Awesome Job

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21714199/leaving_the_white_house.htm

Head Held High

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/26/only-26-days-left-for-bush-bashing/

Good reading for all you George Bush haters (and you probably only hate him because of the way the media covers him).

Time will tell if history judges Bush in a positive light (as Bush himself predicts), but I know for sure despite the faults of Bush's presidency (there are faults in every presidency) I will stand up and speak of the good things that did happen because of Bush. And if Obama does a good job, I will do the same for him.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Marketing Chaos

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469865,00.html

For those who don't open my links...this is worth opening!

I can't believe I have ties to this place...

Equal Opportuntiy For All?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28302371/

The United States has refused to sign a non-binding United Nations mandate that would decriminalize homosexuality (throughout many countries of the world homosexuality is a crime). Should the United States be more openly supportive of gay rights? Below are reasons why I support the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, along with equal rights for homosexual Americans in this country.

1) The United States was founded on the principle of equal opportunity for all. Failure to give gay Americans the same rights as heterosexual Americans is simply hypocritical and a slap in the face to American history. I feel strongly it is an inevitability that homosexuals will work for and achieve equal rights in this country, just as African-Americans and women famously have. Liberalization in terms of rights for the oppressed is not only etched in our history, but part of this country's opportunity and eventual destiny.

2) Politically, this should be a no-brainer for Republicans. As clearly being against gay rights is fighting a losing battle, wouldn't it be better for us to spend our time battling an issue we can win?

Just my thoughts...

Until we meet again, goodbye!

On Top of the Cage

I stood on top of this cage one night, all night long
From here the view was proud
I could see all these beautiful clouds
So I told people come out of your cage
Time to break lock forever
Join together march on top hold my hand, say
goodbye to never

I just thought those lyrics were pretty inspiring. Anyone who knows me knows I can get quite consumed with the small things, like my job, my house, and my finances. Reading those lyrics reminds me that is not what I want, and not where my focus needs to be.

I think I am going to crack open some Sweet Walter and prepare for tomorrow's storm!

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Bush's Closure

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28220165/

President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq today. This visit comes at the dawn of a new agreement between the United States and Iraq; the exit deadline for United States combat troops is now set for New Year's Eve, 2011.

There are two points I would like to make. The first is, no matter what the Obama administration will claim in the coming years, it is the Bush administration that has agreed to a deadline for withdrawl, and therefore an end to this war. Take that you hippie lefties!

For the record, I am very against a timetable for withdrawl. If I was a terrorist or an Iranian or Syrian, I would put my gun away, mark this date on my calendar, and know at that point my success rate in bringing chaos to Iraq could skyrocket. Iran and Syria will not want a successful, thriving democracy in Iraq; it would hurt their position against the United States. They will not let it happen. They now know they can probably take a few years off, regroup and recruit, and come back full force to destroy what we've done.

The only positives to the timetable I can find are increased support for the mission as a whole; now that we see American involvment will end in the forseeable future, it is easier to give the war the much needed public support it needs. Hopefully American troops will be able to train their Iraqi counterparts to defend their feeble country when we leave.

The second point I would like to make is the falsehood in Obama's Iraq war policy:

"Obama has said that on his first day as president, he will summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the White House and give them a new mission: responsibly ending the war."

Despite what the medias tells you, President Bush's stated mission is to end this war as quickly as possible. Take this excerpt from Bush's address to the nation the very night the war started for example:

"We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done."

President Bush's mission has always been to end the war as quickly as possible. However, his standards are simply higher than Obama's. Bush has fought to make sure our sacrifice will stand for itself when we leave; Obama is unable to see the broader picture and is more interested in the short-term gratification of troop withdrawl.

Obama says he will not withdraw the troops unless Iraqi security can be guaranteed. Only time will tell if that promise is remembered.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

PS - Check out these pretty cool links...It is amazing to remember the discussion and mood way back when this all began...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

First Campaign Promise Rescinded

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/obama-considering-to-delay-tax-increase/

And so it starts; the first Obama campaign promise has been rescinded. Throughout the campaign, Obama talked of ending the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more. It looks like Obama is finally coming around to the fact that raising taxes on the top earners in the economy (you know, the ones who own businesses and physically create jobs...the ones who move this country forward) is a bad idea.

There are a couple points to make here; the first is John McCain and the Republicans should feel pretty good about themselves today. All through the campaign, McCain said raising taxes on the upper class at this time would be disastrous for the economy. Obama initiated a form of class warfare in terms of the tax code and tried to tell us it was "fair" for those making more money to pay a bigger percentage of taxes and that it would actually help the economy if those making more paid more taxes. Apparently not! Why would anyone want to excel economically if they were just going to be punished for it? Instead, they could do less work, take less risks, and possibly make more money (or at the very least, be taxed fairly). Less risk is not a good thing for any economy, let alone for those who want job creation.

The second point is more interesting; if raising taxes on the upper class is a bad idea in a time of recession, doesn't that mean doing so when the economy is good will push the economy back into a recession? I think Obama has some more work to do still.

Putting this tax issue aside, I think a much bigger question for the economy is not how tax dollars are raised, but rather how money is created. If businesses are allowed to thrive, not only will we export more, produce larger tax revenues for the government (I'm sure you won't read it on-line, but government revenues have SKYROCKETED under Bush due to his tax policies), and create jobs, but more money will be kept here in the United States (where we want it). The Obama team needs to focus on getting more money into our system. That means rewarding those with money so they try to make more of it (and put it in banks where the government gives them interest, thereby putting more money into our system) and rewarding ideas that will increase our exports, pulling more money from the rest of the world into our borders.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Wash Your Hands!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455067,00.html

Bail the Big Three Out?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454844,00.html

Yeah...I think not.

The only circumstance I would give the big three automakers of Detroit any government money is if their executives made less than the President of the United States and had no perks. In addition, the government would need to have full oversight of how the money was being spent (with the ability to hold back payment at any point), and the money would not be given in a lump sum. Third, the money would have to be paid back at some point. Finally, the money would need to be used in a way that makes the companies stronger (and I will leave that to the experts to decide, but I am guessing it should have something to do with product quality).

The bottom line is simple; giving these companies a blank check will only prolong the tragic inevitably of the failure of these companies. And even if they could continue on with the help of an allowance from the government, what exactly would that say about those companies, and America, anyway? It is not the responsibility of the government to financially support private business, and if these businesses were worth giving money to they would not be flying to Washington on private jets asking for it.

As a Republican, I am against putting this country further into debt and making taxpayers sign a blank check. But I understand that our options economically are simple; endure a long, painful depression through an economic correction (consumers and businesses are running out of credit and are afraid to use it, which is causing the slow-down in consumer spending), or have the only entity capable of getting us out of this mess rapidly inject taxpayer debt into the system. I am OK with the 2nd option, but there is a smart way to do it.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

21st Century President?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27740220/

Much talk has been made in the media about how this President will be the first 21st century President. Plans are already in the works to broadcast Obama speeches and updates on YouTube and to make the White House web site more interactive. Obama even plans on having a computer on his desk (which is shockingly absent from a tour of Bush's oval office, available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/video/index.html).

Although I did not vote for Obama, I am very excited at the prospect of a more interactive White House administration (and I think there is a much greater chance of this occuring with Obama than there would have been with McCain). Imagine how awesome it would be to get a direct e-mail from the administration, explaining what Obama has on his schedule for the upcoming week and what issues he is addressing this week and why? The idea might sound weird; no President to date has used e-mail to communicate with the nation. Why would this be so transcendent?

Think about it; almost everything we know about the nation's politics is communicated to us through the mass media. This includes newspapers, on-line news, television, radio, etc. In short...we NEVER really get an unfiltered view of what is on the President's mind, save for major speeches, daily press conferences, and the President's weekly radio address. The problem with these outlets is the average person is not willing to go out of their way to take advantage of them. "Hey honey...we can't go to Jimmy's game tonight; the President's radio address is on!"

E-mail is different; virtually everyone goes through their Inbox on a daily basis. If you saw a message from the President, I am guessing you are more likely to take three minutes to read the President's e-mail than to tune in to the daily press briefing. The Obama administration should seriously consider this plan; with the ability to communicate to the nation through cyberspace (those interested would sign up on the White House web site) the administration would be utilizing a medium of communication more powerful than anything in our culture today. Imagine the effects direct communication would have on the support level for the administration and its policies? Instead of politics being something distant, impersonal, and filtered, it would be in our Inbox's to review on a daily basis. Even if you did not like the President's policies, I feel like the explanation provided in an e-mail for them would be more comforting and trust-worthy then the explanation you hear through today's media.

This is change I can believe in!

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Tori's Blog

For those who are unaware, Tori has a blog (which is already better written than mine)!

Check it out on my sidebar..."Common Sense Isn't So" or something like that. There is a terrific article on media bias relating to Obama!

Really Republicans?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html

Some Info on Obama

http://www.mydrivefm.com/cc-common/gallery/display.html?album_id=149774

Now What?

So...now that the Republican party has been defeated in last week's election, what issues should the party devote its dwindling influence to? How do they confront the troubling issue of a demographic change (Americans getting older...and more young voters taking part in elections, as well as a minority shift towards African-American and Latino voters, which also favors Democrats)?

There are core principles that Republicans should continue to push...regardless of the demographic shift. These issues include:

1) Balancing the federal budget
2) Eliminating wasteful Washington spending
3) Lowering taxes, at the very least for corporations
4) Strong immigration reform that closes our borders
5) Entitlement reform
6) Promoting growth and the economy
7) Allowing for more drilling
8) Promoting a strong foreign policy

There are many principles that Republicans need to either implement in their policies or change their opinions to all together

1) Eliminating lobbyist' influence in Washington
2) Making sure every American can go to college
3) Funding or reforming the No Child Left Behind Act
4) Accepting the current abortion rights
5) Allowing for civil unions
6) Focusing on the environment
7) Fair world trade (meaning, if we sell a country's products in this country, we better be selling our products in their country)
8) Funding and writing a real energy policy that puts more government money toward finding a solution to the energy problem

It is obvious Republicans need to change course in some way; however, many of the Republicans core principles are extremely logical, and would be agreed on by the majority of Americans. The reason why they are not? Poor public relations. The party is plagued by the media's representation of the Republican party on key issues (war and economics) and does not shed a very positive light on Republican principles. In addition, Republicans have the image of being that "old" party...the party of old leaders and old ideas.

The Republican party needs to go back to being the party of big ideas, not the party of big squabbles and poor communication.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

The End of America?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/166821/page/1

To sum it up....Americans are getting older. The government has promised more to its citizens than it will soon be able to afford...which will force the government to either cut benefits or raise taxes. If the government raises taxes...the American economy will lose its spunk...that feeling we can do whatever we want, that feeling of unlimited prosperity and confidence in the future.

What this article does not mention...on top of Americans getting older...Americans are increasingly becoming uneducated, and therefore unprepared to participate in the economy of the future. As immigrants pour into this country, who may receive benefits while not paying taxes, and take up a larger part of our population while not receiving a quality education, the United States will put itself at a further disadvantage economically. We must provide a quality education to all our citizens in order to compete for the jobs of the future.

The answers? Keep taxes low to grow the economy, rewarding risk-taking that produces prosperity and ideas that put America on the path of economic independence. Reduce the financial responsibility America has to its citizens. Divert the entitlement money we do provide toward education benefits to prepare our country for the economy of the future. Shut off the flow of illegals into our country through our borders! The bottom line - our current entitlement program, FDR's The New Deal, was proposed at a time when the American population was young and growing...times have changed. It is time to go back to the drawing board.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Michael...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeY-6I5xqkk

A Little Bias In the News

Remember in 2000, on the Friday before the election, when news came out that Bush had been involved in a DWI incident? This was major news at the time, and almost pushed the election into Gore's favor.

Well...its happened again, but you probably do not know about it. Hidden in the written headlines on MSNBC (losing out to an article pointing out that each candidate will likely be equally generous to the auto industry) and literally not even present on CNN's homepage is the news that Obama's aunt is living in the United States illegally. I'm sorry, what? Yes, his aunt...probably why we haven't heard about her in the campaign?

No matter where you stand on the immigration issue, this is a big deal. Even if you want our country flooded with people who have not earned citizenship...rendering our borders useless, our economy vulnerable to the effects of a cheap workforce, and our national security threatened while other citizens from around the world go through the immigration process fairly under the supervision of the government (one thing that government should actually be paid to do!), this is news. There is no denying the fact this is major, headline grabbing news, on the weekend leading up to what pundits say is the most important election in American history since the Great Depression. American citizens need to know this information because it is directly related to an issue that has been swept under the rug by the media and the candidates mainly due to the candidates similar stances. This information throws their immigration similarities off, and in my opinion, puts McCain at a clear advantage on this issue. The American people should know McCain is more apt to act non-biased on the immigration issue, and in effect, put "Country First."

This is a major break for McCain. How can we expect Obama to act fair on immigration reform if one of his own family members could be directly affected? I would love to hear the other side of this issue from one of my liberal friends in the media, but the article I read on the topic was pretty clear; Obama's aunt, Zeituni Onyango, was ordered to leave the United States four years ago after a United States immigration judged rejected her request for asylum. This reported by the Associasted Press (not exactly the most conservative of news agencies).

As always, I am appalled that major news organizations are sweeping this under their radars this morning. On top of CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today have decided this is not newsworthy. No mention of this on their front pages. Pathetic.

In case you were wondering where I was lucky enough to come across this information? Fox News! Special request; do not talk with me about politics unless you at least scan Fox News' website every day. This is not the first time this has happened; you are missing a big piece of the story otherwise.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Damn Liberal Media

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html

Do you ever want the conservative candidate to win...just to get the media to look like jackasses?

McCain Takes it to Frank and Dodd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kv1GZFgj8



In addition...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU

Just for fun lol. I am not quite sure why Frank takes credit for the regulation...it clearly was ineffective. Everyone dropped the ball in terms of regulating this mess.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6VzwIn2Nsg

This link backs up my last post.




From way back in the past...totally irrelevant to any present day discussion...but both of these links give me chills...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiSwqaQ4VbA

Obama's best moment...about 3:20 in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxNvBAaBuA&feature=related

Change I'm Not Believing In

Admittedly...I fell asleep during the debate last night. It could have been because because neither candidate really gave a straight answer to the questions...at least early on.

But today, I had somewhat of an epiphany at work. I am leaning McCain...and here is a brief run down of why.

The economic downturn has done two things in my opinion; it has made taxes/economy the central issue of this campaign; and it has HELPED, not hurt, McCain. Well...it should be helping McCain, but for some reason, the vast majority does not think my way. Here is why this issue now helps McCain.

Obama is proposing billions of dollars in additional government spending; health care and education are major initiatives he is running on. Now...lets avoid the argument of whether the government should be paying for this and just think through this rationally. Obama is proposing to pay for additional programs related to these two areas, along with his pithy energy plan (McCain's is just as pithy) and whatever else he has thrown in there that I am not yet aware of, by cutting tax loopholes to corporations, eliminating wasteful spending (even though he voted for the bailout package, as did McCain, which features numerous earmarks and bribes - see the details in a previous post!) and raising taxes on the those making $250,000 or more per year.

I think Obama is not telling us the truth. How can he possibly follow through on all his campaign promises without raising additional taxes on someone, somewhere; running the economy into further debt; or declaring current government programs that can be significantly cutback? It can not be done. I doubt he can even raise taxes on the middle class; no President since Hoover has done this during a recession. Obama simply is not being honest with us; he makes it sound like his economic plan is completely unaffected by the current financial crisis. That can not be true. And if it is, he has not made it clear to me.

Relating to McCain...McCain has also not proposed any significant cutbacks in government programs. McCain has proposed eliminating wasteful Washington spending (which means nothing, because just like Obama, McCain voted for the wasteful bailout package, loaded with the very earmarks he focused on vetoing during the first debate). But McCain is being realistic...he is not proposing an increase in taxes, but he is not promising to cut taxes for the middle class either (Obama is proposing to cut taxes for 95% of the American people). Although McCain has not pointed out any significant government programs that can be cut, he is not campaigning on adding new programs.

McCain, to me, is simply a far less risk to the current tax/economic system than Obama. McCain represents less of a risk of my taxes going up. He is talking far straighter to the American public than Obama is.

Just my thoughts...

To both candidates...tell me, honestly, what are you going to cut in terms of government spending? You either have to make major government spending cuts, or tax a part of the population way more than you say you are going to, in order to keep the country from falling further and further into debt. If you are not doing either...you better not be proposing an influx of additional government spending...or you are lying.

McCain is acting more straight with me...I think I have to vote for him. We will see if anything changes over the next few days!

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Mail Goggles?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27071685/

The audacity of Gmail! How dare they assume for even an instant there are times when people send e-mail messages they probably should not send!

I don't know about you...but I love the drunken phone call. And I would love even more the drunken e-mail (why don't more people take this route?). The drunken e-mail would provide so many benefits:

a) record of idiocy
b) time to formulate a congruent argument after doubling over in laughter
c) ability to forward, involving more people and enlarging the embarrassment level of the drunkard

These Mail Goggles being offered by Gmail are further limiting the chances I will get a drunken e-mail. Please send me one before it is too late! I promise to either mark it as unread in my Inbox so I can glance over your words and have humor at your expense well into the future!

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Why We Needed the Bailout

Upon request, I am going to attempt to explain why we needed an economic bailout, in the most simple terms possible. Keep in mind, by all accounts, neither McCain or Obama were able to answer this question in their debate.

For whatever reasons, mortgage firms and banks (led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) have been giving loans to those they should not have been giving loans to. Republicans will blame the Democrats for forcing these institutions to give "politically correct" loans to those in the lower classes who could not afford them. Democrats will blame Republicans for promoting an environment of deregulation that led that led to these two major institutions and started the major part of the trickle effect we have seen this year...covering banks, insurance agencies, brokerage houses, private business, and even government entities (California asked the government for about $7 billion yesterday).

The fact that people were not able to pay the mortgages given to them by their banks started this trend that has crippled many portions of our economy (along with the housing bubble burst itself, similar to the technology bubble burst toward the end of the Clinton presidency). Without people paying their mortgages, they are losing their homes. The banks and government entities they received their mortgages from suffer because they are not getting paid back. Government suffers because all of this equals a lack of tax revenue. Businesses suffer because if people can not afford to live, how can they afford to buy anything? Most importantly...this economic crisis involves credit. Most small businesses operate on a line of credit that is quickly being taken away from them. A very high majority of American citizens also operate on a line of credit, which is quickly being taken away from them. In short...all the makings for a depression. As can be seen on Wall Street, many are pulling their money out of the private entities that make up our economy; they are afraid of how far the credit crisis will go and how many Americans it will affect. The money being given out in this bill will be used to buy back bad debts, hopefully to sell them in the future when the value of these debts returns to normal. The theory is that, by stabilizing the credit markets, we can avoid a depression.

Whether you like the bailout bill or not (I would have agreed with it if it took steps to avoid this problem from happening again - politicians have cleverly pushed the obviously needed regulation to after the election season) an influx of money is needed in the economy to help beat off an oncoming depression. The only entity that can possibly put money into the economic system and work to avoid a depression is the government. I am extremely conservative on government spending, but this is a situation in which I think it is OK to rely on the government, so long as steps are taken to avoid this situation from happening again in the future.

I have not looked at the exact provisions of the bill yet...I know some money is going to be used now, some later. I know it puts certain limits on executive compensation for the companies that take money from this bailout (I don't know the limits). I know it does NOTHING to punish those in current regulatory positions over this crisis (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Christopher Cox, Ben Bernake). It does not take McCain's suggestion to form a separate entity that would monitor the loans being given to citizens by these institutions, or for that matter, any add any reform or accountability to our regulatory system.

Most important of all, this bill COMPLETELY takes credibility away from McCain (Obama as well). Throughout the first debate, McCain brought point and point back to the fact he would not sign a bill with earmarks and that he would "veto the bill and make those famous" who put the earmarks in. Well, he just voted for a bill with earmarks. Read and view them all here!

(http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/the-new-senate-bailout-bill451-pages-with-earmarks-and-tax-extenders/)
(http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/10/03/gb.senate.bailout.pork.cnn)

Ridiculous. Plain and simple. Some of these provisions might be useful....but they should not be tacked on the end of a bill simply to bribe someone into voting. They should be dealt with separately, as part of a bill focusing on these issues, so these provisions can be given the attention and debate they deserve.

Hope this works Chris!

Until we meet again, goodbye!

What Are You Watching?

So...I have been wanting to post a blog...pretty badly. Lots of stress this week (and quite frankly the last). Let's see...

1) Working through some issues at EMA. Anyone who knows me knows that issues at my place of employment generally shut down my entire life.
2) When I turn on my car it says "Check Gas Cap". The gas cap is on. I know I am not very smart with cars but...this seems to be a problem.
3) Highly worried there will not be enough Sam Adams Oktoberfest beer at Wal-Mart when I go to prepare for Oktoberfest, which occurs this Saturday from 3:00pm to 9:00pm at my house (with traditional after-hour antics upstairs)!

I've debated writing blogs on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (two leaders of the Democrat party when it comes to the bailout plan) telling us of how the Republicans shut down the bill that would have bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...even though they have accepted millions of dollars in campaign funding from these organizations (along with McCain and Obama) and, interestingly enough, voted AGAINST regulation of these institutions in 2005?!?! Does it seem like they have their own agendas?

I've debated writing blogs on Sarah Palin's apparent inability to provide straightforward responses on the economy, global warming, Supreme Court cases...the list goes on. Brilliant pick politically, and I am not saying she should be dropped from the ticket...I just think she better clear her head before the debate on Thursday.

I've debated writing blogs on McCain criticizing Obama for "phoning it in" when it came to the bailout plan, even though he literally sat at his home office in Virginia "phoning it in" the weekend before the vote. I have also debated writing blogs on the criticism McCain has taken for inserting himself in the bailout process before last week's debate...while his counterpart did nothing. Politics aside, one has to admit McCain did the right thing?

So why haven't I written the aforemntioned blogs? Besides the initial three reasons listed at the beginning of this post? I've been too busy taking it all in...

I turned to Bill O'Reilly in an effort to rid myself of the garbage spewed nightly by Olbermann on MSNBC. I have a new cable news line-up that I think is the proper balance...and I have been learning more than ever before.

7:00pm - Hardball with Chris Matthew on MSNBC - I still think this is a pretty fair show with an excellent host, and I am really hoping Chris doesn't let me down.

8:00pm - O'Reilly Factor with Bill O'Reilly on FOX News - The best show possible to get a FAIR, conservative viewpoint...Bill really does tell it like it is, although with an obvious bias to the right.

9:00pm - The Rachel Maddow Show with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC - I think she is just as biased as Olbermann...but it is important to listen to all sides, and at least she doesn't make me want to throw a brick through one of those hotel windows overlooking Niagara Falls and jump out into the rapids.











In short...to follow up on my post that compared American journalism vs. British journalism...I am going to try the British model for a while. I want to try and get something non-biased (Hardball - although the host is quite biased, at least the questioning is fair) but I also want to hear something biased that is really trying to seek the truth, and not necessarily a fair representation of both sides (insert Bill and Rachel, polar opposites - man I would love to put them in the same room with one another).

Anyways...thats it for me.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

A Little Humor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE&NR=1

Guitar Hero 4 Setlist!!!!

http://www.guitarhero4.com/guitar_hero_4_songs.htm

Jimi Hendrix - "The Wind Cries Mary", "Purple Haze" (Live)
Metallica - "Trapped Under Ice"
Sublime - "Santeria"
Lenny Kravitz - "Are You Gonna Go My Way"
Michael Jackson - "Beat It"
Billy Idol - "Rebel Yell"
The Eagles - "Hotel California"
Linkin Park - "In the End", "What I've Done"
Survivor - "Eye of the Tiger"
Bob Seger - "Hollywood Nights"
Steve Miller Band - "The Joker"
Silversun Pickups - "Lazy Eye"
Van Halen - "Hot for Teacher"
At The Drive-In - "One Armed Scissor"
Def Leppard - "Animal"
The Answer - "Never Too Late"
Joe Satriani - "Satch Boogie"
Black Rebel Motorcycle Club - "Weapon of Choice"
Airbourne - "Too Much, Too Young, Too Fast"
Flo Rida ft. T-Pain - "Low" (Travis Barker Remix)
Paramore - "Misery Business"
The Doors - "Light My Fire", "Love Me Two Times"
Foo Fighters - "Everlong"
Paramore - "Misery Business"
The Beastie Boys - "No Sleep till Brooklyn"
System of a Down - "B.Y.O.B"
Ozzy Osbourne - "Crazy Train", "Mr. Crowley"
Black Label Society - "Stillborn"
Interpol - "Obstacle 1"
Blink 182 - "Dammit"
The Smashing Pumpkins - "Bullet with Butterfly Wings"
Korn -
Ted Nugent -
Tool -
Muse -

Awesome. Highlights, in my opinion:

Bob Segar - Hollywood Nights!!!
The Eagles - Hotel California
Michael Jackson - Beat It
Jimi Hendrix - Purple Haze (Live)
Steve Miller Band - The Joker
Survivor - Eye of the Tiger
Sublime - Santeria
System of a Down - B.Y.O.B.
Foo Fighters - Everlong
Linkin Park - In the End and What I've Done
Flo Rida ft. T-Pain - Low (Travis Barker Remix)

Review of First Debate

Here is a brief review of tonight's debate:

McCain won on the issue of spending and earmarks, providing facts that Obama could not even attempt to deny.
Neither candidate explained why the crisis on Wall Street is important to the average American.
Neither candidate was able to give an answer to the question "What will you give up in order to pay for the financial crisis?"
Obama won on the issue of healthcare, mentioning that McCain wants to tax healthcare deductions, essentially making it more difficult for employer's to provide healthcare to employees.
Obama won on the issue of talking with rogue leaders


In general...I think the debate was a draw...which is essentially a win for McCain, as no one expects him to do as well as Obama in this type of setting.

Although I liked what McCain said on the economy, I think Obama won the debate on the economy. McCain kept bringing the issue back to taxes and spending (which I like) but did not necessarily answer the questions adequately. Obama brought up many issues that affect the average voter, including fighting for the middle class and providing relief to the high cost of healthcare and energy. Right or wrong, McCain barely touched these topics. He made a big mistake by not doing so.

Although I favor Obama on talking with rogue leaders, McCain won the foreign policy debate for me. Obama kept bringing the argument back to the invasion of Iraq and whether or not it was right or wrong; newsflash, thats over - nothing we can do about it now. McCain provided numerous examples of his depth of experience and knowledge on foreign affairs, and was very assertive and commanding of his stances on these topics. You could tell McCain was far more comfortable in this area. McCain was completely right tonight on the importance of Iraq and his support of the troop surge. Obama was completely right on the importance of talking with leaders of countries we do not like.

Overall debate...I LIKED how Obama consistently said that McCain was right. I don't care what the pundits say; I respect Obama looking for points of agreement. McCain made the statement that it is hard for someone so far to the left to work with others across the aisle; well, it sure seemed to me like Obama can find common ground.

Obama had great command throughout the debate, plain and simple. McCain was not very strong at the beginning of the debate when it focused on the economy, but clearly came around when the topic changed to foreign affairs, his strength.

Obama tried to speak directly with McCain and answer his questions; McCain would not even look at Obama. McCain just in general did not seem comfortable in this environment. Obama definietly showed that he wanted to be engaged directly with McCain, and that, as we all know, he is simply a superior communicator.

That is just my brief review...

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Economic Problems

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phEPwzptMes&feature=related

We hear a lot of people say the economy is bad for the ordinary family. We also hear a lot of people say the economy overall is quite strong. Both sides have valid facts that point to their arguments.

I believe, essentially, 95% of our current economic problems can be lumped into the following two categories:

1) The American job market has changed. If it is more competitive to do business elsewhere in the world, businesses are taking that opportunity. That means many jobs are leaving this country. It is simply better for them to shift their operations and their facilities (jobs) to parts of the world that do not have either the 1st or 2nd highest tax rates.

This is the wave of the future...globalization is upon us. If we were to lock ourselves away from this idea of free trade, and not participate in the global economy, we would be doing ourselves more harm than good. We would be closing many markets for ourselves that want our products and the opportunity to buy them. We would lose out on many opportunities to do business across the world. Corporations around the world would innovate due to increased competition (which America would no longer feel), leaving America trapped in the past in terms of the means to do business and economic capabilities.

How do we combat this?! Cut the corporate tax rates. Both candidates are proposing to do this. As noted in a previous post, McCain basically wants to cut taxes for corporate operations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 25%...Obama basically wants to cut taxes by rewarding corporate employment, reducing the tax rate by 1% taxable income for companies that meet certain standards (such as percentage of employees in America, benefits given to the employees, etc...in short, providing good jobs). The candidates, in my opinion, should combine their plans...give a 5% tax rate cut to all corporations, and award an additional 5% if they meet certain credentials. McCain's plan would have more of an impact to corporations in the short-term future, so I think McCain has a slight edge in this category.

2) American healthcare, groceries, and most important of all, energy costs, are rising. We are in the middle of the greatest transfer of wealth of all time, to many countries that do not like us, for their energy. We need to figure out how to promote energy development here in the United States. Doing so will not only create jobs and reduce energy costs here at home, but will reduce the cost of our food as well.

Neither candidiate is proposing a way to solve the energy crisis within a reasonable amount of time. Both are throwing a relatively measly amount of money at the problem and waiting for the American economy to work its magic. I am perfectly fine with this approach...but since neither candidate is solving the problem themselves, it is important to note that both candidates support the same sources of energy, but McCain brings the added benefit of supporting increased drilling in currently restricted areas and very outspoken support of nuclear energy. The candidates are even, but McCain gives us a bonus.

Just some thoughts...on both of these issues...McCain has a slight advantage in all, in my opinion...

I think, after reading all of the posts on this blog about the economy and taxes, it should be clear what I think...now I want to dive into healthcare (which I am not familiar with, really) and immigration.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Obama on Foreign Affairs, Economy/Taxes, and Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJH2n4aFEhA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XW7tkN-_GM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbu5FxD9IUg&feature=related

The interviewer is Bill O'Reilly...so I know the questioning is pretty much the most difficult possible!

Obama does an excellent job of defending himself in these interviews, by the way.

Microsoft Fights Back!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10045384-56.html?tag=rtcol;pop

I just thought this article was awesome from a marketing perspective. Microsoft is finally taking aim at Apple, and the marketing angle is fascinating; to show that Microsoft ties people together from all over the globe. That is one powerful message; imagine how different our lives would be without Microsoft? Think of the all the computer users in the world that operate on Windows; think of all the great things that have been accomplished with Windows software in the background? Think of how the experience of using a computer would be different without growing up with Windows (and I assume that 99% of the people who would be reading my blog worked with Windows before seeing what Apple had to offer).

Also interesting is the nature of the campaign; while Apple takes direct aim at Microsoft, Microsoft is working to show not just how awesome of a company they are, and not just their influence; but their goal of uniting the planet with their software.

It should be noted that I am completely, 100% biased towards Microsoft (although I have switched to the Firefox browser - Internet Explorer is just too slow).

The Role of Government

With the government injecting itself in the business of...well, business (i.e. the most recent federal bailouts of AIG to the tune of $85 billion and a request from the Bush administration for Congress to grant the Treasury Department the power to acquire $700 billion in bad mortgages) , I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the responsibilities of two facets of our government that are charged with monitoring the economy: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Reserve.

The SEC (http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml) is essentially responsible for regulating the stock market and preventing corporate corruption related to corporate reporting. The SEC is responsible for licensing and regulating stock exchanges and administering various laws that regulate the stock market.

The enforcement authority given by Congress allows the SEC to bring civil enforcement actions against individuals or companies found to have committed accounting fraud, provided false information, or engaged in insider trading or other violations of the securities law. The SEC also works with criminal law enforcement agencies to prosecute individuals and companies alike for offenses which include a criminal violation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC#Overview).

The Federal Reserve is essentially responsible for monetary policy (http://www.federalreserve.gov/default.htm). The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. It's primary focus is to addressing banking panics, to strike a balance between the private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government, to manage the nation's money supply through monetary policy, to maintain the stability of the financial system and markets, and to strengthen the standing of the United States in the world economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve#Purpose).

My essential point is these two organizations bear much of the responsibility for the recent mortgage/credit crisis. However, I do not think it is right to the federal government to bail out these corporations, at least without major consequences. At the end of the day, the corporations who have been bailed out by the government signed off on the loans that sent this portion of the economy off track. They should bear full responsibility for their actions, and pay a hefty price doing so.

If pumping government money towards these corporations is really our only option (and I am not in any way qualified to make that distinction) the federal government must also take steps to make sure a large quantity of bad loans is never signed off on again. Corporations can not go around conducting business knowing if they get too far in over their heads, the government (meaning you and I) will bail them out.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Spinspotter

Many readers of this blog know I complain about media bias all the time. It is good to know there are others who not only complain about the problem, but have found a way to counteract the problem!

Check this out:

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db2008097_602412.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

There is a new web application out called "Spinspotter". This application spots bias in news articles! I have not downloaded it yet or tried it out, but I recommend that everyone else do so immediately! Word of warning...it apparently only works with Firefox. Also...apparently it requires heavy user input to spot bias, so I am not sure of its reliability. I test drove it in an article on MSNBC and it spotted no bias, which was questionable at best.

Download the application now: http://spinspotter.com/home

Biden Gives New Definition of Patriotism

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/biden-wealthy-americans-must-pay-more-taxes-to-show-patriotism/

"In an interview on ABC’s 'Good Morning America,' Biden said wealthier taxpayers would indeed pay more under the proposals of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Under his plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

'We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,' Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: 'It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.'"

I understand the concept that it is patriotic to give back to your country...however, it is not in any way an American ideal to give more of your money to the government just because you have more of it to give. It is not American to be penalized for financial success. Distribution of wealth is not American.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Nuclear Energy Benefits

http://library.thinkquest.org/21794/energysources.html
http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/advantages-of-nuclear-energy.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller13.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

Just some websites supporting nuclear energy...

For the record, nuclear energy is NOT renewable, like wind or solar. We have to mine the element used to make this type of energy. However, it is very abundant here at home and around the world. It is much more efficient to produce than other types of energy. It will last at least 200 years, if not longer and if no advances in the technology are made. Nuclear energy would cut my electric bill in half.

Besides a completely renewable source of energy, this appears to be the next best thing for our electric needs. Since renewable energy is relatively unpredictable (the sun and wind are not reliable in all parts of the country) we will surely need an efficient source of energy to go along with our renewable energy sources when it comes to the electricity of the future.

Friedman Does Not Want to Drill

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?em

Thomas Friedman brings up a terrific argument in this article; by focusing on technology of the past, Republicans are setting America up for economic failure.

I completely agree, except for one key point: McCain in no way is focusing on technology of the past; McCain is simply pushing to take advantage of the resources we have while developing the energy of the future.

The bottom line is no candidate is proposing a complete overhaul of American energy infrastructure. Obama is proposing to invest $150 billion OVER TEN YEARS to "catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future." First, give credit where it is due; he wants business to take care of this issue, not government. But come on. $150 billion over ten years? $15 billion a year? Even Obama admits that will not solve this issue; only "catalyze" it. Not only this, but much to the opposite of Obama's public talking points, he is actually hiding support for drilling in the fine print of his website:

"An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska."

McCain proposes $2 billion a year towards clean coal technology and a goal of building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. Now, to Obama's credit, McCain provides no hard facts on how this would be accomplished. If Freidman is close to correct (which I am guessing he is) and each nuclear power plant does in fact cost $10 billion, McCain is proposing to spend roughly $22 billion a year on clean energy initiatives. So McCain actually wins the financial argument.

Here is the bottom line; both candidates support renewable energy, electric and hybrid vehicles, flex-fuel vehicles, alcohol based fuels, higher fuel economy standards, and clean-coal technology. Both candidates are proposing various incentives to promote these ideas. In addition to these concepts, McCain publicly proposes to expand oil production in this country to currently restricted areas and to invest in nuclear power, which are two ideas Obama has not expressed support for.

Both candidates are proposing energy change, and are putting a comparable amount of government money and influence behind this idea. Both candidates, apparently (I really can not believe I found this on Obama's website) are at the very least interested in expanding drilling capabilities. NEITHER candidate is proposing the type of Manhatten Project that would be necessary to solve this energy issue within a reasonable amount of time.

So if we agree to let the market economy take its course and keep the cost of energy overhaul away from taxpayer's wallets, I suggest we utilize our natural resouces to put a halt to the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, protect our national security, and provide high paying jobs to American workers while the private sector works on defining the next generation. Both candidates support renewable energy in various forms; McCain just gives us a little more by campaigning on the concept of drilling in restricted areas and developing nuclear power.

McCain and Obama Are Now Even

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158627

Hurricane Ike Images

Sarah Palin in the Media

I stumbled upon this article detailing Sarah Palin's job performance as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26695078/.

This article provides excellent investigative reporting by the Washington Post on Palin. It is biased against her by talking about all of the bad that resulted from her holding the position of mayor a good 95% of the time. Although presented in a highly biased way (the author of the article could easily have focused on good things on Palin's record, good things about her character, positive commentary from citizens on her job performance, or used various techniques in word choice and transitions to represent the same facts that make her look bad in a not so biased way), I still think this is a great article.

Why? Because it is working to find the truth about Palin.

"Both the US and European models of news are fact-driven and committed to accuracy. The Europeans argue, however, that facts yield truth only when sorted through and subjected to analysis. Truth, a word for broad understanding, does not result automatically from an array of facts or quotes from shoting partisans. In short, the Europeans caution, don't confuse facts and factual accuracy with truth, which is broader and more important." -John Vivian, The Media of Mass Communication, 2008

What is better? A fair and balanced, non-biased article that pits opposing statements next to opposing facts without putting anything into a prospective or weighing the importance and legitimacy of those statements or facts, that seeks to represent the truth? Or a biased article, written in a biased tone with a severe lack of opposing viewpoints and statements, that seeks to represent the truth?

For anyone that follows the political media, and anyone who accuesses the media of bias, this is a very important question to deal with. I believe the Washington Post article about Palin was completely bias. However, its journalistic qualities are sound. This quote, which has not been presented to me by anyone else except the author of this article, really makes me wonder why the McCain campaign is spending their time trumping up Palin's experience as mayor:

"Arriving in office, Palin herself played down the demands of the job in response to residents who worried that her move to oust veteran officials would leave the town in the lurch. 'It's not rocket science,' Palin said, according to the town newspaper, the Frontiersman. 'It's $6 million and 53 employees.'"

I think that any journalism that seeks to find the truth should be appreciated and valued, even if it is biased. The problem is, often times biased journalism is presented as actual news. It is given a headline on the homepage of a website or given a spot on the front page of a newspaper. 95% of the people who then read the article think it is the word of God and the facts are indisputable. They do not realize that taking out a sentence or two, writing with a balanced tone, changing certain words, or including quotes from opposite viewpoints could change the opinion the reader has after reading this article all together.

News that is not biased, that does not pit fact against fact, needs to be given to the consumers as news so they can make a decision on which ideas to support without being pushed by a biased author in one direction or another. News that is biased, like this article, that does practically nothing to represent the other side, should without a doubt be reported; however, it should be reported with the disclaimer that the story does not give equal value to the opposite viewpoint. Using this disclaimer would help the consumer by allowing them to read more than statements and facts, but true analysis. It would also help the consumer by letting them know there are in fact opposing viewpoints to what they are reading, and that they should investigate those viewpoints before making up their mind.

Shame on MSNBC for putting this story on their homepage in the "Decision 08 Politics" section. Citizens of this country need fair and balanced reporting. This is not fair and balanced reporting. This is good reporting, but not fair and balanced. I have no problem with MSNBC reporting this story. I only take issue with the way they represent it as actual news. They are doing a dis-service to their readers by feeding them biased reporting and representing it as hard news.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

DMB 2008 Review

The death of LeRoi marked a very terrible ending to what otherwise should be considered a stellar tour. LeRoi and his musicianship will never be replicated again; thankfully, we have plenty of recordings (and I am positive we will get plenty more) that will help us remember why we fell in love with the Dave Matthews Band to begin with.

Here are things that I thought were good about Dave Matthews Band this tour:

1) The band learned how to play without Butch Taylor. I like Butch playing in the background and strengthening the rhythem section, but I really disliked when he soloed...all it did was take the energy right out of the concert. For the record, I would love Butch to come back someday; I just see no need for his ten minute solos at the end of Two Step, Bartender, Lie in Our Graves, etc.

2) Tim Reynolds was amazing. He brings a very unique sound to this band that is FAR more valuable than anything Butch Taylor brought. I firmly believe that Tim Reynolds is the "6th member", and I really hope we are lucky enough for him to keep playing with the band. Hearing Tim at the beginning of Two Step in Burgettstown was probably one of the three greatest moments in my DMB concert going career...

3) DMB really took advantage of their huge catalog this year by continously pumping out songs they hadn't played in over 50 concerts as well as song debuts:

a) Stolen Away on 55th and 3rd - 62 TD
b) Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin) - 185 TD
c) Money - SONG DEBUT
d) Money (That's What I Want) - SONG DEBUT
e) Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black) - 538 TD
f) What You Are - 81 TD
g) Bitch - SONG DEBUT
h) The Long Black Viel - 98 TD
i) Pay For What You Get - 145 TD
j) Recently - 169 TD
k) Water/Wine Jam - 1060 TD
l) Proudest Monkey - 114 TD
m) Out Of My Hands - 56 TD
n) Can't Stop - 99 TD
o) The Space Between - 316 TD
p) Sledgehammer - SONG DEBUT
q) Best of Whats Around - 53 TD
r) Sail Away - SONG DEBUT
s) Sugar Will - 285 TD
t) Drive in Drive Out - 169 TD
u) Help Myself - 211 TD
v) Lover Lay Down - 165 TD
w) Sleep to Dream Her - 154 TD
x) Burning Down the House - SONG DEBUT
y) Halloween - 111 TD
z) Spoon - 383 TD
aa) Stefan Solo - 59 TD
ab) All Along the Watchtower - 51 TD

4) DMB made some major changes to many songs...

a) Experimentation with changing the verses and adding a Dave and Tim only entrance to Ants Marching
b) Extended jam to end So Damn Lucky
c) Full band version of Stay or Leave
d) Bringing back the Too Much fake and alternating the song played after the fake
e) More intense Gravedigger and Out of My Hands
f) Using Halloween mid-set
g) Opening with Bartender
h) Putting Don't Drink the Water in the encore

5) Noteable concerts include:

a) SPAC Night 2 (http://www.dmbalmanac.com/TourShowSet.aspx?id=453056552&tid=98&where=2008). #40, Shotgun, Dream so Real all played for the only time all tour. Set ended with a Lie in Our Graves, Jimi Thing, So Much To Say > Anyone Seen the Bridge > Too Much run, followed by a Lie in Our Graves reprise in the encore.

b) Riverbend (http://www.dmbalmanac.com/TourShowSet.aspx?id=453056564). After a fan chant for Halloween, DMB played an Everyday fake followed by Halloween, followed by Water/Wine Jam, Everyday, Anyone Seen the Bridge, Too Much (fake), Tripping Billies.

c) Staples Center Night 1 (http://www.dmbalmanac.com/TourShowSet.aspx?id=453056569&tid=98&where=2008). DMB opend with Bartender and closed the encore with Two Step the first concert after LeRoi's death.

There were a couple negatives to this tour, however:

1) The encores, especially toward the beginning of the tour, were extremely predicatable and contained almost all cover songs.

2) DMB did not play a single new song they had worked on in the studio this past year.

3) The band will most likely never play #34 again, as it was used to commemorate the death of LeRoi.

My hopes for DMB next year are very simple; the band continues to play, despite LeRoi's death. LeRoi is only replaced by someone who has guested with DMB in the past, such as Jeff Coffin. LeRoi IS replaced. The band plays new songs THEY have written, not others. Encores and openers are less predictable. Tim keeps playing with the band.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Political Correctness

It is not that I am insensitive to those in the path of major hurricanes that have hit the American coastline this year. But...I think in the wake of Katrina, today's campaigning politicians are going out of their way to show an impractical compassion for those victims...

What good did delaying the major speeches and arranging planned events for the first day of the Republican convention do to help those affected by Hurricane Gustav? What good did canceling Obama's appearance on SNL do to help those affected by Hurricane Ike? Nothing. Both of these actions were only decided upon for political reasons, not practical. If either candididate had cancelled their events to oversee recovery efforts, that would be a different story. But none of them did.

Ridiculous.

Where Should We Get Our News?

Well, it looks like MSNBC HAS been reading my e-mails. Keith Olbermann has been demoted (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=convnetion%20coverage&st=cse&scp=1&oref=slogin)! Praise Jesus. It took them receiving the lowest ratings in political convention coverage two cycles in a row (Olbermann was only the host of convention coverage during the conventions this year, but not four years ago) to realize that clearly something has gone wrong with their coverage.

I never understood why MSNBC would put someone who is so adament about his views on camera to host the convention coverage. Not only is American journalism supposed to be un-biased (we will compare American journalism vs. British journalism in a future post), but the conventions themselves are essentially the most important political event to keep bias free from coverage!

This article exemplified a point I have been feeling for most of this year...MSNBC, which once was regarded by me and many others as a relatively unbiased location to get your news (except for the fact that MSNBC is tied to two of the biggest corporations in the world, Microsoft and General Electric) has turned decidedly to the left. We know that CNN is on the left (now that Olbermann has been demoted, I will be working diligently to bring the same fate to Wolf Blitzer). We know that FOX is on the right (to Fox's credit, Bill O'Reilly, the most controversial FOX news personality, does not take part in convention coverage). So it looks like major broadcast journalism has run its course for me.

Print journalism might be just as bad. I will have to investigate. I always hear that the New York Times is pretty liberal...I know their editorial page is, but I will gave their coverage a chance. I will probably try to compare it to the Washington Post, which is known as more conservative, and let you guys know what I think...

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Corporate and Small Business Taxes

Interesting reading:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

McCain on Corporate Taxes:

Keep Tax Rates Low: Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security - a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. John McCain's opponent wants to increase the marginal income tax rate which applies to the nation's 23 million small business owners who pay their taxes under the individual tax rate system.

Cut The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 To 25 Percent: A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe.

Obama on Corporate Taxes:

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama's long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas: Barack Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama will also fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers.

Reward Companies that Support American Workers: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America if it has ever been in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Self-employed small business owners pay both the employee and the employer side of the payroll tax, and this measure will reduce the burdens of this double taxation.



The United States tax rate, after taking into account state and local taxes, currently ranks as the second highest, on average, in the world. It is more expensive for corporations to do business in these states than anywhere else on Earth:

OECD Overall Rank	Country/State	Federal Rate Adjusted	Top State Corporate Tax Rate	Combined Federal and State Rate (Adjusted) (a)
	Iowa	35	12	41.6
	Pennsylvania	35	9.99	41.5
	Minnesota	35	9.8	41.4
	Massachusetts	35	9.5	41.2
	Alaska	35	9.4	41.1
	New Jersey	35	9.36	41.1
	Rhode Island	35	9	40.9
	West Virginia	35	9	40.9
	Maine	35	8.93	40.8
	Vermont	35	8.9	40.8
	California	35	8.84	40.7
	Delaware	35	8.7	40.7
	Indiana	35	8.5	40.5
	New Hampshire	35	8.5	40.5
	Wisconsin	35	7.9	40.1
	Nebraska	35	7.81	40.1
	Idaho	35	7.6	39.9
	New Mexico	35	7.6	39.9
	Connecticut	35	7.5	39.9
	New York	35	7.5	39.9
	Kansas	35	7.35	39.8
	Illinois	35	7.3	39.7
	Maryland	35	7	39.6
	North Dakota	35	7	39.6

These facts do not exactly provide incentive for corporations to keep their operations here in the United States or to bring them here from other areas of the world. It is obvious to me these tax rates need to be drastically cut in order to improve our economy and create jobs.

John McCain has proposed dropping the federal tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would certainly provide an additional incentive both for corporations to keep operations in the United States and for international corporations to bring operations to the United States. High taxes take away from the ability of a corporation to pay workers, and takes away the ability of a corporation to make a profit. If a corporation is unable to make a profit, they will go out of business or move to a different environment in which they are able to. It is essential to bring down the corporate tax rate to one that is more competitive. I believe this policy is very straightforward and will promote growth for the American economy. This policy does not directly affect jobs here in the United States, however. A company could be headquartered here in the United States, but ship their jobs overseas and receive the same tax credit.

Barak Obama is proposing a tax break for corporations that meet certain requirements related to jobs and payment/benefits for its employees. Barak Obama says he will end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas. Barak Obama has also proposed tax breaks for companies that keep jobs in the United States:

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070802-senators_durbin/

This tax credit is equal to 1% of taxable income for corporations that meet various requirements. I think this plan is a great idea, as it ties tax breaks to American jobs. However, it does not provide as flashy of an incentive to corporations to keep their operations here at home, as they are only rewarded for doing so if they meet those certain requirements.

In terms of corporate taxes, both candidates tackle one side of the issue, but not the other. McCain's policy would keep corporate operations in the United States. Obama's policy would keep corporate jobs here in the United States. It is my opinion that each of the candidate's needs to devise a plan that address both operations (corporate tax rate moved down to 25%) being kept in the United States, and jobs. In today's worldwide economy, tax breaks can not just be reserved for corporations that keep a certain percentage of their jobs here at home. Tax breaks must be rewarded for those that are creating jobs here at home. On top of the flat rate of 25% that McCain proposes, I think we should take the requirements in Obama's plan and tie them to an additional 5% corporate profit break. This would work to keep corporations based on this country, as well as the jobs they create.

Barak Obama actually an edge on McCain when it comes to small businesses. Obama has proposed doing away with capital gains taxes all together for start-up and small businesses, while providing a $500 tax credit for each employee on a small business's payroll. McCain has porposed keeping the capital gains tax at 15%.

Thoughts?

It Could Be Worse

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/07/green.polar.bears.japan.ap/index.html

Yeah...at least I am not serving as host to a legion of algae.

Convention Thoughts

So...after watching Obama speak on Thursday (read the speech here: http://www.demconvention.com/barack-obama/ or listen to the speech here: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/content/acceptancespeechnd?source=feature_nom) and watching Fred Thompson speak yesterday (watch the speech here: http://www.gopconvention2008.com/videos/ or read the speech here: http://portal.gopconvention2008.com/speech/details.aspx?id=32), I just want to quickly compare Obama and Thomspon on taxes...

Obama:

"Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class."

Thompson:

"We need a President who understands that you don't make citizens prosperous by making Washington richer, and you don't lift an economic downturn by imposing one of the largest tax increases in American history.

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases.

They tell you they are not going to tax your family.

No, they're just going to tax 'businesses'! So unless you buy something from a 'business', like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.

They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the 'other' side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform."

Obama says he is going to cut taxes in his speech. Read about the bill he voted for:

Excerpts from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23612342/.

"The votes were mostly symbolic, but they put senators in both parties on the record for when the tax cuts actually expire in three years. Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, voted for the full roster of Bush tax cuts. Rivals Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., both voted against them.

Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.

Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.)"

I want to believe Obama, but I want to hear him answer to this article and these facts as presented to me by MSNBC (which leans longer and harder to the left with every new host...see Keith Olberman, Norah O'Donnal, Rachel Maddow, and David Gregory's recent promotions).

I just find it incredibly interesting to hear what each side has to say on taxes. No one really knows what is going to happen. It is incredibly hard to determine the truth of every single word spoken by the candidates on these issues.

I don't believe Obama when he says he will not raise my taxes until he answers specifically to the bill he voted for. If I just compared what Thompson said with what Obama said, I would be forced to believe one is lying...but after considering this MSNBC article, it is hard to believe Obama.

But...away from taxes, let's move to Laura Bush.

"On an issue that is close to my heart, President Bush initiated the most important education reforms in a generation - holding schools accountable and boosting funds for reading instruction. Today, student achievement is rising across the board, and test scores for minority students are at the highest they have ever been.

We all know how important is it for America to have judges who respect the constitution. Our whole nation can be proud of the two newest members of the Supreme Court...

Many in this arena, and many across our nation, are people of faith... The president has empowered faith based and community charities to partner with and help those in need. Engaging these groups is successful policy. One way we know this - across the country, 35 governors from both parties have started faith based and community initiatives of their own.

Here is another inspiring statistic. When my husband took office, fewer than 50,000 Africans suffering from AIDS were receiving the medicine they needed to survive. Thanks to the president's emergency plan for AIDS relief, that number is now nearly 2 million. You might call that "change you can really belief in".

George is using America's influence to lift up lives around the world. Millions of children are protected from malayria by mosquito nets the American people provide. In Afghanistan and Iraq, 50 million people are now living in freedom.

And lets not forget, President Bush has kept the American people safe."

I just wanted to present these relatively non-politicized points on Bush's presidency...he has his faults, but he did do some successful things. Like the war or hate the war, it is hard for anyone to say they would rather have 50 million in Afghanistan and Iraq living in the political conditions they were living in before (this is different than the debate of whether or not we should have did what we did), and it is even more difficult to say the President made this country less safe, even though the record of terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11, at this point, proves otherwise.

Actual Education Initiatives

Now that energy is out of the way, it is time for my next big, hot topic issue: education. Education? Yes...I actually care an immense amount about this issue. At the heart of the strength of the American economy is the strength of the American education system; we need to give everyone in this country the best education we can so that we can compete in the global economy. Education is too important of an issue to let the market economy take its course; government needs to act to ensure that we are capitalizing on the intellectual talent of this country, including the talent hidden away in school districts without proper funding or qualified teachers or in young adults who can not afford to pay a tuition.

So, on to the actual policy proposals. I am trying to separate the political fluff from actual meat. I am not interested in the candidates opinions on education (we should have a stronger education system!); rather, what each candidate plans to do to make that goal a reality.

John McCain:

John McCain Will Build On The Lessons Of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). There should be an emphasis on standards and accountability. However, our goal cannot be group averages. Instead, our focus should be to inspire every child to strive to reach his or her potential. While NCLB has been invaluable in providing a clear picture of which schools and students are struggling, it is only the beginning of education reform.

John McCain Will Provide Effective Education Leadership. John McCain is committed to high standards and accountability, but he is also committed to providing the resources needed to succeed. He believes we should invest in people, parents and reward achievement.

John McCain Will Work To Ensure That Our Children Have Quality Teachers. The single biggest challenge in turning around a failing school is getting quality teachers into that school. To overcome this challenge, John McCain will:

Encourage Alternative Certification Methods That Open The Door For Highly Motivated Teachers To Enter The Field. John McCain will devote five percent of Title II funding to states to recruit teachers who graduate in the top 25 percent of their class or who participate in an alternative teacher recruitment program such as Teach for America, the New York City Teaching Fellowship Program, the New Teacher Project, or excellent university initiatives.

Provide Bonuses For Teachers Who Locate In Underperforming Schools And Demonstrate Strong Leadership As Measured By Student Improvement. John McCain will devote 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for high performing teachers to locate in the most challenging educational settings, for teachers to teach subjects like math and science, and for teachers who demonstrate student improvement. Payments will be made directly to teachers. Funds should also be devoted to provide performance bonuses to teachers who raise student achievement and enhance the school-wide learning environment. Principals may also consider other issues in addition to test scores such as peer evaluations, student subgroup improvements, or being removed from the state's "in need of improvement" list.

Provide Funding For Needed Professional Teacher Development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today's technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.

John McCain Will Ensure Children Struggling To Meet State Standards Will Have Immediate Access To High Quality Tutoring Programs. Local school districts can certify education service providers but providers can also bypass the local bureaucracy and receive direct federal certification. Education service providers can then market directly to parents. Title I money will be directed straight to the provider.

John McCain Supports Expanding Virtual Learning By Reforming The "Enhancing Education Through Technology Program." John McCain will target $500 million in current federal funds to build new virtual schools and support the development of online course offerings for students. These courses may be for regular coursework, for enhancement, or for dual enrollment into college.

John McCain Will Allocate $250 Million Through A Competitive Grant Program To Support States That Commit To Expanding Online Education Opportunities. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.

John McCain Will Offer $250 Million For Digital Passport Scholarships To Help Students Pay For Online Tutors Or Enroll In Virtual Schools. Low-income students will be eligible to receive up to $4,000 to enroll in an online course, SAT/ACT prep course, credit recovery or tutoring services offered by a virtual provider. Providers could range from other public schools, virtual charter schools, home school parents utilizing virtual schooling resources or district or state sponsored virtual schools. The Department of Education would competitively award the funds to a national scholarship administrator who would manage the student applications, monitoring, and evaluation of providers.

No actual initiatives are listed under McCain's plan for higher education.

Barak Obama:

• Zero to Five Plan: Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, Obama's plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.
• Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.

• Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
• Make Math and Science Education a National Priority: Obama will recruit math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession and will support efforts to help these teachers learn from professionals in the field. He will also work to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at all grade levels.
• Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
• Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.
• Expand Summer Learning Opportunities: Obama's "STEP UP" plan addresses the achievement gap by supporting summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged children through partnerships between local schools and community organizations.
• Support College Outreach Programs: Obama supports outreach programs like GEAR UP, TRIO and Upward Bound to encourage more young people from low-income families to consider and prepare for college.
• Support English Language Learners: Obama supports transitional bilingual education and will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by holding schools accountable for making sure these students complete school.

Recruit, Prepare, Retain, and Reward America's Teachers

• Recruit Teachers: Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education, including high-quality alternative programs for mid-career recruits in exchange for teaching for at least four years in a high-need field or location.
• Prepare Teachers: Obama will require all schools of education to be accredited. He will also create a voluntary national performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively. Obama will also create Teacher Residency Programs that will supply 30,000 exceptionally well-prepared recruits to high-need schools.
• Retain Teachers: To support our teachers, Obama's plan will expand mentoring programs that pair experienced teachers with new recruits. He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices.
• Reward Teachers: Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with a salary increase. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.

Higher Education

• Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due.
• Simplify the Application Process for Financial Aid: Obama will streamline the financial aid process by eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application

So who gets my vote of confidence on this issue? Both McCain and Obama talk about different ways to recruit and reward teachers in the public education system. I could not begin to decipher which one is the stronger candidate on this issue. I will say I am very happy that both believe Math and Science teachers are highly valuable and and are prepared to take various steps (pay increases, recruiting efforts, tuition assistance) to give students in this country a higher quality education.

Both McCain and Obama discuss the idea of paying teachers more to work in under performing school districts. I believe this is an excellent idea, and I am happy that both candidates are putting a focus on this within their plans. Again, it is hard for me to decipher which plan would actually be more successful.

Obama is the only candidate that discusses expanding early childhood education. I think expanding early childhood education will help give students the skills they need to succeed in school and is a terrific idea. Obama is the leader on this issue in my book.

Obama is the only candidate that discusses in detail how he would support higher education. McCain's website does make mention of simplifying and improving the financial aid process for students, but it really does not come out and say just how he would do that. Obama is very clear on how he would simplify the financial aid process for students. Obama also is the only candidate who makes mention of providing real tuition assistance in the form of an immediate tax credit, not related to financial aid, for "most Americans". While $4000 does not sound like a lot of money, it is a hell of a lot more than McCain proposes. Furthermore, $4000 is enough to allow everyone the opportunity to start their higher education career free of charge.

Obama is the clear winner to me when it comes to education. Although McCain has excellent ideas and detailed specifics on how to provide everyone in this country with a better education (mostly through teacher recruitment), Obama takes this issue away by coming close to McCain on teacher recruitment and simplifying the student loan process, while adding tuition assistance "for most Americans" to his list of proposals.

Joining in the armed services already gives you a way to have the government pretty much pay for your entire education (http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step02_education,,00.html). Joining in the Peace Corps, however, is not so lucrative (http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=learn.whyvol.finben). I would like to see a candidate propose a similar educational reward for those that decide to join the Peace Corps.

I also would like to see a candidate propose a dollar for dollar match on the cost of an education; meaning, I pay half, they pay half. The eligibility standards for this program should be as follows:

1) This assistance, in the form of an immediate check from the government, would be available to students who choose to enroll in public education, or at a private university if their desired field is not available at a public school within reasonable driving distance, that they applied to and got accepted at, with a cap of $3500 a year.

2) Students who chose to enroll in fields where the United States is currently lagging (math, science, engineering, etc.) could receive a higher payback from the government.

3) Students must maintain good academic standing and maintain good behavior/legal standing.

4) The assistance does not cover the cost of staying on campus; however, it could cover certain additional costs levied by the college, such as printing or parking, as well as the cost of books and a limited school supply credit.

Now the big question; how would the government pay for this? Well...some of the costs could be paid for by the decrease in other student loan funding from the government. Simply put, with the government paying half, many students would not be eligible for some of the financial aid they receive from the government now. But there would obviously be a surge of students entering the higher education system that currently do not even consider it as an option.

Lets say we taxed the 300,000,000 people in this country an additional $50 a year. That comes out to $15 billion. If we say the average cost of tuition at a public school is $7000 per year (this would include books and fees, and is still a pretty high number), $3500 divided by the $15 billion would allow over 4 million people to go to a public school at half the cost. The $50 a year is an extremely small investment when you consider the economic impact these students would create for our country. Of course, we could play with the numbers...there are more than 300,000,000 in the country now that are paying taxes, for example. Those with kids could pay more of the tax. Those with higher incomes could pay more of the tax. We could build a big chain of national casino's to help pay the bill. We could cut some programs to help foot the bill. However we do it...the $50 education tax would be the maximum we as Americans would have to invest to protect our economic futures.

Please let me know your thoughts, if there are any...also, does anyone know how many people graduated from college last year? I would like to know if by 4 million number is far off?