The One Torture Hurts the Most: US Troops

According to new evidence, in September of 2003, Alyssa Peterson took her own life. Ms. Peterson was a soldier, working as an Arabic-speaking interrogator in Iraq. According to new research, Ms. Peterson killed herself after refusing to participate in the torture of terrorist subjects. From the article:

"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."

According to the official report on her death released the following year, she had earlier been "reprimanded" for showing "empathy" for the prisoners. One of the most moving parts of that report is: "She said that she did not know how to be two people; she ... could not be one person in the cage and another outside the wire."

Ms. Kayla Williams, formerly of the army, has recently come out and testified that she witnessed detainees in US care being tortured, and did nothing about it. I'm not condemning Ms. Williams - she feels bad enough:

I witnessed detainee abuse in Iraq and did not report it. This moral failing is my own burden, one I will carry with me for the rest of my life. But it has also influenced how I look at headlines about torture, from Abu Ghraib to the recent revelations about GITMO.

The detainees I saw being abused might have been guilty when they came in. But I am sure that after being treated the way they were, they walked out full of rage and more likely to attack Americans. On a larger scale, I believe that the ability of insurgents in Iraq and terrorists worldwide to use US treatment of detainees in Iraq and GITMO for propaganda has caused significant harm. According the Washington Post, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair agrees that waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (read: torture) do more harm than good: "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world. . .The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Of all of the reasons why the US torture of terrorism suspects and other detainees is so heinous, this is the worst. Ignore the issues about whether or not torture gets accurate or useful information (though by all accounts it doesn't). Ignore whether suspects tortured - whether guilty or innocent of any crimes - leave with anger and rage against their prison guards - which makes them more likely to lash out against the United States. Even ignore whether information that the US has tortured prisoners makes it harder for the US to make their case in the world.

The greatest reason why the Bush administration approving and ordering the use of torture tactics, is because of what they did to the United States troops. Over the objections of the military leaders who clearly labeled waterboarding and other techniques as torture - leaders that the Bush administration said over and over again "Oh, we take the guidance from the military on what to do - unless it's about size of troops in Iraq, and torture".

By ordering that US soldiers participate in the torture of detainees, the Bush administration committed a crime against our very soldiers. From the Lynndie England's of Iraq that the Bush administration labeled a "few bad apples" - who, according to new information coming out today, learned their techniques of using dogs to attack prisoners from high level US officials. To the guards who were encouraged to "wall" prisoners by shoving them into walls via plastic collars, to the military doctors who had to decide if the guy who had been chained for 3 days straight as his ankles swelled up to twice their size and skin blisters formed was in any medical danger.

Some, such as Ms. Petersen, found themselves in an impossible situation - either obey their superior officers as all of their training had taught them, or obey the Constitution they had sworn to protect from enemies foreign and domestic. Some took their life, some simply say nothing but carry the shame and scars for the rest of their lives.

Of all the reasons to investigate the torture of detainees, this is perhaps the greatest. Even if that investigation is a Truth Commission without any power to prosecute, we need to insure that it never happens again. Not to protect detainees or terrorist suspects - but to protect our own soldiers from small fear minded people who would force them to act like monsters.

The Triple Triad of Torture Justifications

If a genius baby is born from rape, does that make it good?

If a cop beats a prisoner with a rubber hose to get a confession, is that legal?

There are three arguments being proposed in the torture debate:

1. It wasn't really torture. This is clearly disproved by the fact that Japanese and German soldiers, doctors, and lawyers were sentenced to jail and execution for using these very techniques.

2. It was all legal because the Justice Department said so! What's interesting here is how the debate has moved from "We didn't do it", to "OK, we did, but only a few times", to "Well, so we did it a lot, but only to get answers", to "Yeah, we did it a lot and planned on doing it from the start."

The fact they got their torture techniques from SEAL training showing soldiers *how to resist torture* should have been the first clue that this was - yes, you have it, torture.

3. It got results. This is the latest argument. "Well, even if it *was* torture, it got good results!"

You know what - I'm going to give this one to Cheney. Ignore every report that said that all of the details from KSM came out *before* waterboarding was used. Throw out that every WWII interrogator of Nazi's said that torture never worked and the Army Field Manual did.

*Just because something works doesn't make it right or legal.* If it's torture, it's illegal. I don't care that harvesting child brains cures cancer, and I don't care if police beatings catch the bad guys. There are things you don't do because their effects upon the souls of people are so bad, society decided that you could be killed for using them (aka - Geneva conventions and Nuremberg trials).

Imagine these soldiers who were taught to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" now working as your cops in your town. Oh, hey - it's legal, right? And I'm *sure* that guy they picked up is really a child rapist - so its OK to use these techniques to get him to confess - oh, whoops, they were innocent after all? Oh, well! They'll just shake it off!

If its torture, it's illegal. This was no "ticking time bomb" scenario people like Cheney get an erection over considering so they can think about doing as many horrible things to a person as possible. This wasn't the eve of some attack - these were some guys who evidently didn't give the wanted answers to questions regarding Iraq and bin Laden - so out came the torture techniques. Until, finally, they got people to say "Oh, sure - Saddam Hussein and bin laden are totally in together to kill the world!"

Turns out to have not been true, but hey - why let the truth get in the way of a good torture session?

At that moment, the Bush Administration was involved in conspiracy to commit torture, from the people who requested it, to the people who approved it, to the people who carried it out. It's a crime, and if there's any justice in the world, it will be prosecuted as such.

OK - Seriously? The faux Obama scandals are getting seriously stupid

Glenn Greenwald. I don't always agree with him, but he's been putting up a very consistent analysis of things he thinks the Obama administration is doing right and wrong. These days, a lot wrong - like how the Obama administration is continuing the bad Bush policies regarding court challenges for terrorism suspects.

Every time, Mr. Greenwald backs up his opinions and assertions with facts. He seeks out the opinions of those who disagree with him. While he did want Obama to win over John McCain, he hasn't let partisan loyalties blind him from calling out actions of the Obama administration he feels are against the US constitution or legal morality. He has no problem pointing a finger at Obama administration scandals.

Then - you've got the dickheads.

The headline? Obama seeks $83.4 billion more for Iraq, Afghanistan wars

President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president. This would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001.

This is the headline from a submitter on Digg. Wait - Obama opposed troop funding two years ago? I mean, that would be kind of horrible, right? Especially if he wants to spend money now-

Then, you can read the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama wants Congress to act quickly on his $83.4 billion request for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, an appeal that's disappointing the most liberal, anti-war wing of his party.

But with the president promising to remove all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010, his Democratic allies in control of Congress are sure to approve the spending without the type of tortuous battle that characterized their dealings with former President George W. Bush.

Obama's request Thursday, which included money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the cost of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.

Huh - so he's spending money so he can support the troops while pulling them out of Iraq. But - didn't he oppose troop funding?

First of all, the bill in question funded all of the ongoing military operations in both theaters, not just "the troops who carried out the surge," as McCain's comment implied.

Secondly, it's misleading to say Obama didn't want to fund "the troops." He said he would support a bill that included a plan for bringing troops home. "We must fund our troops," Obama said. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war. ... We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly."

If that one vote of Obama's constituted an attempt to "prevent funding to the troops," then almost every Republican in the Senate did the same when they voted against a $124-billion appropriations bill on April 26, 2007, that would have funded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also required Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. (McCain missed the vote on that bill, which passed 51-46 and was subsequently vetoed by Bush.) It wasn't the idea of funding the troops that Bush and the other Republicans were opposing, it was the strategy that the bill would have enabled.

OK - so Obama never opposed troop funding, and he wants to fund their needs in the Iraq war while he pulls them out. That actually sounds - reasonable.

But wait - what about the pizza that Obama ordered? From, across the country?

How much does Obama love his pizza? So much that he is willing to fly a chef 860 miles to Washington D.C. to make him a personal pizza.

When you're the president of the United States, only the best pizza will do - even if that means flying a chef 860 miles.

Chris Sommers, 33, jetted into Washington from St Louis, Missouri, on Thursday with a suitcase of dough, cheese and pans to to prepare food for the Obamas and their staff.

He had apparently been handpicked after the President had tasted his pizzas on the campaign trail last autumn.

Hey, you guys know what says you are really sincere about this whole Global Warming thing that you want to use to justify an economy crushing cap and trade program? Jetting a dude across the country to make you a freaking pie.

Dude, what a douchenozzle that Obama must be! Ordering pizza from across the country and - wait, what's that? It's a big fat lie?

The best one is the first: Ace of Spades slammed Obama's environmental cred for "jetting in" Pi's chef, making it seem as though the guy was hopping a private gulfstream, or worse, partying down on Air Force One .

* In fact, Chris Sommers flew commercial.
* Not only that, he flew coach.
* Not only that, he had already planned a business trip to DC, so the restaurant paid for his travel!


John also told me that Chris Sommers is one of the most dedicated people he knows to the environmental cause.

* In fact, his restaurant buys carbon credits from a wind farm in Colorado.
* Not only that, they recycle about 75% of their waste.
* Not only that, John himself is going into the green building business. You couldn't find a worse case for environmental hypocrisy.


Finally, Barack Obama isn't saddling the American taxpayer with the tab for this feast. He's picking up the tab, for local ingredients, out of his own pocket.

The problem here, is that there are very reasonable and fact based debates that should be going on with the Obama administration, over defense spending, speed of Iraqi troop withdrawals (or whether we should at all), TARP money - all sorts of things can and should be debated.

Based on facts. Based on things that have actually happened. Based on reasonable, realistic arguments and debates. There's plenty there - look at how much stuff Greenwald is getting!

When you feel the need to lie and make stuff up to support your position - especially lies that are easily and quickly disproven, then you make yourself look worse to everyone but your ever dwindling base. And just makes us want to trust you that much less.

You can't treat a patient if they're gay?

There's a commercial about to run from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), talking about the dangers of gay marriage.

In one part, a woman says "I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."

I'm still trying to figure out why a "California Doctor" has to choose between their faith and their job if gay marriage is legal.

Do you not treat a patient's broken leg if they got gay married? Or perhaps you're a gynecologist and you determine it's against your faith to give a gay married woman a pap smear? Perhaps a surgeon decides that hey, this gay man with a husband doesn't deserve to have his appendix taken out - obviously it's God's will that they came down with appendicitis.

Seriously here - why would someone either a) being gay, or b) being gay and being married to their partner in any way make a medical professional have to decide between their faith and their job?

"Nurse, fetch me the paddles - this man is in cardiac arrest!"

"Doctor, I can't - he has 'the gay', so it's against my faith to save his life! Jesus would want me to let them die!"

"Oh, well, if that's the reasoning, then I guess OK."

I'm missing something here.

This is why I don't watch Fox News: Tolerance of lazy liars

There's a reason why "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" is now becoming an actual source of news for younger (and by "younger", I mean "20-something and younger). Oh, sure, it's entertaining. But really, the whole shtick of Stewart is:

Stewart: Hey, did you hear about this crazy thing somebody in power said?
(Plays tape of crazy thing.)
Stewart: Isn't that crazy?

But even if you don't find Stewart *funny*, you have to find him *informative*. And honest - he shows what people are *actually saying*. So even if you disagree with him, he's giving people the chance to see the actual quotes, the actual events for themselves.

Then - there's Fox news.

I won't rip on the individual people of the Fox News channel. It would be petty to go after people like O'Reilly or Beck who are hypocrites who contradict themselves depending on what the subject is.

No, I just want to rip on Fox News in general. Not even for being dishonest. But for being lazy about it.

Take this clip of Fox News going on about Harold Koh. According to Fox, Mr. Koh said that Sharia Law - the traditional law used in some segments of the Middle East and Asia - applied in the United States.

If you don't know anything about Sharia Law, it is pretty horrible. First, it's not even Islamic law (though its practitioners tend to live in Islamic communities). It's really old traditional law passed down for thousands of years - and yeah, it's pretty sucky. It's horribly misogynistic, allows for female rape victims to be stoned for losing their "purity", chopping off of limbs for crimes, and so on. By any modern standards (and by "modern" I mean "about 500 years old), it's overkill, barbaric, and just plain stupid.

So the charge that the Obama Administration wanted to appoint Mr. Koh to State Department Legal Adviser is pretty scary if Mr. Koh wants to say that Sharia Law applies in the United States. Alert the masses! The black president with the Arabic sounding name who had a Muslim father is trying to put a faux Islamic law into the US courts! Man the guns! Alert the militia! One if by land, two if by sea, three if by Holy God the Rapture is upon us!

Only one problem.

Fox News is the most fucking lazy news network on the planet.

How did they get their information that Mr. Koh was a big lover of a legal system that enforces stoning? Did they have a camera at some event where Mr. Koh said this? A legal brief about Mr. Koh waxing on about how awesome it would be to behead someone for walking backwards on the Sabbath? (BTW: I'm not sure if that's in Sharia Law.) Or maybe Fox News got their hands on Mr. Koh's family medical records showing that every female had female circumcision?

No. I mean, that would take work. Instead, Fox found an email, sent to a conservative blog on the National Review web site, where the writer says Koh made some statement about Sharia Law:

In your discussion of "global law" I recall at least one favorable reference to "Sharia", among other foreign laws that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a controversy in a federal or state court in the US.

We don't know what the quote was. Maybe Koh was talking about foreign law in general as an example. Maybe he was talking about one aspect. Maybe he was just discussing that the US courts shouldn't just include one national precedent, but can read from countries other laws for new ideas. Maybe he thought stoning really is *awesome* and was planning a party. Maybe Koh was talking about marriage laws, and the how a custody case between an American citizen and the citizen of an area practicing Sharia could be resolved.

But we don't know. The author doesn't say. He just says "Oh, you said something favorable about Sharia, so I'm going to quote a whole long line of stuff about how awful Sharia is."

Fox News, of course, being the lazy asshats that they are, took it an ran. No, they didn't know what Koh said either. Couldn't waste their time talking to people who were there, or seeing if there was a transcript of Koh's comments, or maybe even asking Koh himself.

Because that would take work. I'm not so much annoyed that Fox is a slanted news organizations that exists only to make conservationism appear to be the greatest invention since the orgasm - as their sheer laziness about even attempting to appear credible.

I've caught someone like Rachel Maddow in an exaggeration - she made some comment about John McCain that was *mostly* true, but at least she backed it up by showing an actual clip of John McCain saying it. In the case of Fox, they couldn't be bothered with that whole "fact checking" thing. Nope - a random email from someone who remembers something somebody said that was favorable to some unknown portion of Sharia law was good enough to freak out about how the Obama administration is trying to appease Muslim terrorists who want to come kill us all because they hate freedom and bacon.

Oooo. Scary, Fox news. Scary.

How can unions force any companies to do anything?

My wife and I are looking at buying a new car. Which means there's been a lot of stress, double guessing, going over how much we can afford, just what we want, and the like.

Actually, I should say what My Lovely Wife (MLW) wants. Because in the end, this is going to be *her* car as we replace her over 13 year old mini-van with what we hope will be a new Buick Enclave.

We were going things today, when she was talking about the expense, and I reminded her that we didn't have to buy this car.

"Yes we do!" she snapped back in (what I think) was mock exasperation.

I raised an eyebrow. Something easy to do if you have gigantic hampsters attached to your forehead like I do. "Really?" I said. "And just how am I forcing you to buy this car?"

"By - by showing it to me in the first place!" she sputtered out. She started wagging her finger at me. "By tempting me into buying this car!"

"Tempting isn't forcing," I reminded her.

"It certainly is!"

I think we're getting that car tomorrow.

Later on, I was struck by a comment someone made regarding the whole GM/Chrysler fiasco, how the companies might have to go into bankruptcy if they don't come up with better plans for how they're going to be viable in the future.

"It's all the unions fault!" Someone said.

"How's that? They just made contracts with GM and Chrysler."

"They made them agree to those contracts! Then when the companies couldn't pay, now they're going out of business!"

OK - no. They didn't. Nobody "forced" anybody to agree to any contracts.

Let's look at it from an individual standpoint. I've seen something like this happen in the workplace. You'll have a weird computer system, maybe a legacy server that nobody knows how to program - except for this one guy in the company. Let's call him Bob.

Bob starts out making $50,000 a year. Then, one day, he comes into work and asks for a raise.

Bob: I think I should be making $100,000 a year.

Bossman: I think you need your head examined.

Bob: Either I get $100,000 a year - or I quit. And nobody else knows how to run the Jobatron 2000. And without that, the company doesn't run.

Now, Bossman has a problem. He could let Bob quit, but if he does, then he'll have to either find a new manager for the Jobatron 2000. Who knows how much that'll cost, or how long it will take. Or, he could meet Bob's demand. Or offer Bob less money. Or figure out a way to get rid of the Jobatron 2000.

Either way, Bob isn't forcing anyone to do anything. He feels his skills have a value on the market (in this case, Bossman's business running), and he's going to maximize his return on his particular skills.

It's capitalism at work. Bossman has a demand (Bob's skills). Bob has a demand (Bossman's money). The two work out an exchange at the best rate they can. If Bossman winds up paying too much money for Bob's skills with the Jobatron 2000, then he made a bad deal. If Bossman winds up losing his company by paying Bob too much, then he's a pretty piss poor negotiator.

Now the Union side

Let's look at Carl. Carl, well, doesn't really have that many skills. It turns out the company has a whole fleet of Jobatron 100's - 100 of them, to be exact, each run by a different employee. They don't take much knowledge to run - unlike Bob, who went to school for 4 years just to learn how to run the Jobatron 2000, Carl learned it on the job. Took about a week or so.

Carl's making $30,000 a year. And he walks in to Bossman's office.

Carl: Hey, I heard you just started paying Bob $75,000 a year.

Bossman: Yeah - kind of had to. Either that, or shell out a million bucks for the Jobatron 3000, which doesn't need Bob's skills.

Carl: Sucks to be you. Hey, I want a raise too. I want $60,000 a year.

The wheels in Bossman's head turn. He could pay Carl $60,000 a year - but why? He's got 100 employees all on Jobatron 100's. He could just go out and hire himself someone else off the street, train them, and within a week they'd be doing Carl's work for him. Might cost him $1000 in lost time while the work Carl would have been doing is spent training the new person.

Carl's thrown out of the office. Of course, Carl has a choice. Nobody is *forcing* him to keep his job. He can quit. He can ask for maybe a smaller raise. Or he can just shut up and go on.

Nobody has forced anybody to do anything.

Of course, Bossman didn't count on Lisa. Lisa, just like Carl, works on the Jobatron 100's. She makes the same amount as Carl, and wants more. Of course, she also knows that if she just goes in and asks for more money, Bossman will toss her out as well.

So instead, she goes to Carl, and Nancy, and every other of the 100 Jobatron 100 workers. They all make an agreement to get a raise together. And now, the situation goes like this.

Bossman: What's up, Lisa?

Lisa: We'd like a raise.

Bossman: Who's we?

Lisa: Every worker on the Jobatron 100. We all want a 5% raise. And if we don't get it, we're all quitting.

Once again, Bossman has a choice. He could let them all quit. But he probably knows that to find 100 workers, then train them all from scratch, then find out who's the good workers or the bad workers, get rid of the bad ones, replace them with new ones, and on and on.

Suddenly, he's looking at a lot of money. But is it worth paying the employees another 5% just to keep them? Maybe it would be better to offer them 2% and see if they'll take it. Or fire them all. Or fire only Lisa as the troublemaker. Of course, if everybody stands with Lisa then that could be bad.

Decisions, decisions, decisions. But no matter what, *nobody* is forcing Bossman to do *anything*.

In a nutshell, that's how a union works. Perhaps Lisa and her new "union" can opt to ask for health care, or pension plans, or something.

Nobody forced GM or Chrysler to accept anything. They could have fired all of the people who wanted to unionize. They could have shut down the plan - Wal-Mart does that all the time. Any time a store goes union, they close the whole damn store. They might lose a million dollars they spend building the store - but that's certainly their right.

GM made some bad decisions. They decided to go for short term gains by paying union members less in favor of giving them better pension plans in the future, and some would say that's why they're in trouble now. Or the health care plan that's super expensive. Or - any number of things.

But trying to blame all of GM's bad negotiations on the unions isn't the fault of the union. Nobody *made* GM agree to the terms.

Paul Kurtz is a moron. Again.

Oh, Paul Kurtz. Is it just me, or are you terminally stupid? You start your most recent article about how much harder the press is on Obama on his second press conference compared to his first one.

First of all - did you hear some of the questions? They were OK, I guess - I did like Chris Todd asking about sacrifice. But where were the questions about executive privilege and if he's going to let Rove claim it during testimony? Where were the questions asking about the use of presidential powers to deny access to reporters to treaty documents or allow terrorist defendants access to their accusers documents?

Second, and this is where Commander Stupid comes in, is this:

Breaking with tradition and using a prepared list...

First sentence, and Kurtz is forgetting that other presidents - like the *last one* used a prepared list of which reporters to call upon. And, for the most part, odds are that every president knows which reporter they're going to call upon beforehand.

But good old Paul Kurtz, he of the "the press is soooo important, even when we're acting like lick spittle dogs towards any presidential administration and asking hard questions of CEO's like CNBC did", must have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to other presidents.

Stewart and Cramer. Journalists - THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT!

Last night, Jon Stewart interviewed Jim Cramer, the host of the CNBC show "Mad Money". This was after a weeklong "cable news" tit-for-tat the two gentlemen have been having.

I'm not going to go over the history - it's been in the news, and you can see the genesis of how Mr. Stewart shined a gigantic spotlight on the entire CNBC network, of which Mr. Cramer is a featured member.

I think it's important to see what Stewart is doing here.

He's not criticizing Cramer and Co from CNBC because they were wrong - there's plenty of people who are wrong.

He's going after them because:

1. They claim to represent "the heartland" of the American public (see the Santelli rant), when they really only represent a very specific cross section of mostly male, mostly white, and almost entirely wealthy people.

2. The hypocrisy - this is probably Stewart's #2 button to push about people. He can't stand it, so when you've got people on CNBC going on about the "losers" who "caused all of the problems in the economy" or the "the Obama administration who's ruining everything" - all the while almost pointedly ignoring the billions that the financial markets received because of their own actions, then Stewart is going to shine a giant flashlight on their double standard.

3. The lying. This is usually Stewart's #1 button that just gets him going more than anything else. If you lie, he will go out of his way to destroy you. So when Cramer goes on about "Oh, I didn't tell people to buy Bear Sterns", Stewart has no problem saying "You liar." When the guys on CNBC go on about how wise they are, and how well they know everything, Stewart isn't mad about them being wrong - he's mad about them lying about it.

4. And finally, the media. I think of all the targets that Stewart and Colbert go after, the media is probably one of their favorite. Again, he's not so much mad about CNBC being wrong about the former bubble - but for going out of their way to promote the bubble. Daily Show has made a point of going after reporters for being a bunch of wimps when questioning the former and the current administration, too scared of giving up "access" instead of looking to find out the "truth". So while the CNBC guys were softballing CEO's that, with any amount of homework, could be seen as lying and, in Standford's case, operating a ponzi scheme, rather than being directly challenged with real, earnest reporting that so-called "experts" in financial matters should have done, the CNBC crew all but licked the balls of the oh-so powerful CEO's they invited on - because if they didn't, they feared not being allowed to talk to them again.

From what I've seen of Stewart, this is an unpardonable sin. The media's job isn't to be a friend to the powerful or the famous, but question them, push them, research the facts and when there is a contradiction between fact and statements, point that out.

When Stewart had Cramer on his show, he did the one thing that journalists have been afraid to do - challenge his guest. When Cheney was on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press", Russert took Cheney at his word - and afterwards said "Oh, well, I thought it was up to the viewer to decide if he was telling the truth or not.

No! You don't! That's what we rely on "the media" for! We expect you to be like Edward R. Murrow, who would interview people and challenge them with facts when they lied. That's how he destroyed Joseph McCarthy during the Communist Scare - not by shouting, not by being a windbag, but by letting Mr. McCarthy have his say - then systematically pointing out that McCarthy was a liar and a fraud.

Last night, Stewart did the same thing. When he showed Mr. Cramer clips of himself *admitting* that he engaged in illegal actions during his hedge fund days but he got away with it because the people at the SEC didn't know what they were doing - he pointed out that he wanted the Cramer who ran the "Mad Money" show to protect his viewers from the Cramer that ran the hedge fund.

There's been a lot of talk from journalists whining about "But - but - if we were adversarial like that, we'd lose our access! The White House/Senators/Governors/Pedo Bears wouldn't invite us to the press conferences and we'd never be allowed to ask questions!"

My reply: Look at Jon Stewart! He's always challenging the powerful, *and they come to his show*! Granted, he treats them with respect (as long as they don't lie). He gives them fair say, and I've often seen him expand an interview segment to let his host have more commentary time.

Newspapers are dying, media is complaining that people don't watch the news. That's because it's not news - it's regurgitated talking points. If someone doesn't give you access because you ask too many questions - then there's your story right there. "Powerful person too much a chicken shit to talk to answer this question."

This is what we, the viewers, and the public, want. We want the powerful challenged and forced to account for their deeds. We want the liars to be told "You're a fracking liar!" to their faces and shown *why* they're a liar.

We don't want "Here's person A, here's Person B - we'll let them hash it out." We want Person A to speak, then confronted with the facts so we can know if they're lying or not.

Jon Stewart gets that. And its sad that one of the few journalists with the guts to tell people to their faces "You, sir, are a liar" - is the commedian.

I heard about Limbaugh offering to debate Obama

Evidently, Mr. Limbaugh feels that his ideas and show are important enough that the President should come down and debate him about whether or not the President Obama economic plan is the right one, or if Mr. Limbaugh's plan of "cut taxes" is better for the economy.

The problem with this, of course, is that you don't know how anyone will "win" the argument. Do we expect President Obama to suddenly say "Dude, I totally get it now - just cut taxes and the miracle of the market will provide roads and education for people and health care! Why didn't I see it before!" And we certainly don't expect Mr. Limbaugh to say "You know, now that I see it your way, I can understand why you think the providing health care untethered from your job, or why increasing education funding is such a big deal. I've changed my ways!"

Yeah. I don't see it happening either.

So, let's try this "debate" thing in another way. How about if President Obama and his supporters and Mr. Limbaugh and his Republican party that he leads take their case to the American people. Now, this is going to get kind of complex, but we should split it up three ways. There can be locally leaders in proportion to the populace - we'll call them "Congresspeople", and they'll stay in the debate for 2 years. Then there are people we'll call "Senators", and they'll stay in the debate for 6 years. And finally, the President, who gets to stay in the debate for 4 years at a time.

Every 2 years, we have this thing called "an election." If people think that Mr. Limbaugh and his representatives are right, they'll elect them, and they can help in shaping laws. If they think that President Obama and those who agree with him are correct, then they can vote for them instead.

This way, the American People can continually see how the debate is shaping out, which ideas work, and which ones don't, and shape the country.

Of course, this also means that Mr. Limbaugh would actually have to get out there and run for office himself, instead of staying safe behind his microphone, where he can lob grenades and accusations all he wants without actually having to get his hands dirty by, you know, really putting his ideas and energy out there to see if they actually work or not.

I think this sounds pretty fair. We'll have to write down all of these rules, though. Maybe on some piece of paper, start it out with the words "We the People...."

The Difference Between "I hope you fail" and "I think you'll fail"

To all those trying to defend Limbaugh by saying "He doesn't want *the President* to fail, just his *ideas* to fail": I think your ideas are fair -you're trying to defend the guy who doesn't want the President's *ideas* to succeed.

But even if that's true - the fact that he says he wants him to fail, which means *the country may fail along with him*, is what most people have a problem with.

Let me show you how other people see it.

Imagine there's a patient with a failing kidney - they're own fault, really. They were told to lay off the alcohol and the fatty, salty food. And now all of their bad habits have caught up with them.

Dr. Ron Paul says "You know what, just let it fail. The other kidney will pick up the slack, and if it doesn't, then I guess other people will learn." Nobody listens to him, though, so he won't be in the story any more.

Dr. Obama says "I think we can let him keep the kidney - prop it up a little with some medicine, and tend to him. Eventually, the kidney will come back, and the patient will be well again with two fully functioning kidneys. Yes, he was stupid, and he'll have to learn his less, but we have to think about the patient."

Dr. Limbaugh says "Are you nuts? If you just put him on medicine, he'll be on that medicine for the rest of his life, and it'll be more expensive, and he'll always be sickly. The best thing to do is just remove the damaged kidney permanently - he can function with one, and he'll act better in the future by not abusing his last kidney."

Dr. Obama comes back "Why do that? I think he'll only be on medication for a little while, he'll have to change his habits, and he'll be as good as new."

Dr. Limbaugh responds "You fool - once he starts that medication, he'll never be off of it!"

Now, at this point, we have two differences of opinion. Dr. Limbaugh thinks Dr. Obama is going to fail. That's reasonable. He thinks that the patient is going to suffer long term consequences and be on medicine for the rest of his life that he'll become dependent on, when surgery will cause less long term harm and expense (in Dr. Limbaugh's opinion).

This is where Dr.Limbaugh, though, loses it. "Yeah? Well, I hope you fail! I hope you fail so people will see that your ideas are stupid! I hope the patient goes into shock as the failing kidney completely dies and the patient is forced to come into surgery like they should have in the first place! Because if your idea works, then every other patient is going to go looking for a drug decision instead of the surgery they really need!"

Dr. Limbaugh might have a point, and he might even, possibly, maybe, be right. But the second he started with the "I hope you fail so your ideas don't take root" - he lost any moral standing in the argument. Because if Dr. Obama fails, then the patient stands a good chance of dying.

And hoping the other guy fails and the patient dies just because you think he's wrong isn't noble or patriotic - it's being a dick.

I'm a member of Team Bonzai to run for cancer

I'm member of Team Bonzai for the Relay for Life event, looking to raise funds for cancer awareness and a search for a cure.

If you think you can help or want to donate, please join up. Or, if you just want to watch me run in my jogging shorts - well, I can't help your strange perversions, but knock yourself out.

Jindal as Bizarro Obama

Did anyone else watching Jindal speak feel like they were watching Bizarro after Superman? I watched the speech in first bemusement, then growing shock at the level of stupid.

Hi, I'm Bobby Jindal. My parents are immigrants, like President Obama. My skin is brown - but not as brown as President Obama. But otherwise, we're the same, and clearly that's what the people want - more brown people!

I'm the governor of Louisiana. And let me tell you - government doesn't work! Here's an example: Katrina. Remember when a Republican president who was pretty incompetent was told by his former Arabian horse breeder turned disaster recovery head of FEMA that "Mr. President, there's a big storm heading to New Orleans" - and then Bush went to San Diego and played guitar? Yup - proof right there that government doesn't work! At least when it's headed by Republicans.

I probably shouldn't have reminded you about that.

In fact, it works so badly that the only person that was helping people was a sheriff getting out boats. Yes, a government official performing his duties in an emergency - that proves that government just doesn't work when you elect people of competence!

Now, let's talk about this "stimulus" plan. You may remember that 9 years ago, we had a surplus in the deficit, we were paying down the debt, and we were doing that with a combination of a reasonable tax rate and drawing down spending. Then Republicans got into office, and we cut taxes and spent the money on two wars and on piling up security for places like a Kentucky Fried Chicken center. And look how well the economy did!

Now that we're in bad economic straits (only because Democrats were in office for 2 years, so it's all their fault), we Republicans have the solution: tax cuts and deregulation! Because it worked so well over the last 8 years!

Look at Louisiana - while I've been governor, we've cut taxes all over the place - and our growing unemployment (funds for which I just denied, because poor people just need motivation to work), firing schoolteachers (because we don't have enough money to pay them because we cut all of those taxes - kids can education themselves about things like Intelligent Design!), and having to take in the other upteen billions from the federal government to meet our budget deficits - so my governorship for my state has been awesome!

Of course, we also want to reduce spending. Like on things like volcano monitoring. You may think that because my state was all but destroyed by a natural disaster because people weren't heeding the warning signs, I'd be more interested in monitoring that. Hell, no! See, if you know its coming, that just encourages government to respond badly. Instead, if it's God will to wipe out a bunch of people and towns, it should happen.

Now, I know President Obama just said he wants to cut wasteful spending in the Pentagon, and give troops a pay raise and increase spending on veterans. But I'm going to ignore that, and say that Obama wants to cut our military so we're more likely to be attacked. If I close my eyes real tight, then reality can't see me!

So, remember folks:

1. I'm just like Obama!
2. Tax cuts cure everything from having a stimulus, to funding two wars, to fixing our economic woes!
3. Spending money monitoring possible natural disasters is a waste of money. Tax cuts and prayers are far more effective!
4. If you didn't know, me and Sarah Palin are going to run for President in 2012 along with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Republicans rock!

Or, was I the only person who felt this way when I saw this?

OMG! Socialism! Or, so say those who don't know what words mean.

With the recent passing of the federal stimulus bill, I've been seeing people going "OMG! Socialism!"

According to these people, when the government gives money to industry, or with the intentions of specifically employing people - that's socialism.

The only thing that I can think of is that these people have no idea what "socialism" actually is.

Let's get this part of out of the way: socialism is where no individual owns - anything. Everything is owned by the government. Every business, every bank, every factory - owned by the government, and it's operation is decided by the government.

What socialism is *not*: building roads. Employing cops and firemen. Encouraging specific businesses. If you really think that when government lays a tax on, say, cigarettes, it's not because OMG SOCIALISM!

They're doing what every government does, especially one like the Unites States, which could be labeled a "republic based government with representation by democratically elected leaders, which uses a blend of controls on business to both promote market forces and individual freedom/wealth and citizen freedoms and safety".

When the government uses the power of the FDA to shut down a peanut butter plant that makes peanut butter that kills people, that is not socialism.

When government decides to build roads to promote business, it's not socialism - last time I checked, the government didn't own the businesses it was trying to promote, just the roads.

Yes, sometimes that government "winners and losers". Even when it nationalized banks during the Savings and Loan scandals during the 80's - this is where it went into banks, determined if they were liquid (aka - did they have enough assets to meet their liabilities), they didn't just "own" everything. They would shut down the bank, sell all of the assets to meet the banks liabilities (aka - people's checking/savings accounts), use government funds to fill in the gaps, and send the original investors packing to form a new bank if they so desired.

Did the government take control of "all banks"? Nope. They just shut down the ones that were failing to meet their legal obligations.

Call it government intervention, call it wasteful - but please, people, can we stop with the OMG! SOCIALISM! charges? Because every time you make it, all that it shows it just how ignorant you are.

The Stupid, It Burns: Republicans Praising Spending in the Stimulus Bill they Oppose

How on Earth do people get to be so jaded, so hypocritical. How can you stand and take credit for the spending in the stimulus bill that will bring jobs and useful infrastructure to your district, when you voted against the stimulus bill.

Is this how Republicans are going to play this? "Oh, we are taking a principled, measured stand. Yes, we lowered taxes during a war, because it was more important that the richest people in the country get even *more* money. And yes, the surplus in the budget of 2000 was eaten up borrowing to pay for the War in Iraq, a war that helped the United States in no way at all. Sure, we allowed no-big contracts for billions to go to companies like KBR and Halliburton. But now - now - we have principles! *Now* that people want to spend money on the stuff we really need - like more schools, fix crumbling roads, invest in green energy so we stop giving money to oil countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, we keep the money here - well, now we have principles, and we won't stand for taking out loans to buy stuff!"

And then, after making that stupid ass statement, they turn and *claim credit for having gotten in the stimulus bill provisions that are putting the people elected them to work*, then turn right back around again and talk smack about the stimulus bill because - it's full of "pork" and "big government spending."

Is this how it's going to be played? Oppose everything that will try and make President Obama and the Democratic Party look good, and when it passes anyway talk about how *your* efforts were good for your constituents while you vote against the bill?

How do you do this? How do you have so much hypocrisy to thank God for the money coming to your district while pissing on the people who worked to make it happen against all of your efforts? It's like being a pastor and speaking against being unfaithful, while your mistress is giving you a blowjob in front of the entire congregation and your wife.

The Problem with Private Prisons

Right now in the United States of America, there are over 2.2 million people incarcerated.

And prisons are a huge business. You have the prison guard's union which is enjoying huge political clout in states such as California. Building prisons and incarcerating people is one of the fastest growing industries in California. Locking people up is a business - and right now, business is good.

The problem is - is this really the most effective thing? Look at the incentives:

More people into prisons means more money for the prison industry. Which means that the *incentive* is to get more people into the prison system, instead of out of it being productive citizens.

If you're the prison industry, why put money into schools? That would cut down on the number of people in prisons, which means less money for the prison industry. Why spend money on reforming people when that will get them out of the prison system faster?

Remember: incentives. Prisons - both private and government run - have an incentive to have more people inside their prisons because it makes the private industry more money, the prison worker's unions have an incentive because more prisoners means you need more guards which means you have more union members with clout.

So: change the incentive. My proposal:

The prison industry gets paid a rate per prisoner actively incarcerated, but the prison industry gets a higher rate for those out of prison on probation - as long as they haven't committed a crime.
This does two things. One, it reduces the incentive to simply have more prisons and prisoners. It encourages the prison system to do more than just lock people up - but to make them part of society. When the person is *out* of prison, the prison system actually makes *more* money.
Of course, there's a catch: they only make more money as long as the person is out of prison without committing a crime. So it's not just "throw them out", but "make sure they have the support and jobs and whatever else they need to stay out."

This will be actually *more* expensive than what we have now. The whole idea of the prison system being turned over to private industry was that it was going to cost less - you know, the market doing its magic and finding the best performance at the lowest cost.

Instead, we have overcrowding in the California prisons, to the point that the CA Supreme Court has ordered non-violent prisoners released to solve the problem.

Change the incentives, and you can change the results. Yes, it will mean more money, but right now, the current system isn't working. And, over time, as we work more in reforming and reintegrating people back into society, those costs will go down.

A plane crashes. Move on already.

This is going to be possibly a heartless and cruel sounding post, and I'm sorry.

This morning, a plane crashed in Buffalo, killing 49. I feel very, very bad for the passengers, their families, their loved ones. It's too bad.

But I don't need 24x7 coverage of the crash. Do you have any new information? No? Then *cover something else for a bit*.

I'm much more worried about what's in the 400 page stimulus bill and whether it'll really help. I'm worried about the the "zombie banks" which have no way of returning to liquidity, but will continue to take tax dollars. Are we going to have a decade long recession like Japan from 1990-1999 which kept pumping money into their banks, or a short recession like Sweden who's recession went from 1992-1994 because they went out and killed the "bad banks" and sold off their assets - something the US did in 1987-1989 with the Savings and Loans scandal.

I'm more concerned with the layoffs, with the *thousands* suffering. I know - we need our distractions. How about every 30 minutes on the news channels, we dedicate it to updates about the crash - and then every other minute we look at the stuff that's going to effect *millions* of people? Just to balance it out a bit, please?

Things that should be Private Industry, Things that should be Public

Incentives. Everything is all about incentives. Why you wind up doing what you do.

For most of us, we work. Why? To get money. Why? To pay for lower base needs (house, food, health), and higher needs (education, entertainment, Twinkies - which really aren't food).

The incentive behinds things drives our behavior around it. Take energy. If I'm an energy plant, I have an incentive to get people to use as much energy as possible, because I make more money. That means the more energy saving appliances out there, the worse my business gets. Of course, as a consumer, I have an incentive to buy energy saving appliances - unless, of course, the cost of those appliances is more than what I'd save on electricity. Unless my incentive was to save the planet -

OK - we can go around like this forever. You get the point. So, the incentive behind something can drive behavior. Let's go back to our energy company. In California, they passed a law saying that energy companies not only get money for how much electricity they *sell*, but also how much energy their customers *conserve*. If they get customers to use less electricity, they get even *more* money then they would have from people using energy alone.

Now, the energy company has the same incentive (get more money), but there's a path to get even *more* money by encouraging good energy policy with its customers. Perhaps using the power of bulk buying to purchase efficient light bulbs for its customers and giving them out to their customers, or helping customers insulate their homes, and so on.

There are some people who would argue that *everything* should be private industry, because "that works best!" Sure - tell that to the banking, real estate, auto industry, and a few others. But the point isn't "some businesses have good managers and ideas, some don't", it's the *incentive* behind their drive.

Let's take the courts. If the incentive of the court is to make money - then they're going to seek things out that make more money. Imagine if you were arrested for a crime, and the judge sent you to jail. Not because you were guilty, but because "This trial is brought to you by Johnson Prisons - and they just paid me a great kickback to slap your ass in the pokey!"

I know - never going to happen. Until you read about a case where judges were getting kickbacks from "youth detention centers" in areas where teens were getting trials without lawyers and amazingly high incarceration rates.

There are reasons why we have laws against bribing, and why we have a government that provides services that provides those services regardless of your ability to pay them.

So just for fun, I've got a list of jobs that work best as a public service (aka - paid for by taxpayer dollars and run by neutral government agencies), and things that should be private.

Public:

Firefighters
Police
Courts
Health Care (sorry, but if my leg stays broken because I don't have the funds to fix it, that's screwed up)
Energy (yes, energy. The incentive for energy companies is to sell more energy, regardless of whether it hurts the environment or the public or not.)
Water
Armies
Education

Private:

Banks
Grocery stores
Electronic gadget makers
Automobile manufacturers
Bookstores
You know what, probably everything I didn't list under "Public".

I'm pretty sure I missed some things. This is just a short list. I guess this is a backlash from me for all of the "Private industry is the best at *everything*!" Because there are some things I just don't find it so.

And privatized prison systems are probably #1 on the list. I can imagine few things more evil than people having a business to keep people locked up - when that provides every incentive in the world to lock up more people, rather than rehabilitating them. It creates incentives for trying to get more laws on the books to put people in jail, rather than fixing the ills of society.

Fearing by their relatives

I ran across this article about Wafah Dufour making her musical debut in the United Kingdom.

Who the heck is Ms. Dufour? Well, as the article mentioned, she is the niece of Osama bin Laden.

The rest of the article feels - kind of weird to me. It seems to indicate that 1. That Ms. Dufour has more links to her uncle than she has claimed (though the article provides no evidence to this), and 2. that somehow, Ms. Dufour is linked to terrorism, and that her coming out party is a terrible thing that indicates that the terrorists are winning.

The end of the article I thought was most surprising:

It takes major big ones to have an affiliation to such a notorious man, and publicly perform in a country directly affected by his terrorist actions. Let’s hope she keeps it on that side of the pond.

...

Why?

According to my mother, her side of the family is full of criminals and malcontents. And from one family reunion I went to, I wasn't exactly discouraged from that idea. My father has told me stories of criminal family members in my own family tree, including my Great Uncle Jesse James.

I wonder what it must be like to be, say, the niece of Charles Manson. You know - the guy who carved a swastika into his forehead and lead his followers into mass murder. Do you go about your entire life denying you ever met your uncle? What if you were the son of Lee Harvey Oswald? Do you spend your life because of your "affiliation" to a notorous man?

At what point do you cease to be judged based on your blood and family, and on your own deeds? I don't know Ms. Dufour from a hole in the ground (other than she looks a lot cuter). Heck, the fact she's showing her hair seems to indicate she's a different kind of person than her infamous uncle. All I know about her is what's on her wikipedia link, and that she doesn't even speak Arabic.

But why fear a person, or ridicule an entire nation because the relative of a horrible person does - anything? If Ms. Dufour had been a terrorist, I'd call for her to be arrested, charged, and either jailed and executed for her crimes.

So far, though, her only crime seems to be trying to launch a music career. Ooo - break out the fainting couch.

I don't get the union hate

Right now, there are people who are actively fighting against the nomination of potential labor-secretary Hilda Solis because she is pro-union.

Why do people hate unions?

Do you have the right to quit your job when you want? I'm pretty sure most of us would say yes.

Do a group of people have the right to all quit their job at once? Again, most people would say yes.

Do a group of people have the right to say "Unless we get X, Y, Z we're all going to quit, oh and Bob here who's a lawyer is going to work on the contracts"? Again, most people would say yes.

Does their employer have the right to say "Screw you all, you're all fired! I'll take the financial risk because I'm not giving in to your demands."? I'm pretty sure people would say "yes".

Sure - unions can ask for to much. Employers can demand to much. You know what that's called?

Capitalism.

People negotiating for their contracts to maximize their income while companies negotiate to give them the least? Last time I checked, that's the law of supply and demand at work. If a company makes a stupid ass contract that costs them money (as some would argue GM did with the unions), that's their own fault. They should have negotiated better. If a union doesn't get everything they want - again, they should have negotiated better. If the company up and moves overseas, well, again, that's capitalism - but then again, the company better be willing to pay the other prices (language barrier, etc, etc, etc).

So again, what's wrong with people banding together in having their say? I just don't get the "OMG UNIONS EVIL" mantra I see from some corners.

Proof of Obama's Evil!

BTW: there's also:



Of course, this is all actually from this story, where it turns out his target was Gibbs - and he muffed it.

Real Conversations with My Daughter

(In the Tampa Theater, watching the inauguration)

Emily: Daddy?

Me: Yes, Emily?

Emily: Why does everyone keep booing the old man in the wheelchair?

Me: His name is Dick Cheney, and he's the closest thing to a Bond villain the world knows. All he needs is a white Persian cat to stroke.

Emily: Oh. So what happens to President Bush now?

Me: They put him into a fiery furnace to burn him to ashes, so he'll never be President again.

Emily: Really?

Me: No.

RNC discussions on race: Not. Getting. The. Point.

"Look, the GOP needs to be inclusive and more sensitive," a high-ranking Republican explained to the Huffington Post. "On the other hand if we are going to fall apart in pieces every time someone yells racism than we are going to lose the next four years.... Because that means that the left is allowed to talk about race but we are not. There has got to be a way to talk about the president's agenda without falling into this trap." - Source: Huffington Post

OK. Look. Talking about race, and religion, is an important thing. I've been annoyed at how people portray and misunderstand issues about my former religion. We can have honest discussions about racial and ethnic issues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue.

But I'm sorry - but complaining that "the left is allowed to talk about race and we're not" doesn't work when one of the potential heads of your organization releases a CD with the song "Barack the Magic Negro" - and then complain about "Hey, why are you saying we're racists?"

It's like talking about sex with your kids. The teenager can't complain that you don't let them talk about sex when all they talk about it "I wanna bang me some big ass ho's!" When they can talk about things like an adult, then they can talk about them. Otherwise, don't go complaining then you're idea of discussing an issue is approaching it like a 12 year old.

This is a test of the Word blog system

This is only a test. Can you see this, Internets? I guess so. Does this edit the existing article or create a new one? For the curious, it edits an existing. This is – interesting.

My new site!

I'm working on a new blog project called News Pirates. We don't make the news - we plunder it!

I don't know how far it's going to go, but hey - I'm going to have some fun and see what happens.

How can you be a Democrat if you're a Mormon?

I get asked this sometimes. I even had an experience at church today when someone said "Oh, don't you know that you can't get a temple recommend if you're a Democrat?"

They were joking. Mostly.

As for me supporting a Democrat, I guess it was an odd combination of my examination of conservative cultural values and economic realities. I think that government should not legislate morality - it should (and does) have the power to influence incentives in order to move common goals.

For example: roads. Everyone agrees that roads are important. Good roads make driving safer. Good roads mean that people save more money because you spend less gas and wear and tear for your car. The quibbles come in on how much to spend on the roads. Do we just pay for inner city roads, or do we take care of the roads in rural areas too that don't have as much traffic? Do we want to have super great roads, or roads that are "good enough", then let individual areas pay for better roads? Or should we ignore roads in general? There are people - mainly in the libertarian belief - that hold that private business would just build roads themselves without government help, since they have a financial incentive to do so. (Which ignores pretty much all of recorded history from the Roman and Chinese empire on down that shows when governments that build better roads tend to be more powerful empires - those that leave it to "someone will do it" don't do nearly as well.)

However - I have a serious issue when people want to legislate morality. I know - I shouldn't be a Mormon democrat. But the 11th article of faith states:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Based on that, I find it fascinating that the Republican party - which used to espouse the view that government should have no role in people's lives, switched during the early 1970's to a party that, over the next 20 years, became dominated with worrying about abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and whether the 10 commandments displays should be paid for by governments. Before 1970, any given Republican would have said "hell no" - and I would have agreed *based on the tenants of my faith not to allow government to interfere with people's individual religious beliefs*.

Then, after the 1972 supreme court decision regarding the ability for government to tax religious business assets, the Republican party got in bed with conservative business religious leaders. Note the distinction between "religious assets", which are non-taxable, and "religious business assets". A church is non-taxable. A church that owns a business garage and charges people to park there Monday through Saturday (when the church is not in operation) *is* taxable (depending on the state you live in).

After that, the Republicans - party of business - decided to hop in bed with religious leaders to espouse their views of "less government taxation" - a viewpoint I can understand. But by the 80's Reagen area and then the 2000 election, those cultural issues that religious leaders care about had far outstripped the traditional conservative values that had existed in the Republican party prior to the 1970's. I read through speeches given in the 1980 Republican convention speaking out against sodomy laws in Texas - laws that the Supreme Court later ruled were unconstitutional. By 1990, no Republican spoke out against anti-gay laws.

In the end, I supported that I couldn't support the Republicans on cultural issues, because I believe that church should stay out of state. And vice-versa.

The second issue, however, is economics. I like what works. I still have a scientific mind. If someone works, do that. If something doesn't work, stop doing it. The model of the sun in the center of the solar system worked, and though Galileo was tortured, eventually the Catholic church had to admit that yes, he was right, no matter what the dogma says.

During the 1900 - 1920's, the model was "business will control itself". Then came the 1929 crash, and suddenly the entire world learned that no - business *can't* control itself.

Economics is all about incentive. It's not about money - though we measure money by incentive. Is the incentive to spend money wisely - or to spend it on short term, riskier gain?

During the 1920's stock market, there were little to no controls, especially over banks. Banks were playing in the stock market with their customer's money. This is what made the collapse so harsh - banks that had $1,000 in their customers savings might have had $50,000 invested the stock market - so when the market fell, so did their customer's savings.

In the 1930's, Roosevelt and others sat down and figured out how to structure things. Banks couldn't invest money in the stock market - they could invest in loans and such, and only a certain ratio. (For example, $1,000 in customers savings and maybe only $5,000 in loans outstanding.) This way when things fall apart, customers won't be hurt too bad - and then there's the FDIC that all banks must pay into so if they do screw up, people don't lose their money. Banks weren't allowed to get bigger than a certain size. The stock market became more transparent.

I like to compare the economy to Nascar - I know, I've used this analogy before, but here it is again. Nascar used to be a lot more dangerous than it is now - there weren't concrete barriers, just people watching in stands. The cars could go as fast as possible, and there weren't pace cars. There were news reports of "car spins out of control and people get killed" - not often, but just enough that it was part of the excitement. Drivers actually found they were blacking out on some tracks because the turns were too sharp.

So rules were instituted. Engines couldn't be bigger or accelerate faster than a certain value. Drivers had to have protective harnesses. Concrete blocks protected the stands. There are pace cars so if there's an accident, everybody can slow down long enough to fix the problem, then the race can begin. It's still exciting, there are still crashes, there are still winner and losers - but not nearly as many people get hurt or killed as before.

During the 70's, 80's, and especially in the last 8 years under Bush, those rules have been relaxed. Phil Gramm - McCain's economic adviser - lobbied for language that removed the protection between "investment banks" (which are banks that don't do checking/savings, but just invest in the stock market), and commercial banks (the banks you and I use). With those protections down, banks could now have more debt than cash on hand. Banks could get super huge - "too big to fail." Then the failure of the housing market - which is another issue entirely, but it was done with the attitude of "let's not regulate this stuff - it'll fix itself", an idea that was championed by Republicans.

It's as if the Republican party said "OK - at Nascar races, get rid of the rules. The crowds want to get involved - so take down the barriers! Drivers want to go faster - let them do whatever they want to the cars. If it's too dangerous, they'll just slow down by themselves. If there's an accident, don't worry about pace cars - people will know if they don't slow down they'll get hurt."

The exact same scenario as what used to happen in the older unsafe Nascar days - only now we have even faster cars. So now we have a situation where there's a massive accident, cars are on fire all over the road, cars have crashed into the stands and people are bleeding and dying - and the question is "What happened? How could this have happened? We don't understand!"

I do. And I hate to say it, but the blame is 80% on the Republicans - and that's why when I started getting involved the studying the issues, I decided that I had to support the Democratic policies. Because, as a guy with a scientific mind, I was able to observe what worked and what doesn't. We tried it the Republican way for almost 30 years now starting with Reagen. Republican promised if they had more control of government, they'd make government smaller, leaner, more efficient and less involved in our lives. More fiscally responsible.

Instead, under Reagen, Bush I and Bush II, it's been worse. More deficits. Spending out of control. Spending - especially in Iraq - geared towards making the rich even richer by paying them taxpayer dollars. More infiltration of the government into our daily lives (like the NSA spying on our phone calls without warrants, or expanded powers of the TSA into our airline travel - expansions that security experts like me say just don't work compared to old fashioned police work).

And that's why I support a Democratic candidate. Even though I'm LDS.

So, just what is the stock market?

Let's Have a Business!

Today I had someone I know asked the question "What's the actual value of having a stock market exchange? Seems like the stock market allows for people's skittishness to have real effect."

I'm no economics expert, but I at least recall some of my college classes and how I've explained it to other people over the years.

First, let's look at how a normal business is run - or how it was run, before the stock market existed.

So, let's meet Bob:



Bob wants to own a business - let's make one for him.



Bob Widget Company makes - widgets. What's a widget? I don't know - it's something that people want to buy. Usually.

Now, suppose that Bob invest $1000 into his company. He buys a store, he pays for a Widget Expert to train employees. He buys special Widget Making tools. He owns 100% of that company. Every profit it makes is all his. Every time he sells a widget, he takes the money and puts it right into his pocket (well, after paying his expenses.) It's Bob's money! All his! Bwahahahahahaha! If the company grows and becomes worth $10,000, Bob would sell the whole thing and make a nice profit.

But - what if something bad happens. Like, people decide that they won't want widgets any more. Now, all of Bob's investments - buying the shop, the tools to make the widgets, paying to have employees trained in the Ancient Art of Widget Making - gone.

All of that $1000 Bob put into the business is gone. He could take 100% of the profit - but he also assumed 100% of the risk. All of that money is gone.

Now, let's see about a partnership. Meet Bob's friend Frank. No, they're not brothers. They just look a lot alike.



Now, both Bob and Frank start the business together. Since it's still going to be Bob's Widget Company, let's have Bob own most of the company - say 60%. Frank will own the other 40%. They draw up a private contract, maybe get a lawyer to stipulate how things are to be split up.

Same company:



But now it's shared between the two co-owners.



Bob puts in $600, Frank puts in $400, and they run the company together. The good news is if something goes horribly wrong, Bob's only out $600 instead of $1000. Yay for him!

The downside is now, he has to share the profits with Frank - 40% of them. And he has to share some of the responsibilities with him. Maybe not - perhaps Frank isn't the pushy kind who's always asking to get his say in everything.

And even if Frank is - hey, Bob still owns 60% of the company - he has more power than Frank. Still, it can be tense if things aren't laid out between who does what.

Bob could reduce his risk more if he wanted to bring in more partners. On the one hand, the more partners Bob has, the less risk he assumes - but the more control of power he has to give up.

Of course, there is another way.

Let's have a market!

The good part about having more partners is that the risk is divided. The bad part is having to share the power, the profits, and most importantly, the ownership.

What if Bob teams up with a group of people - Frank, Nancy, Jo Bob, Latesha, and Fredo.



Everything's fine - each of them put in $200, and split the profits between them. Maybe they share some responsibilities, but overall things are going well.

Until Frank decides he has to leave town. No, don't ask why! It has nothing to do with the three state killing spree! But he wants his money. And since there was a private contract that detailed what Frank's powers and responsibilities were in exchange for his $200 ownership into the company, there's that whole headache to deal with. Who takes over Frank's responsibilities? Do the other partners buy him out? What if the value of the company has gone up, and now Frank's $200 is really worth $1000 - how does that get solved?

Another solution: stocks.

Instead of setting up partners and making individual contracts with everyone, you start with a Charter - a piece of paper that says what the company does, lays out the roles. You don't assign *people* to those roles usually - but just what the roles *do*.

Usually, you'll have a breakdown of roles like:

CEO: Chief Executive Officer - this is the person running the company, making the big decisions.

CFO: Chief Financial Officer - this person is in charge of how money will be gathered and stored and such.

CTO: Chief Technology Officer - the Geek God of the company.

And so on and so forth. There are probably rules about who can own the company - an initial group, then if they want to add new "shareholders" the group can vote on who they'll allow to sell shares to.

Remember how everyone put in $200 into Bob's Widget Company, and there were contracts that everyone signed about what they did? Well, instead of just everyone putting $200 into the pot, the company is split up into "shares".

Originally, Bob's company needed $1000 to get off the ground. If we split the company into 1,000 pieces, then you have 1,000 "shares" of the company, and everyone in the group can buy them up. Bob, being the guy who got this off the ground, buys up 350 shares. He owns about 35% of the company. Maybe Frank buys up 200 shares, and so on. Everyone owns a stake of the company, and however many shares determines how much of the company they own.



The importance here is now each member knows how much power they own based on how many shares of stock they own. Bob may own the biggest chunk of the company, but if everyone else teams up against him, they could overrule him. Unless Bob offers to buy up the shares of someone else's stock in the company, or can convince a majority of shareholders to go with him.

When Frank wants to leave, the other members just buy up his shares of the company, and they can vote a new person into Frank's job. Maybe the new person will buy some shares of the company, or maybe he'll just be another employee.

Now you can have movement in and out of the company. You don't have to do complicated contracts in and out. You know how much of the company is owned by whom at any time because they'll wave their pieces together.

And - the values of those shares can rise and fall. If the company does well, perhaps there an explosion of widget buying out there, the company grows. So those shares that were originally worth $1 each might be worth $10 each when the company is worth $10,000.

Of course, if the company shrinks - maybe there's an economic downturn, the shares of stock may be worth less. Value goes up or down as the company grows or shrinks.

So why do this? Well, by unleashing the forces of "the market", people can quickly raise investments. Bob's company can issue new shares of stock into the world, and raise money when needed. Of course, this means they're giving up some of their ownership, but that may be OK. It allows investors to decide how well Bob's company is doing, and add value to it by buying stock. People can swiftly move in and out of the business - which can be pretty good for business in general. If Bob does well, his company's value will grow. If he doesn't, well, investors can go buy someone else's stock in another company.

The big advantage to the entire economic situation is speed, and the ability to raise money for your company. Instead of complicated legal agreements with everyone who wants to be a partner in the company, now that ownership can be traded, bought, sold, and even allows new leadership to arise.

So - What rules should be followed for a good market?

The original question was - why have a stock market at all? Our little system seems to work all right. People can trade in and out. Maybe Bob sells all of his shares and goes to do something else.

But what when things go wrong? You've got 1,000 shares of stock running around, but how do you really know who owns what? What if one of the partners forges shares of stock? Or if there's some financial wrongdoing that leaves the company in ruins - not because the company was bad, but because someone did something that purposely devalued everybody else's shares, just so they could buy them up later?

Introduce - the stock market. The shares of thousands of companies, billions of shares are traded back and forth. Whoever wants to buy them can if they have the money, or can sell them when they can find someone who buys them.



At the same time, there's a system in place in the form of the SEC - the Security and Exchanges Commission. Every company that sells stock tells the SEC how many shares of stock they have out there, and who owns them. If companies want to merge, the SEC gets to decide whether there will be a problem (like if the merger will create a company that could be a monopoly).

This relies on there being transparency about who owns what shares of what companies. On the down side, this does mean that people's emotions can influence how much a company is worth, instead of just how well the company is doing. If there's a disaster, prepare for massive sales of company stock - which could hurt the company if they want to sell stock later to raise money. Or, as in the tech bubble, stock can be artificially high - until people realize that the shares they hold aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

So why have it? Because, overall, it does work. When there's proper regulation and oversight, the stock market has proven to be a powerful way to create new investments and grow the economy and jobs.

Of course, when there's not, then you can have a disaster - like we have right now. A lot of the ills of the stock market can be laid at investments that had no government oversight at all - private contracts between companies buying and selling shares of things that the government never knew existed. For more information, I really recommend you listen to NPR's show Our Confusing Economy, Explained and Another Frightening Show About the Economy - both shows feature Mr. Greenburger, a former commodities regulator, explaining default credit swaps (the private contracts the government didn't regulate that are bringing people down).

When markets are well regulated, it can work like a good sports game. Think of a Nascar race. There's rules about what kind of engines can be used. Rules about how fast the cars can go, what kind of tires can be used. There are fences around the tracks. When there's an accident, there are pace cars that force a slow down.



For the last 8 years, people in the markets said "Look - let's not worry about the rules. I mean - if it gets too fast and dangerous, people will slow down on their own! And let's take down the fences separating the fans. They don't need that - they want to be right in the action! No more pace cars - if there's an accident, the people will clear themselves out - we want the race to be exciting!

Only - now we know what happens when you don't have any controls over the market or a race. The cars all go as fast as they can because it's all about Winning at all costs. Now there's a massive pile up, several drivers are dead, some have crashed into the crowds and set people on fire -

And the people running the races are going "Duh - gee, I guess the drivers won't regulate themselves."

I'm sure there are even better explanations out there, and if you have them, pass them along. For now, this is my little explanation on how the stock markets work. Hope you enjoyed it.

America's Most Wanted

Something I made up for a friend.

So - that debate thing

Last night, I was liveblogging (live Tweeting?) the debate last night on my Twitter account. After thinking about it and having some time, I wanted to write up what I think happened.

Long story short, Obama won. I know - I'm partisan. I'm suppose to say that. But let me say *why* he won.

With friends like these

During the debate, the question of "Who would you make your Secretary of the Treasury" came up. Senator McCain - your answer please?

McCain: You know, that's a tough question and there's a lot of qualified Americans. But I think the first criteria, Tom, would have to be somebody who immediately Americans identify with, immediately say, we can trust that individual.

A supporter of Sen. Obama's is Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway]. He has already weighed in and helped stabilize some of the difficulties in the markets and with companies and corporations, institutions today.

Ok - wait. Are you seriously telling people "I like Buffet. Oh, by the way - did you know he's endorsing my opponent?" Why on earth would you say "I think the richest man in the world would make a great secretary of the Treasury - though I should mention that he thinks the other guy will be a better President than me."

Oh, but McCain wasn't done yet hurting himself. He then followed it up with this gem:

I like Meg Whitman [former CEO of eBay and current McCain campaign adviser], she knows what it's like to be out there in the marketplace. She knows how to create jobs. Meg Whitman was CEO of a company that started with 12 people and is now 1.3 million people in America make their living off eBay. Maybe somebody here has done a little business with them.

Well, yeah - and she also knows how to create a company that just announced they were laying off 10% of their workers.

Oh. great.

So, first you pick the guy who thinks the other guy will be a better president, and then you pick the lady who's company is about to fire a lot of people. Good choices there.

Nobody likes the rude guy

During the 2000 debates, Gore was ahead of Bush by some 11 points. And then came the debates - and Gore was, well, less than steller.

OK - he stunk.

Not in his policies or facts. There, as always, he was precise. No, the problem with Gore was disrespectful. While Bush spoke, Gore signed. He rolled his eyes. Shook his head. In the Town Hall debate, he got up in Bush's face and asked him about supporting some bill.

Gore's disrespect likely cost him the election. Last night, it didn't help McCain.

When asked about his treasury secretary pick by Tom Brokaw, McCain's first response was "Not you, Tom."

OK. I get it. Ha-ha. Some humor. Only - nobody in the audience was laughing. This was followed by this little exchange:

McCain: I think pure research and development investment on the part of the United States government is certainly appropriate. I think once it gets into productive stages, that we ought to, obviously, turn it over to the private sector.

By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.

You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel -- these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes. (Emphasis added.)

That one? I don't think that McCain was being racist at that moment - just disrespectful and dome. Call him Senator Obama. Or just Senator. Or My Opponent. Barack, if you must. But "That one"? It's like when I did something wrong, my mother came home and asked Grandpa "Who did this?", and my grandfather pointed at me and growled out "That one."

It could have been a good example - but then McCain had to ruin it by being disrespectful.

For It Until Against It Until For It

Thursday night, Governor Palin said that the McCain campaign supported allowing the bankruptcy courts to readjust the interest rate or principal of a claimant's house.

Friday morning, the McCain campaign said "No - that' not right, McCain doesn't support that.

But that's OK, because Tuesday night, McCain said:

[McCain:] You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.

So wait - the bankruptcy courts should be able to change the value of home mortgages. But no, they shouldn't. But the Treasury secretary can.

What?

Walking Right into the Fist

Probably the worst time for McCain during the debate was when Obama cocked his fist, and McCain decided to run headlong right into it.

Obama: You're doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I -- I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Sen. McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible.

McCain: Thank you very much.

Obama: Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."

This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."

So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.

This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.

(Sigh.) He actually thanked Obama. He had to know that the punch was coming - and he thought he'd be smart with that "thank you" comment.

So now what? Well, based on the latest polls and projections, Obama is going to the next President. Of course, a lot can happen in the next 3 weeks.

But if this is how McCain's going to debate next week, Obama can all but start considering his treasury secretary now.