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.