of souls who do so in the next year!

The duplicity of this act is impossible to ignore. The war is lost, but we will fund it. No one should die for this cause, but we'll let them go on dying for another year or so. Democrats will stop spending on pork, unless its needed to buy votes. Democrats will end corruption, unless your vote is for purchase.

The Democrats have taken little more than 2 months to prove their moral bankruptcy in governance. Given the choice between duplicitous Democrats who try to have their cake and eat it too, and the French who can be counted on for taking the position of surrender, I'll take the Frogs. At least they are unapologetic for where they stand, and what they believe in.

For more detail on my views on the Iraq War, see my article here

Nanny-State Nonsense

2007-03-15T17:35:00.000-06:00

Various state's have varying schedules for the meeting of their legislative bodies. In ND our legislature meets for three months on odd numbered years, and we have recently been blessed with this biennial conclave. In other states their citizen legislators are full-time functionaries. Regardless, Defeners of Democracy and Keepers of the Purse have been in full swing recently, as evidenced by reports of the ever-encroaching Nanny-State. These Defenders of Virtue have once again set their lives to undermining ours.

In California--always rich fodder for such things--a law was introduced to ban spanking of any kind. Apparently it not only takes a village to raise a child, it takes a state assembly. In Texas parents risked misdemeanor charges and a significant fine for failing to turn up to parent-teacher conferences. In Florida children have been threatened with failing grades if their parents refuse to show up for a mandatory viewing of An Inconvenient Truth.

Meanwhile in North Dakota we've taken one step forward and one step back. The legislature has finally decided that a 19th century law prohibiting cohabitation might be a bit of Victorian flim-flam after all-- it took the last 8 years of failed attempts to finally undo this prudish nonsense. But, not to appear too devoted to liberty, the same state senator--MY state senator-- who pushed to end this ban has recently gone on the record in support of outlawing tanning beds! Smoking bans--which I reject ideologically, but love biologically--apparently aren't going far enough, we need to stop second-hand bronzing.

On the national level several politicians are calling for relief on so-called sub-prime mortgages. Certain of our fellow citizens borrowed outrages sums of money for over-valued real estate on non-existent credit. Surprise! Some of them aren't able to make their payments. Keeping up with the Jones' is good while it lasts, but when it all comes crashing down, Mrs. Bill Clinton is there to demand something be done to help these poor, down-on-their luck fools. Surely some Republican cabal--I'm sorry, I mean vast right wing conspiracy-- is out to make them poor!

Why are people so afraid to tell their politicians to butt out of their lives? Why do legislators and Congressmen feel so compelled to tell us all how to live every last detail of our lives? Are we really that in need of coddling? If Johnny is passing history with 102%, should his parents be called away to consult with the teacher on pain of imprisonment? When will the insanity of all this dawn on the masses?

As for me, I've stocked up on V8 in a clever profit-making scheme. When the best legal minds finally get around to passing a law that forces us to eat our vegetables, I'll avoid the rush and the spike in prices.

Powder Junky

2007-03-05T18:06:00.000-07:00

I was too old when I learned to ski: at least 15. Compared to the crop of "ski-wees" aged 3-6 who would whiz by with no regard for their elders, I felt completely impotent. To make matters worse I graduated at the bottom of my first ski class. This thoroughly new and distressing experience-- having the instructor single me out for my special needs rather than my special abilities-- nearly resulted in a stillborn skiing career. Nevertheless, I redoubled my commitment to that which was at first challenging, and I determined to succeed.

Today I cannot imagine a world in which I did not have an annual ski trip to look forward to. Unfortunately life has kept me an uncomfortable distance from ski country. This past weekend was one of those rare and precious experiences that make the balance of the year tolerable. Having braved blizzard conditions to get to Glendive, I caught Big Sky Airlines to Bozeman in time to hit the slopes Saturday morning. As I buckled up my ski boots and secured myself in the bindings, 344 days of trouble and stress melted away like snowflakes under the blazing sun.

As I cruised down the mountain side sucking in fresh Montana air and enjoying the serenity of silence as the wind gently whistled through the pines. As I forgot the drudgery of life. As I LIVed. I couldn't help cast my glance across the sun drenched Gallatin range and give thanks for this incredible world. My ski trips are an essential part of the maintenance of my sanity. On the side of a mountain, carving tracks in the snow, I feel closer to God and to myself than in any other pursuit. For me this diversion is poetry in motion, and the reason to persevere for another 344 days.

Flip (off) This House

2007-02-25T17:59:00.000-07:00

Remodelling is in my blood. It is an inescapable aspect of my upbringing; it is a critical part of my formative experiences; it is my curse. Where others see a new house, a nice townhome, or even a well appointed loft as the ideal way to venture into adulthood, I had to pick a diamond in the rough. A gem of a home just waiting to be polished. Nearly four years later I'm still buffing.

I grew up in my family's home improvement business. As a child I viewed my grandparent's store as a vast playland, full of raw materials for my amusement. I ran and jumped across rolls of carpeting; I made beautiful creations of wallpaper and picture matting. As a teenager I made this venture my work. I peddled every conceivable project to the public and helped turn their decorating dreams into realities. When I was 11 my parents bought a fixer-upper and the rest of my home-years were spent in unyielding renovation. Then there were the rentals and vacation properties. Each required nothing more than my mother's imagination, a lot of scrubbing, and all the Benjamin Moore that could be procured. So when it came time to buy a house, I didn't survey an old, run-down house; I envisioned a masterpiece in the making. Torn screen: done. Old paint: covered. Ugly carpet: gone. Hideous wallpaper: scraped off. Nothing would stand between me and my modern art.

Four years and thousands of dollars have done their best to stand between me and my art. At writing I've just completed reconstructing walls on my main floor. The new walls are far more virtuous than their forebears. These allow a larger bathroom and dining area, a much larger shower, a functional closet, and the satisfaction of ushering out the old.

I often find myself lamenting the tasks before me--as though I haven't freely chosen to take them on--and think back to the many customers who's caution I had to overcome to make the sale. Yes, in the end I am happier with each completed project. There is a distinct satisfaction that comes with living in and enjoying a space of one's own molding. A unique atmosphere that transends the stale real-estate beige (as we once called the fail-safe carpet color) of new construction. That construction on winding boulevards of cookie cutter mini-estates. Those subdivision dwellers who could navigate their neighbors' homes in the dark because they share a common floorplan. No thanks, I will stumble into my own walls, which just last week were in a different place, and each time pay tribute to those who taught me to match shades, keep things fresh, and when in doubt to go with Linen White.

Reasons to Winter in ND III

2007-02-22T20:19:00.000-07:00

I didn't intend the "Reasons to Winter" series, but I have found yet another reason. Unlike the last, which were perhaps neither particularly serious nor particularly alluring, the latest I feel compelled to comment on out of sheer admiration. Last Saturday, Feb. 17th, the citizens of my adopted hometown had the chance to help set a Guinness World Record. Local organizers were seeking to reclaim the title of "Most Snow Angels," which was held by Michigan Technilogical University.

On a crisp and sunny Saturday morning, people began to show up at the State Capitol grounds in Bismarck. When all was said and done they came in their thousands to be part of a silly, but somehow profound community event. Without controversy regarding the religious overtones of angels on the Capitol lawn or the cross formed by church members who dressed in orange to form a large cross in the crowd. Without discrimination, and without the selfishness that might keep them at home. These people came to help put their community in the record books.

In the process they reminded me of why I DO winter in ND. The number to beat was 3,784. When the flakes settled, fully 8,912 of my neighbors had flapped their arms in a tremendous tribute to community. That is probably about 10% of the city. One woman celebrated her 99th birthday by making an angel! In a time where everything seems to divide us, how wonderful to see something that can so unite us. I was not there. I was on my way to my real hometown. Glendive will never hold the record, there aren't 8,912 souls there. Congratulations Bismarck!

As an aside, Glendive experienced its first combat death in Iraq in February. The hundreds of citizens of my hometown who lined a miles-long funeral procession route in temperatures well below zero, flags of all sizes unfurled, saluting, standing, just being, renew my faith in so much. I am truly sad to have missed both of these solemn occasions.

Reasons to Winter in ND II

2007-02-16T09:45:00.000-07:00

The conversation on my drive to work yesterday was a local radio version of Myth Busters. Apparently there was some doubt as to whether or not it is true that bubbles, when blown outdoors at temperatures of -30 degrees or less, will not break. The bubbles in question are the ordinary sort of bubbles that children used to blow through little plastic rings that they would dip in small jars of bubble solution.

As an aside, I say "used to" because the last foray I had into bubble creation involved a collection of high-tech gadgets which blow bubbles by the hundreds through the use of assorted pumps, hoses, fans, and other pneumatic innovations. Q could be proud of some of these. I take from this experience that today's children wouldn't know how to blow their own bubble if they needed to.

Which brings me back to our myth. The notion is that bubbles blown at extremely cold temperatures don't break, as per usual bubble behavior, but rather hold their shape. By the time I arrived at the office, several hardy North Dakotans had dug through their summer lake kits and trudged outside (wind chill -49 degrees), bubble makers in hand, to test the hypothesis. And what do you know? The bubbles floated timidly to the earth and just sat there like so many crystal balls. Considering that all atomic motion ceases somewhere near yesterday's temperatures, I suppose this isn't all that suprising to physicists, but it provided a morning of entertainment to we hardy souls in the nation's icebox. You just don't get that in Florida.

Reasons to winter in ND

2007-01-31T19:40:00.000-07:00

I am extremely pleased to report that the curling team on which I participate won its first contest in--well--many weeks this past Monday. For those of you who are not familiar with the game, let me offer a brief explanation:

Curling was invented by a group of Vikings who were too drunk to pillage properly. It involves sliding a rock across a frozen surface and hitting a bunch of other rocks. To make sure the rock doesn't get dirty, several of the rock thrower's friends sweep the ice in front of the rock. The contest is won when one group of drunk Vikings gives up and leaves more of the other team's rocks at the end of the frozen lake.

Today curling is played entirely by Canadians, with the exception of a few Americans who live at extreme northern latitudes, and who find ice fishing too exciting and too short on beer.

Now that you understand the game, let me explain why this particular victory was so important. First, our team rarely wins. This is not our fault, but stems from the fact that we are all Americans and most of our competition is Canadian. Second, I was the Skip on this particular night. I forgot to explain the role of Skip. The Skip is played by the Viking who is too drunk to stay on his feet while sweeping, and thus stands at one end of the frozen lake and yells at the guys doing the work. The Skip, since he does not do much work, but does all the yelling, is considered the leader. Other words for this are "director" or "decider." So last Monday, through no fault of my own, I was the Skip, and therefore highly honored when Josh and Darcy performed well.

I admit that around this time of year I start to long for warmer climes. However, when I think of the ice, the rocks, the beer, the yelling--I really can't imagine living anywhere else.

I'm outraged and appalled

2007-01-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

I tackled my tax return today, and I discovered that I'm likely to get a sizable refund. I am absolutely irate about this. Not only do I have to give up a good part of my Saturday to learn this handly little fact, but in the process I learn that I had to give up significant amounts of my money to the government this year, for free. It is an injustice that the government can confiscate our money, the fruits of our labor, without that money ever passing through our fingers. From this diabolical scheme you get a public that regards that portion of its earnings seized by government fiat as almost nonexistent. Since it never shows up in our bank accounts, it is as if it isn't really there.

I say end the mandatory withholding of federal taxes. Force each taxpayer to write the government a check for the bill owed on April 15th, and the size of government will decline in very short order. It is only by allowing theft on the part of an over zealous IRS that the government is able to continue increasing the burden of taxation without the average citizen feeling the pain. Imagine if the gas station was able to take their money out of our checks first. We would gas up all year long, and then at the end we'd see whether we owed more or whether they owed us. No one would tolerate such nonsense, but the government has been getting away with it for decades.

Unfortunately, far from feeling outrage, most Americans are busy planning the vacations they'll take using the refund they have coming. Thrilled by this windfall of cash, they completely forget that it has been theirs all along, and that the government has helped itself to an interest-free loan all year. As for me, I'm outraged and appalled by my large refund.

Blogging and other indiscretions

2007-01-25T19:55:00.000-07:00

In a desperate attempt to fend off the neverland of tech purgatory I've decided I finally need to make good on my years-long commitment to launching a blog-- whatever one of those is.

If you expect to get the inside scoop, the secrets of my inner most thoughts, the intimate details of my day, you've certainly come to the wrong place. If you want my sometimes witty, sometimes inane, sometimes offensive musings on life as it comes at us, then I welcome you along for the ride. On the off chance that someone actually reads this, send me some comments, that's the fun part. I promise nothing other than to tell you how I see things-- at the moment.