The End of The Beginning, or The Beginning of The End?

Andrew Sullivan posted recently on how health care seems to be slipping away from the Democrats despite their unassailable supermajority control of Congress and the White House… a supermajority that possibly ends next week if the come-from-behind candidacy of Republican Scott Brown prevails over Mass AG Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate special election.

He had health insurance reform in his grasp and yet it may now be swiped away because they simply took too long to get it done.

The real story of the Massachusetts election, however, is what the outcome will mean in terms of the absolute ability of the Democrats to control Congress. If Coakley wins, it’s another year of one-party rule; the Republicans will continue to play the role of street urchins who can throw rocks at the passing train from behind the fence as it rumbles by but that’s it. If Brown triumphs, however, then the train comes to a screeching halt unless the boys are given some say as to where it’s going, and when. The Democrats will have to work with at least one Republican to get controversial legislation through.

Sullivan argues:

[A vote for Brown is a vote to] embolden every enemy Obama has, from Netanyahu to Ailes.

That’s the only reason to vote for Coakley on Tuesday.

She’s a dreadful candidate, but this race is now a critical battle in the war to rescue the possibility of effective governance.

Give me a break! If Martha Coakley is the one thing that will keep us from descending into chaos, then the battle is lost already and we’re doomed. Actually, the opposite is true. Removing the Democrat supermajority in the Senate is the only chance we have of stopping the bus from driving off of the cliff, of restoring effective governance in the form of ruling according to the wishes of the people.

A Brown victory means that Democrats will no longer be able to damn the torpedoes of public opinion and go full speed ahead on their unpopular radical agenda. They’re going to have to play ball. If healthcare reform is important (and I think that it is, just not in the way the Democrats are proposing), then perhaps adopting a Democrat idea (government as insurer of last resort) along with a Republican idea (allow insurance companies to compete across state lines so that insurance pools can be much larger, spreading the risk around, or tort reform, or both) might actually lead to a better bill, not for the Democrats or Republicans but for the American people. If getting the economy going again is important (and everyone knows that it is), then perhaps we can forego another $800 billion mistake by passing a ‘targeted spending’ bill that is Stimulus II in all but name only. Perhaps we can try making the Bush tax cuts permanent and reducing the corporate and capital gains taxes while also freezing federal spending to 2007 levels. Was government spending really deficient back in 2007?

Of course, if you’re fully invested in the Democrat agenda and believe the country’s finally headed in the right direction, but just not going fast enough, then Martha Coakley is probably your candidate and Andrew Sullivan probably reflects your thinking. Just recognize that most Americans disagree… and that the election of Scott Brown is the beginning of the end for Democrat control of the federal government as it likely presages a GOP landslide in the mid-term elections. The People are mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.

Technorati Tags: Scott Brown,Martha Coakley,Andrew Sullivan,Massachusetts Senate race,Congress,supermajority

Plan B

In the past few days, there’s been a couple of stories floating an idea by the Treasury Department to encourage people with 401(k) accounts to switch their investing out of securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) and into annuities:

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.

The purported reason for this is to ensure that those who plan to depend on their 401(k)s for the bulk of their retirement income will have a sufficient income stream, with the excuse given that investors lost an average of 31% of the value of their 401(k) accounts between January 2008 and March 2009. What is hidden in the story is the fact that these accounts recovered half of that loss in the past nine months, and at the current rate of growth in the stock market the average 401(k) will be back at January 2008 levels in another nine months. So, where is the crisis? What is the real reason?

I think the real reason is clear; the Obama Administration has an eye on all of that money and wants to grab it. Obviously, outright confiscation would result in an armed uprising by outraged Americans. However, what if the Congress pulled an Argentina and changed the 401(k) laws to force conversions of all of the funds in 401(k)s to government-backed annuities… T-bills… or face a confiscatory tax rate? Yes, there’d be a court battle that would drag on for years, and that might or might not be won by taxpayers, but in the meantime the government has all of that money. And what would they do with it?

Today, our budget deficits are funded by taking the surplus funds out of Social Security, and selling T-bills. The Social Security surplus is drying up as the number of retired recipients is approaching the number of working contributors. Buyers of our T-bills are similarly drying up; it’s a lot easier to sell a couple hundred billion dollars worth of T-bills each year than to sell more than a trillion dollars worth of T-bills each year… and as the economy falters and we buy less imported oil and Asian-manufactured goods the Arabs, Japanese, and Chinese have less dollars to buy our T-bills. More important, the Chinese, who are the largest purchasers of T-bills, have us over a barrel. They can use the threat of not buying our debt as a strategic lever against us. Certainly our economy would collapse if we were forced to either stop all deficit spending or print more than a trillion dollars to buy next year’s debt. As China’s domestic consumption grows, they need our markets less and less… and we’ve already funded much of their economic development. What if they decide to annex Taiwan, and they use the threat of cutting off purchasing our debt if we interfere? Will the Obama Administration risk economic collapse over Taiwan? I don’t know if the Chinese are willing to push us that far, but certainly we’re fools if we expect them to continue to buy our debt when our ability to repay that debt is becoming increasingly doubtful. So the Obama Administration and the Congressional Democrats have come up with an alternative, a Plan B, to take all of the money in our 401(k) accounts.

A prudent nation would forego more government spending than it collects in taxes. Prudent and Congress are two words that are seldom if ever found in the same sentence, however. The current Congress seems hell-bent on spending every dime they can get their hands on, and borrowing even more money to spend once that is gone. The current Administration will not stop them. Changing the law to put another $3.6 trillion in the hands of the Congressional spendthrifts and postponing the hard decisions about government spending for another couple of elections is the easy way out, especially if enough people buy the spin about how this is somehow looking after their best interests.

This is how a once-great country sinks into economic purgatory. This is how America, the strongest nation the world has ever known, with the largest economy and the highest standard of living, turns into a banana republic. Be afraid. Be very afraid. (HT: Instapundit)

Technorati Tags: economy,China,deficit,debt,401(k),Obama,Treasury

Buddy, Can You Spare a Dime?

A letter from the RNC was in the mail tonight. Michael Steele is shaking the tree to help fund the RNC for the ‘10 campaign cycle. So what else is new?

Well, for one thing the RNC’s historical fundraising advantage is missing this year. The Washington Times reports that the RNCC has barely enough money to fund a single Congressional race, having raised $18 million less than the DNCC and with less than $2 million of available funds today versus over $15 million for the Democrats. Politico reports that Congressional GOP incumbents have been reluctant to turn over campaign funds to the RNCC; Democrat GOP incumbents have given $2 million more out of their campaign war chests to the DNCC. But this is really a smokescreen; the real reason that the RNCC is running on fumes has to do with GOP voter disaffection. (HT: Newsweek) Yet Republican Party leaders don’t seem to get it… or they don’t want to get it.

For too long, each party has treated much of its base like bastard step-children. But evidence abounds that the conservative voters are fed up with politics as usual, with party bosses who cavalierly dismiss supporters’ concerns and frustrations with a wave of the hand while snickering “Where are they going to go?” Well, guess what? They went and started their own political organization: the TEA Party. They’ve decided to take back their country and take on both Democrats and Republicans. TEA Party supporters played a major role in the Republican off-year election victories, but perhaps their biggest statement was made in the NY-23 Congressional election that was won by a Democrat after the GOP establishment insisted on supporting Dede Scozzafava, a liberal ‘RINO’, over a conservative candidate (Doug Hoffman) for pragmatic reasons (GOP elites didn’t think a conservative Republican could win in that district and wanted a liberal Republican, assuming that all of the Republicans and many Democrats would vote for her). The RNCC spent over $1 million to support Scozzafava, yet Hoffman’s endorsement by Sarah Palin brought the nation’s attention to his candidacy, a significant amount of donations from out-of-state TEA Party supporters, and overwhelming support in the district. Realizing she had no chance of winning, Scozzafava dropped out of the race… and then endorsed the Democrat candidate who went on to win. The real loser in this election wasn’t Doug Hoffman, who will run again in 2010 and who will most likely win, it was the GOP leadership.

So, “where are they going to go?” Well, as a volunteer who spent his own time and money to leave Washington state and go to Florida to help campaign for McCain last November, and as someone who believes the GOP leadership hasn’t learned its lesson from the past two national election cycles, I can tell you where I’m going to go… and it’s not to a GOP fund-raiser. I gave money to Doug Hoffman, and I’ve given to Joe Wilson, and I’ve given to Scott Brown… and I’ve given to them directly instead of donating to the RNC and letting them pick and choose. Millions of disaffected GOP voters are doing the same thing, bypassing the party and supporting only those candidates who agree with them.

The GOP leadership is in grave danger of losing their conservative base, and more ‘Scozzafavas’ (supporting establishment RINO Republicans) will only hasten the process. I personally have no intention of giving to the RNC for a while; if my campaign contributions are going to be thrown down a rathole then I’d just as soon pick the rathole.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich successfully ended 40 years of Democrat control in the House by understanding why the majority of Americans were angry at the Democrat-controlled Congress, and then getting GOP candidates (incumbents and challengers) to pledge to address those issue if voters supported them. The majority of voters agreed with the agenda and believed in the GOP candidates, and history was made. Sixteen years later, and four years after losing control of the Congress, today’s GOP leadership seemingly has no real clue as to why many of the folks who voted the GOP out are now gathering by the millions… and no clue as to how to obtain TEA Party support. Voter disaffection with the incumbent Democrats is nearly at an all-time high (and it is only going to get higher as the economy fails to recover), yet the Palins and Bachmanns who are inspiring the TEA Party supporters have little influence in the GOP.

Mr. Steele, with all due respect, you and the rest of the GOP leadership need to get a clue. And you need to get it quick. Otherwise, 2010 will be historical only in that future pundits and historians will wonder how the GOP could have blown such a great opportunity. Here’s a hint: listen to the TEA Party protests and come up with objective, measurable solutions for America’s problems and not just less of what the Democrats are promising. And tell us the truth! We can take it.

The World Leaders' Guide to Dressing One's Children at International Summits... or, what not to wear

The London Daily Mail has an article on Malia's attire at the G-8 Summit, specifically on the political nature of the peace symbol displayed prominently on Obama's eldest daughter's shirt.

Perhaps the Obamas see this differently than I and many others do. In their minds, a peace sign is non-confrontational, and besides no one in their right mind can be against peace. Maybe they do understand the significance of the symbol and this is someone's way (Michelle?) of making a point. Or could it be that this is a cheap way to score points with the disaffected Left, the folks who are angry with Obama for not pulling the plug on Iraq, Gitmo, DOMA, etc. Yes, this is the cynical view.

Look at the bright side. Maybe Obama's daughters can hang out with fellow Democrat presidential offspring Amy Carter, famous for the shoutout she received from Dad during one of the Carter-Reagan debates for her role as one of her fathers's sought-after advisors on nuclear weapons policy. Sure, then Obama can be like Jimmy Carter, following Carter's example, consulting with the Obama girls just like Jimmy. Because we all remember what a smashing job HE did on foreign policy, economic policy, etc.

Oh, wait...

The Definitive Electronic Reader: Amazon gets it right with the new Kindle DX

The new Kindle DX alongside an original Kindle

Although I was an early adopter of the original Kindle, I've eagerly anticipated Amazon's Kindle DX. The original device was, and is, well-suited for light reading of non-serious material, but its small screen size and lack of PDF support made it mostly a recreational device. I quickly realized that any serious technical book still worked better in physical form. That, combined with the original Kindle's inability to handle PDFs (Adobe Portable Document-format files, a rendering of a document's printed image via Adobe Acrobat and other converters) in a usable form (the conversion left a lot to be desired), made me look at other e-readers, particularly the iLiad iRex Digital Reader 1000-series. Unfortunately, the iRex 1000 ereader, at above $1000, was still a work-in-progress, with serious deficiencies in terms of functionality and reliability, and I didn't want to be an alpha tester of a device that might never be finished. Amazon's announcement of the large-format Kindle DX with native PDF support seemed like the answer... so I plunked down the money for a DX and the Amazon case and got on the waiting list.

Why would you want native PDF support? The small Kindles support PDF files via translation; you send a PDF document to Amazon and they convert it to the Kindle's AZW format and send it back to you, either to your desktop email account (free) or directly to your Kindle ($0.10 per document). However, if your document is anything more than simple text, formatting and imagery are mangled. What you get is readable but not nearly as readable as a Kindle document that was specifically prepared for the device. This is an inherent restriction caused by the difference between a document file structure that is meant to preserve formatting (PDF) and one that is meant to allow for text flow despite screen or font size concerns (AZW). The result was that you couldn't practically use either the original or 2nd gen Kindles for reading even reasonably complex PDF documents. Having an integral native PDF reader on the new Kindle DX (as seen to the left) solves this problem and opens up a HUGE world of documents to the Kindle owner.

I've had the Kindle DX for about a day now, and it's everything I was looking for. PDFs render beautifully, not like they did on the original (the same PDF on the original Kindle, at right) and Kindle AZW documents render even better than they did on the original Kindle due to the larger screen size and 16-tone grey scale capability. The large screen really elevates the new DX into something more than a convenient device for light reading. The Kindle DX shows the true utility of an electronic reader for the first time. It's what the Kindle should have been from the start.

What has improved? Performance is better, particularly the screen refresh rate. The new button design means not turning pages accidentally anymore (although I wish they'd kept buttons on both sides of the device for us left-handers). I don't like not having an SD card slot on the device, nor do I like not being able to change the battery without sending the device back to Amazon. Being able to turn the Whispernet modem on and off via software (menu item) is scads better than having to move a switch. The web browser's 'desktop' mode makes the browser very usable, especially when combined with the rotation feature. Speaking of rotation, the ability to rotate the device and view documents in either landscape or portrait mode is KILLER. Text-to-speech works well, but I have yet to try it for actually 'reading' (listening to) a document while doing something else, e.g., driving, to see if it is really useful or just a checklist feature. The Amazon cover (extra charge) is WAY above the original Kindle's flimsy cover; it actually holds the device securely, protects the screen, yet is easy to open (beware of the magnetic latch around external hard drives or near the bottom of your laptop).

Okay, so now I have two Kindles. My wife asked me why I need two, a good question. My answer is, the small Kindles are great for light reading... the latest fiction novel, public-domain classics, etc., but they're useless for PDFs or more serious reading such as technical books because the screen size is too small and images, formulas, etc., don't display well. The Kindle DX is great for any type of reading and shines with PDFs and more serious books, yet it is considerably heavier than the original Kindle (I'd say twice as heavy, if not more so) and not as convenient to stuff in a carry-on bag. I've already moved all of the technical books I own over to the DX, as well as many PDF documents. I had decided to not buy any serious books for my Kindle, using it only for light reading... but the new Kindle DX has changed my mind. The experience of reading a technical book is as good or better than the physical book, and that is something that could not be said about the smaller Kindles.

If I had to own just one electronic reading device, the choice is obvious: the Kindle DX. Amazon has gotten it right; the Kindle DX finally fulfills the 'book' paradigm in an electronic device.

"We Can't Manage The Federal Budget, So Let's Run The Automakers!"

I don't get why Glenn Reynolds is picking on Chrysler, when the real villain/moron in the story is the Obama Administration. I understand Chrysler's attempts to stimulate sales on vehicles sitting at dealerships, including the soon-to-be-ex-dealers; Chrysler doesn't want to take the vehicles back. To be honest, the additional $1k is making me seriously consider buying a new Dodge Ram half-ton. I've owned two Dodge Dakota Quad Cabs ('00 and '04) and have found them to be well-designed and built, and trouble-free. Ford and GM also make great trucks, but I don't hesitate to recommend Dodge and to buy another one. However, if Chrysler goes under (fails to emerge from bankruptcy) then the value of any Chrysler product including a brand-new vehicle will drop significantly, and that is perhaps the main reason why I hesitate to buy. The blame for this will lie not with Chrysler, but with the Obama Administration and their botched handling of the bankruptcy. More specifically, the responsibility will be Obama's.

Although Chrysler's problems are not new, all of the automakers have suffered from the recession. People who are worried about whether or not they’ll have a job aren’t going to go out and buy a new car. What differentiates Chrysler is the FUD that has been spread by the Obama Administration and it's hardball approach to the Chrysler bankruptcy. Chrysler's sales have slumped more than the others due to concerns about the automaker's future viability. Throwing money, or Fiat, at the problem isn't going to fix it. Instead, the fix is to give Chrysler the same labor environment that successful US automakers (Toyota, Honda, BMW, VW) have, by breaking the UAW's stranglehold on the company. Of course, this one critical fundamental step is the one that Obama won't do due to his obligations to the unions.

What I don’t understand is, why is Chrysler shedding dealers? There is no ownership involved; dealers are independent businesses with a contractual agreement to buy Chrysler products and then support them. Automakers need dealers, because consumers won’t buy a car without a dealer to back the car up. Chrysler evidently thinks that their sales won't drop if they close these dealers. What they fail to understand is that the marginal cost of additional dealers is minimal. Dealers are truly the automakers' customers, so who cares if they buy 100 cars or 10,000? Each additional car sale is one that might not happen without that dealer.The economy will rebound, and it will be a lot harder to get new dealers than to keep the existing ones.

Can someone tell me how, if the desire was to kill Chrysler instead of saving it, would the Obama Administration's actions concerning Chrysler be any different?

What I've Been Discussing...

I found a neat website that can parse through text and determine the relative frequency and contextual importance of the various terms it encounters. The website is Wordle, and I fed it my RSS feed from this blog to produce the following 'wordle'...


Pretty neat....

An Unfailingly Reliable Indicator

Then-President Jimmy Carter defending himself against a crazy rabbit (upper right)

I see former president Jimmy Carter has an op-ed in today's New York Times calling for the re-enactment of the 1994 'Assault Weapon' ban, a useless symbolic gesture and perhaps the single achievement of the Democrat House that allowed the GOP to take that chamber back after a half-century (certainly Bill Clinton believed so).

What I don't understand is why anyone is pushing for this law, a law that had absolutely no effect on crime, that was never successfully prosecuted, and that is almost certainly unconstitutional in this post-Heller world. One of Carter's claims is that American-made and legally purchased 'assault weapons' are being smuggled into Mexico and used by the cartels in their war against each other and the Mexican government... a claim which has been proven false as the cartels' main source of weapons is from other Central American countries like Panama, where real full-auto assault weapons (not the semi-auto lookalikes we can legally buy here), rocket launchers, grenades, etc., are available. Actually, I do understand. It's not about the problem in Mexico, it's about not trusting the American people.

Carter talks about his hunting guns, and then derides the NRA for "defending criminals' access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers." What he is either too stupid, or too dishonest to mention is that any centerfire deer rifle, including the ones he claims he owns and uses, will penetrate "protective clothing worn by police officers" (body armor). In fact, a criminal with a hunting rifle is far more dangerous than one with a semi-automatic AK-47. If Carter were really concerned enough about the danger to police he'd voluntarily turn in his own firearms before they can be stolen and put to criminal use. Again, the claim to be a 'hunter' is only a badly-disguised attempt to portray himself dishonestly as a 'sensible' gun owner instead of the elitist bigot that he really is. (If you're thinking I neither like or respect the man, you're thinking right.)

I for one am grateful Jimmy Carter occasionally makes a return to the world's stage. This man is the most reliable indicator of the intelligent side of a position the world has ever seen. You simply have only to determine where Jimmy Carter stands... and then you know unfailingly the opposite side is correct.

Don't The Police Have More Important Things To Do?

A perfect example of what is wrong with our country.

Santa Monica has hundreds of burglaries, robberies, dozens of rapes... and yet they have the manpower and money to go after this poor schlub?

The Seattle Tea Party

I went down to Westlake Center in Seattle this evening to photograph the Seattle Tea Party, and to gauge the mood of the crowd.



I arrived just before the event kicked off, and watched the crowd from across the street, taking a few pictures before I decided to get into the audience for some crowd shots:


The primary organizer and Master of Ceremonies was Keli Carendar, who spontaneously organized the first Tea Party in the country here in Seattle back in February.


Ms. Carendar, dressed as 'Alice in Wonderland', did a great job of firing the crowd up, introducing the different speakers, and even offering a well-sung rendition of "Obama, Won't You Buy Me a Mercedes Benz" based on the Janis Joplin tune. It was pretty funny, and the crowd loved it.


There were perhaps a thousand Tea Party-ers with a wide variety of signs, mostly related to taxes and spending, but there was also a lot of anger about the TARP program, the Stimulus Bill, and the massive increase in the federal budget:







There wasn't much of a counter-protest, maybe a couple dozen disorganized folks who mostly came down to have some fun." I talked to a few of them and really felt like the two sides are talking past each other; one teenager/twentysomething couldn't understand why the Tea Party folks were against "fairness" because "after all, that's what Obama is trying to do, ensure fairness. I tried to explain to him that maybe these folks believed that making them pay for other folks' mortgages, or for bailing out companies that took huge yet foreseeable risks was unfair, and that they thought putting a $200k bill on their children was especially unfair... but of course the young man isn't paying taxes because he doesn't make enough and believed that only the "rich" would end up paying for these programs. Another fellow evidently thought the Tea Party-ers were hypocritical in that they "supported socialism when it benefited them." His counter-protest sign illustrated his point, and since he was being very polite and well-mannered I didn't bother to explain the false premise he was making (that government services such as the military or law enforcement are a form of socialism). You can read his sign and make up your own mind. And then there was this last sign representing the motivations of most of the counter-protesters, who came down to shock the squares and get some laughs. I thought she was cute, so I sure hope that sign belongs to her boyfriend!


I especially liked this poignant sign from a capitalist wondering what the heck happened to his country. A witty way of capturing the change that has happened in America over the past quarter century; while the GOP was winning at the polls, the Democrats were winning the hearts and minds of Generations X and Y. The minority view of the 1980s is the conventional wisdom of today.

Maybe it takes a Jimmy Carter, or a Barack Obama, for people to relearn the lesson of how There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch every generation, and that someone has to pay for all of these programs. Maybe it's a good thing the Democrats won everything, so that America can realize just exactly how Democrats govern (unapologetic big spenders, as opposed to apologetic big spender Republicans). And maybe the GOP needs some time in the wilderness to think about the butt-kicking they've taken since 2006 and for the lesson of what happens when you don't govern the same way you campaign to sink in.

There was a considerable police presence, with a half-dozen mounted police (on horseback), perhaps another dozen bicycle police, and a couple of patrol cars with another half-dozen officers distributed through the square. The crowd was well-behaved, though, and the police mostly talked to each other and enjoyed the afternoon.



The event ended around 7:30, with the last speaker getting the crowd fired up about throwing all of the incumbents out to send a message. I think the only way to solve the problem with our government is to get rid of the concept of career politicians by enforcing term limits on all federal elected offices. If eight years is good enough for the president, then surely twelve years is good enough for a Congressman or Senator.



It is unconscionable that a person who has never worked in the private sector can become a multi-millionnaire through public office, and this seems to be especially prevalent among Democrats, the prime examples being Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Finally, Ms. Carendar announced that more Tea Parties were scheduled for upcoming holidays, and promising to run them until the 2010 elections.

In summary, a surprisingly strong crowd of folks who don't ordinarily come out and protest, reflecting considerable anger at their elected officials. I don't think the GOP understands how much of this anger is pointed their way, either. The true test of the Tea Party movement is its longevity; will these Parties be a flash in the pan, or will they grow over the next two years and culminate in a changing of the guard in Congress and the states? I think the answer lies in whether or not a leader emerges who can effectively speak to this anger and inspire a following, and so far I don't see that person.

Note: All photos taken with a Sigma SD14 dSlr, and either a Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC Macro lens, a Sigma 50-150/2.8 EX DG lens, or a Celestron 300/5.6 mirror lens.