Of course the headline above is false and was designed for the sole purpose of drawing attention.
With all the hand wringing and cries of foul over the Republicans analysis of Sen. Obama's relationship with the domestic terrorists William Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn, one might well ask the question, what would be the effect of the above headline have on the McCain campaign? Would it suffice for Sen. McCain to say that the crimes were in the past?
The Obama campaign seems to be bemused and angry that his friendship both personal and professional is beginning to gain traction. As more information surfaces there seems to be serious doubts as to the truthfulness and clarity of the earlier given explanations.
The Weather Underground was not just anti Viet Nam War. A study of the philosophical underpinning of the group expressed by Ayers and Dorhn in 1967 through 1970 and as recently as 2003, reasserted in a BBC interview, reveals that this pair wanted to "destroy America" and "bring the government down through revolution." Ayer's in a speech given in 1968 even called on his followers to murder their parents because they were seen as puppets of the administration.
Obama minimizes his knowledge of Ayers past deeds and opines that there is some nebulous statute of limitation removing culpability for the bombing of American institutions 25 years ago.
It should be pointed out that both Ayers and Dorhn are totally unrepentent and in fact says he wishes he did more.
The major media have seems to accept the Obama rationale and is reluctant to investigate further. Would McCain be granted the same treatment by the main stream media if it came out that he had a similar relationship?
The Edge
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
OBAMA WINS, AMERICA SAVED
In view of the many problems on the economic, immigration, energy, healthcare fronts as well as other areas, John McCain should immediately announce the suspension of his campaign through November 4 and concede early to Barrack Obama.
It is clear that once installed in the White House, President Obama will institute programs eliminating all the dire problems facing the country while reestablishing our standing in the world community. It will be wonderful seeing demonstrations in Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Palestine showing their love for America.
According to his "plan" unemployment will be reduced to zero and everyone will get a payraise, except the CEO's who will have to give their ill gotten gains back to the treasury. No one will have to pay taxes, again with the exception of those fat cats in the boardroom.
Illegal immigration will no longer be a problem because the borders will be open to reflect American values of welcoming all who want to come. The Border Patrol could simply be eliminated and the State Dept. passport and visa sections would no longer be necessary. As Obama has taught us, we're all citizens of one world.
Oil exploration could cease as all our energy needs would be met by solar and wind.
And the capstone of the Obama plan will provide that every American will have the best medical treatment for free. Doctors, like the fat cat CEO's will just have to do as VP Biden puts it, "the patriotic" thing and pay the freight in higher taxes. Free healthcare is a right, right?
It's all over but the celebrating. Champagne is being iced, it will be domestic this year.
The edge
It is clear that once installed in the White House, President Obama will institute programs eliminating all the dire problems facing the country while reestablishing our standing in the world community. It will be wonderful seeing demonstrations in Iran, Sudan, Somalia and Palestine showing their love for America.
According to his "plan" unemployment will be reduced to zero and everyone will get a payraise, except the CEO's who will have to give their ill gotten gains back to the treasury. No one will have to pay taxes, again with the exception of those fat cats in the boardroom.
Illegal immigration will no longer be a problem because the borders will be open to reflect American values of welcoming all who want to come. The Border Patrol could simply be eliminated and the State Dept. passport and visa sections would no longer be necessary. As Obama has taught us, we're all citizens of one world.
Oil exploration could cease as all our energy needs would be met by solar and wind.
And the capstone of the Obama plan will provide that every American will have the best medical treatment for free. Doctors, like the fat cat CEO's will just have to do as VP Biden puts it, "the patriotic" thing and pay the freight in higher taxes. Free healthcare is a right, right?
It's all over but the celebrating. Champagne is being iced, it will be domestic this year.
The edge
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
PHONE IT IN SENATOR
The economic crisis has reached such a level that none other than the brilliant investment guru and Obama supporter, Warren Buffet calls it "an economic Pearl Harbor". Democratic senate leader Harry Reid yesterday called the legislative wrangling so divisive that he said without John McCain's efforts he didn't think they could reach agreement on a bailout bill.
After consulting with his economic advisors and having discussions with other senators, John McCain made the decision to suspend all campaign activities in order to return to Washington to work on getting a bipartisan bill passed. He allso said that he felt the debate on foreign affairs should be rescheduled. The Obama campaign eschewed this calling it a "stunt" and saying that "a president must be able to do more than one thing at a time." He went on to say that he would continue campaigning and fund raising and if and when he is needed he will get a call from the democratic leadership. He continued that he saw no reason to postpone the debate.
It may not have ocurred to Sen. Obama that he is collecting a paycheck as one of the senators from Illinois and his first duty is to that position not as a candidate. Although it may be more convenient for senators and members of congress to stay at home and teleconference instead of meeting in person, there is a reason why they come together. John McCain understands that a phone call isn't the same as looking into a person's eye and making an argument for or against a measure and coming to an agreement. It is fundamental to all human interaction.
A "stunt". No Senator Obama, it's called doing your job. You are not President just yet. This is the time to put country ahead of politics or campaigns. As far as the debate goes, it appears you may have lost already.
The Edge
After consulting with his economic advisors and having discussions with other senators, John McCain made the decision to suspend all campaign activities in order to return to Washington to work on getting a bipartisan bill passed. He allso said that he felt the debate on foreign affairs should be rescheduled. The Obama campaign eschewed this calling it a "stunt" and saying that "a president must be able to do more than one thing at a time." He went on to say that he would continue campaigning and fund raising and if and when he is needed he will get a call from the democratic leadership. He continued that he saw no reason to postpone the debate.
It may not have ocurred to Sen. Obama that he is collecting a paycheck as one of the senators from Illinois and his first duty is to that position not as a candidate. Although it may be more convenient for senators and members of congress to stay at home and teleconference instead of meeting in person, there is a reason why they come together. John McCain understands that a phone call isn't the same as looking into a person's eye and making an argument for or against a measure and coming to an agreement. It is fundamental to all human interaction.
A "stunt". No Senator Obama, it's called doing your job. You are not President just yet. This is the time to put country ahead of politics or campaigns. As far as the debate goes, it appears you may have lost already.
The Edge
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
OK, SLOWDOWN AND DON'T FORGET TO BREATHE
The founders created the three branches of government to check and balance the others. They went even further bifurcating the legislative branch into a quick response arm with small constituencies and short terms of office and another arm with longer terms and larger constituencies that was designed to be more deliberative. What we have seen by the Bush administraion this week is an effort to rush the Senate into taking actions against their design. It is irresponsible to violate the basic tenets of the Senate to be intimimidated into enacting a 700 billion dollar funding bill that would turn the American taxpayers in the position of a lender that no credible bank or other lending institution would accept. It's time to apply the brakes, take a breath and work through the serious issue of saving the economy.
The success or failure of any plan to bail out the market is going to depend on its success at stemming the tide of lowering housing prices. Nothing in the proposal even addresses this critical aspect of the economic downturn. Declining house prices, the root of the problem, is to put it simply the result of too many people who cannot afford to live in the homes they are in. Over extended borrowers and their lenders made admittedly as bad bets that housing prices would continue to rise allowing almost unlimited refinancing and debt payoff and reaccumulation in a never-ending spiral. As in all Ponzi schemes, it doesn't take much for the whole house-of-cards to come tumbling down.
If banks and other lenders feel that housing prices will continue to fall, they will be reluctant to make loans even if they have the money. This credit crisis is not addressed in the current proposal. The Senate however is in overdrive in a rush to do something, anything that will appear that they are engaged.
STOP. BREATHE. THINK IT THROUGH. This may well be the most important legislative action of your careers. It is not a time to be rushed into passing a bailout that will only make matters worse.
The Edge
The success or failure of any plan to bail out the market is going to depend on its success at stemming the tide of lowering housing prices. Nothing in the proposal even addresses this critical aspect of the economic downturn. Declining house prices, the root of the problem, is to put it simply the result of too many people who cannot afford to live in the homes they are in. Over extended borrowers and their lenders made admittedly as bad bets that housing prices would continue to rise allowing almost unlimited refinancing and debt payoff and reaccumulation in a never-ending spiral. As in all Ponzi schemes, it doesn't take much for the whole house-of-cards to come tumbling down.
If banks and other lenders feel that housing prices will continue to fall, they will be reluctant to make loans even if they have the money. This credit crisis is not addressed in the current proposal. The Senate however is in overdrive in a rush to do something, anything that will appear that they are engaged.
STOP. BREATHE. THINK IT THROUGH. This may well be the most important legislative action of your careers. It is not a time to be rushed into passing a bailout that will only make matters worse.
The Edge
Thursday, September 18, 2008
WE'RE BROKE BUT IT'S OKE
The dust has yet to settle after the recent disastrous news on the economic front but that hasn't stopped the finger pointing. Candidates, members of congress and media pundits are in danger of putting each other's eyes out playing the blame game.
Democratic leaders in congress are quick to assert that the republicans are at fault for pushing for market deregulation ignoring that the trend toward loosening the restaints began with the Clinton administration and was not halted by a democratically led congress for the past two years. McCain points to a bill he co-sponsored in 2005 warning of the dire consequences of not reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was killed in conference by the dems. He fails however to mention that he once referred to himself as "the great deregulator." Obama has avoided much of the culpability by virtue of having no record on the subject of market regulation or oversight. He has however put McCain on the defensive for opining that the "fundamentals" of the economy is strong.
In the long tradition of politicians locking the barn door after the livestock have fled, are now calling for more regulation and closer oversight. It shouldn't be a surprise that there will be a 9/11 type commission formed that will take a year or so to come up with recommendations providing cover for all the congressional and presidential candidates well through November.
There is little doubt that there needs to be some regulatory changes requiring greater transparency while maintaining the strength of a free market. The one area that has largely been overlooked and according to some high profile investment experts is a financial instrument known as derivatives.
Billionaire Warren Buffet calls derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" and refers to them as a "time bomb" and "a fools game". He has spoken often about their introduction making the regulation of margins a joke. This is important because margins, requiring a minimum percentage of capital to be put up by the buyer, is one of the only ways to restrain high risk investments.
There isn't even a consensus of what derivatives are. According to Business 2.0.com, derivatives are defined simply as a "financial security such as an option or future whose value is derived in part from the value and characteristics of another security, the underlying asset."
If that doesn't clear it up, you're not alone. Warren Buffet says he doesn't invest in derivatives because "I don't invest in something I don"t understand."
With all that said, the real problem is that for the most part, these investments, though huge, are basically unregulated and so secret that they are not even listed on the account balance sheets of investment houses like Merrill-Lynch and Bear-Sterns. Congress should take a look at outlawing such fanciful and dangerous intruments.
Will the market right itself? Most experts agree that there will be a period of adjustment but we will survive and in fact prosper. In the short term, 401k, IRA and other investments will suffer and those folks either retired or close to retirement will suffer. The worst thing that could happen however is to over react discouraging all risk taking and making credit unattainable even to those who are worthy.
The Edge
Democratic leaders in congress are quick to assert that the republicans are at fault for pushing for market deregulation ignoring that the trend toward loosening the restaints began with the Clinton administration and was not halted by a democratically led congress for the past two years. McCain points to a bill he co-sponsored in 2005 warning of the dire consequences of not reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that was killed in conference by the dems. He fails however to mention that he once referred to himself as "the great deregulator." Obama has avoided much of the culpability by virtue of having no record on the subject of market regulation or oversight. He has however put McCain on the defensive for opining that the "fundamentals" of the economy is strong.
In the long tradition of politicians locking the barn door after the livestock have fled, are now calling for more regulation and closer oversight. It shouldn't be a surprise that there will be a 9/11 type commission formed that will take a year or so to come up with recommendations providing cover for all the congressional and presidential candidates well through November.
There is little doubt that there needs to be some regulatory changes requiring greater transparency while maintaining the strength of a free market. The one area that has largely been overlooked and according to some high profile investment experts is a financial instrument known as derivatives.
Billionaire Warren Buffet calls derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" and refers to them as a "time bomb" and "a fools game". He has spoken often about their introduction making the regulation of margins a joke. This is important because margins, requiring a minimum percentage of capital to be put up by the buyer, is one of the only ways to restrain high risk investments.
There isn't even a consensus of what derivatives are. According to Business 2.0.com, derivatives are defined simply as a "financial security such as an option or future whose value is derived in part from the value and characteristics of another security, the underlying asset."
If that doesn't clear it up, you're not alone. Warren Buffet says he doesn't invest in derivatives because "I don't invest in something I don"t understand."
With all that said, the real problem is that for the most part, these investments, though huge, are basically unregulated and so secret that they are not even listed on the account balance sheets of investment houses like Merrill-Lynch and Bear-Sterns. Congress should take a look at outlawing such fanciful and dangerous intruments.
Will the market right itself? Most experts agree that there will be a period of adjustment but we will survive and in fact prosper. In the short term, 401k, IRA and other investments will suffer and those folks either retired or close to retirement will suffer. The worst thing that could happen however is to over react discouraging all risk taking and making credit unattainable even to those who are worthy.
The Edge
Friday, September 12, 2008
ARE THERE COAT TAILS?
When the election season began almost 2 years ago the Republican brand was so tarnished and the anti-Bush sentiment so deep that it was widely reported by the media and conceded even by the GOP that this election cycle would favor democrats. Enter Palin. Defeatist attitudes may be changing.
Congress has an unfavorable rating even below that of Bush. Conventional wisdom is that even when the public dissaproves of congress, they tend to support their congressman. Rumblings are beginning to be felt in even otherwise "safe" democratic districts that so far have been overlooked by the main stream media challenging this bromide and may prove to be significant.
Unable to resist the urge to deify Obama, Tennessee congressman Steve Cohen compared the democratic presidential candisate to Jesus and Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate. His comments, verging on hysteria underly the unease democratic candidates are feeling and are struggling to shore up their support.
On the Republican side, there seems to be a renewed sense of optimism. Candidates in contested districts, that were merely going through the motions have become energized and are seeing a resurgence in volunteers and donations.
It will be interesting to see if the RNC recognizes this trend and steps up to assist these candidates that had earlier been given up as hopeless.
The Edge
Congress has an unfavorable rating even below that of Bush. Conventional wisdom is that even when the public dissaproves of congress, they tend to support their congressman. Rumblings are beginning to be felt in even otherwise "safe" democratic districts that so far have been overlooked by the main stream media challenging this bromide and may prove to be significant.
Unable to resist the urge to deify Obama, Tennessee congressman Steve Cohen compared the democratic presidential candisate to Jesus and Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate. His comments, verging on hysteria underly the unease democratic candidates are feeling and are struggling to shore up their support.
On the Republican side, there seems to be a renewed sense of optimism. Candidates in contested districts, that were merely going through the motions have become energized and are seeing a resurgence in volunteers and donations.
It will be interesting to see if the RNC recognizes this trend and steps up to assist these candidates that had earlier been given up as hopeless.
The Edge
Thursday, September 11, 2008
SPEAK SOFTLY BUT CARRY A BIG LIPSTICK
There are certain catch phrases that have taken their place in the general usage to the point that they become a sort of short hand. Putting lipstick on a pig is one of those ubiquitous aliterations requiring no explanation. Why, then was there such a reaction when Sen Obama used the phrase in discussing the economic policies of his opponents.
What if Obama had said in describing his primary opponents policy "you can dress a pig in a pants suit but it would still be a pig." Would it have raised a few eyebrows?
The point is that certain words become associated with individuals. After her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in which she ad libbed the pitbull and lipstick joke, she has, at least in the short term co-opted the word. As an astute politician, it is surprisingly myopic of Obama and demonstrates a lack of situational awareness that is telling.
Whether Obama was consciously alluding to Palin is unclear but it is evident that his audience made the connection. The real story is that it seems the Palin factor has the Obama-Biden campaign bemused and in dissarray. If they can't get back on track, the cosmetic makeover of livestock may be the least of their problems.
The Edge
What if Obama had said in describing his primary opponents policy "you can dress a pig in a pants suit but it would still be a pig." Would it have raised a few eyebrows?
The point is that certain words become associated with individuals. After her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in which she ad libbed the pitbull and lipstick joke, she has, at least in the short term co-opted the word. As an astute politician, it is surprisingly myopic of Obama and demonstrates a lack of situational awareness that is telling.
Whether Obama was consciously alluding to Palin is unclear but it is evident that his audience made the connection. The real story is that it seems the Palin factor has the Obama-Biden campaign bemused and in dissarray. If they can't get back on track, the cosmetic makeover of livestock may be the least of their problems.
The Edge
Monday, September 8, 2008
BROTHER, CAN YOU SPARE SOME CHANGE?
Even the most casual observer of the presidential race will note that a common theme has emerged. In a word, "change". It has become so ubiquitous as to lose it's impact. It is reminiscent of children repeating a word over and over again to the point when the word not only loses its distinctive sound but also its meaning. A careful reading of both candidate's websites and speeches may lead to a better understanding of what each candidate means when they talk about change. Policy changes have been getting the lion's share of exposure and while they are important, what is being overlooked is the systemic problems that are the root cause of many of the problems facing the citizenry.
While both candidates have offered some policy initiatives, the Obama campaign has focused on comprehensive healthcare and tax reforms but is less specific on immigration, energy and national security issues which have been the foundation of the McCain platform. Only McCain seems to have a track record of and a plan for tackling the Washington DC establishment and the way things are done.
Sen. McCain joined with democratic Sen. Feingold in a two year effort resulting in the first campaign funding reform in fifty years and promises to continue if elected to eliminate the so-called 527 groups that currently are able to raise unlimited funds to support candidates. Examples of 527 organizations are Move-on on the far left and the right wing Swift Boat group that targeted Kerry in the last election cycle. McCain would also eliminate "earmarks" a method legislators use to hide expenditures for special interests in otherwise un-related bills. Additionally, he would also limit the ability of former members of congress and the senate to accept employment with lobbying groups and even writing bills that are then offered up for consideration by a sitting member.
Policies are an important consideration when determining which candidate to support but without addressing the systemic issues nothing much will really change.
The Edge
While both candidates have offered some policy initiatives, the Obama campaign has focused on comprehensive healthcare and tax reforms but is less specific on immigration, energy and national security issues which have been the foundation of the McCain platform. Only McCain seems to have a track record of and a plan for tackling the Washington DC establishment and the way things are done.
Sen. McCain joined with democratic Sen. Feingold in a two year effort resulting in the first campaign funding reform in fifty years and promises to continue if elected to eliminate the so-called 527 groups that currently are able to raise unlimited funds to support candidates. Examples of 527 organizations are Move-on on the far left and the right wing Swift Boat group that targeted Kerry in the last election cycle. McCain would also eliminate "earmarks" a method legislators use to hide expenditures for special interests in otherwise un-related bills. Additionally, he would also limit the ability of former members of congress and the senate to accept employment with lobbying groups and even writing bills that are then offered up for consideration by a sitting member.
Policies are an important consideration when determining which candidate to support but without addressing the systemic issues nothing much will really change.
The Edge
Friday, September 5, 2008
I WAS WRONG! WAS THAT SO HARD?
After a secret meeting with Roger Ailes, the head of Fox in which he was promised "fair" treatment, Sen. Obama appeared on the Factor for a one on one interview with the newly reformed curmudgeon Bill O'Reilly. The first segment was broadcast on Thursday night in a questionable time slot just prior to Sen. McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC.
Bill O'Reilly began the questioning by allowing that in his opinion, the democratic candidate had been proven right in his pre-war opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The host then asked why his guest refused to acknowledge the success of the change in strategy known as "the surge". Obama reluctantly said that the surge had succeeded "far beyond anyone's expectations" but when pressed to take the next step and admit that he was wrong in opposing the increase in troops, he suddenly got very nervous and resorted to evasion, ultimately refusing to make any admission.
It should be pointed out that John McCain made the original argument for the new strategy against his own party even challenging Bush ultimately convincing him to allow Gen. Petraeus to implement his counter-insurgency plan. McCain not only predicted success but risked his political career on it. It was during this period that he answered critics with the statement that,"I would rather lose an election than lose a war."
McCain was also faced with a similar situation of being on the wrong side of an issue when he joined with democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy to co-author a comprehensive immigration bill aimed at approaching border security as well as path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. When he was faced with an uproar demanding border security first, he went before the microphones and made a very simple statement. " I realize that the American people, with good cause, do not trust the government on this issue and demands border security first. I get it. I was wrong and will now place border security as the first priority."
Is America better served by a leader who acknowledges mistakes or one who stubbornly refuses to do so?
The Edge
Bill O'Reilly began the questioning by allowing that in his opinion, the democratic candidate had been proven right in his pre-war opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The host then asked why his guest refused to acknowledge the success of the change in strategy known as "the surge". Obama reluctantly said that the surge had succeeded "far beyond anyone's expectations" but when pressed to take the next step and admit that he was wrong in opposing the increase in troops, he suddenly got very nervous and resorted to evasion, ultimately refusing to make any admission.
It should be pointed out that John McCain made the original argument for the new strategy against his own party even challenging Bush ultimately convincing him to allow Gen. Petraeus to implement his counter-insurgency plan. McCain not only predicted success but risked his political career on it. It was during this period that he answered critics with the statement that,"I would rather lose an election than lose a war."
McCain was also faced with a similar situation of being on the wrong side of an issue when he joined with democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy to co-author a comprehensive immigration bill aimed at approaching border security as well as path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. When he was faced with an uproar demanding border security first, he went before the microphones and made a very simple statement. " I realize that the American people, with good cause, do not trust the government on this issue and demands border security first. I get it. I was wrong and will now place border security as the first priority."
Is America better served by a leader who acknowledges mistakes or one who stubbornly refuses to do so?
The Edge
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
LEFT WING MEDIA PALE-IN COMPARISON
The posting on the internet of a photo of Sen. Obama in traditional Kenyan garb and the assertion by right wing radicals that he is a closeted Muslim is reprehensible. But, to date, even the kooks on the right have steered clear of defaming either of the democratic candidate's children. Attacks from the left wing bloggers followed up by the main stream media repeating despicable charges aimed at the minor children of Gov. Palin are so beyond decency that it would not be surprising to see the right wing of the blogosphere respond in kind. As tempting as it is, this response would be a mistake.
To their credit, both democratic candidates have made strong statements asserting that children should be off limits. It would be hoped that they would go even further and address those hate sites such as dailykos directly. Especially as Obama lent them credibility by speaking at their convention.
The McCain campaign has announced that they have set up an anti-smear website and they may address the issue directly at the convention. Their strategy going forward will be to ignore the libelous attacks and keep presenting their positions in a positive way. It will be interesting to see if the fundamental fairness of Americans asserts itself and there is a backlash that will ultimately benefit the Republican ticket.
It is clear that the addition of Sarah Palin has energized the Republicans especially those of a more conservative bent. Whether this will result in a larger turnout and attract a sufficient number of independent voters to result in victory on Nov. 4 is not as clear.
The Edge
To their credit, both democratic candidates have made strong statements asserting that children should be off limits. It would be hoped that they would go even further and address those hate sites such as dailykos directly. Especially as Obama lent them credibility by speaking at their convention.
The McCain campaign has announced that they have set up an anti-smear website and they may address the issue directly at the convention. Their strategy going forward will be to ignore the libelous attacks and keep presenting their positions in a positive way. It will be interesting to see if the fundamental fairness of Americans asserts itself and there is a backlash that will ultimately benefit the Republican ticket.
It is clear that the addition of Sarah Palin has energized the Republicans especially those of a more conservative bent. Whether this will result in a larger turnout and attract a sufficient number of independent voters to result in victory on Nov. 4 is not as clear.
The Edge
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
WHEN A HOUSE IS NOT A HOME
The Obama campaign with the full support of the main stream media seem to feel they have found a chink in the armor of McCain over the Republican's stumble in his response to a reporter's query as to how many houses he and his wife own. Not only did the Obama campaign generate a tv ad that has received generous free play on network and cable shows in the guise of reporting news, but has found its way into almost every interview with a democrat spokesperson. It's not clear if the aim is to paint McCain as out of touch with average Americans or as suffering from the forgetfulness associated with old age.
Thanks to YouTube, it is possible to review the original exchange between the reporter from Politico.com. After seeing and hearing the question-answer it is reasonable to come away with a different impression than that presented by McCain's detractors.
The viewer will note that McCain begins his answer by seemingly correcting the reporter's use of the word "houses" saying "well, there's the condo...". He then stops, thinks for a moment and tells the reporter he will have his staff find out the answer and get back to him.
For a politician regardless of party, this is a standard and generally safe response utilized regularly with no adverse fallout. It is not surprising that McCain would use this default if unartful answer. He would have clearly been better served if he explained why he couldn't give a more precise answer spontaneously. For anyone who has dealt with legal and financial matters however it is not surprising that he was reluctant to give an exact number.
As it turns out, Mrs McCain, through several of her corporations has purchased seven or in some reports eight properties mostly condominiums for her children to live in and others as investments. As a legal matter, there is the question of ownership. Are these owned jointly by Senator and Mrs McCain or are they owned, that is, titled by the corporate entities? Had McCain answered with a number there is little doubt that the media would have been quick to point out any discrepancies.
The McCains have 2 homes, one of which is not technically a "house" but a condo in Virginia and his ranch in Sedona, Arizona. What would have happened if he had simply anwered "two" to the question? Even though in his mind, this could well have been the correct answer as he didn't live in the other properties.
In this post-Clinton era of parsing every word, politicians of both parties have to think, often too carefully, when answering questions. It is not in the interest of the country however to play the gotcha form of journalism.
The Edge
Thanks to YouTube, it is possible to review the original exchange between the reporter from Politico.com. After seeing and hearing the question-answer it is reasonable to come away with a different impression than that presented by McCain's detractors.
The viewer will note that McCain begins his answer by seemingly correcting the reporter's use of the word "houses" saying "well, there's the condo...". He then stops, thinks for a moment and tells the reporter he will have his staff find out the answer and get back to him.
For a politician regardless of party, this is a standard and generally safe response utilized regularly with no adverse fallout. It is not surprising that McCain would use this default if unartful answer. He would have clearly been better served if he explained why he couldn't give a more precise answer spontaneously. For anyone who has dealt with legal and financial matters however it is not surprising that he was reluctant to give an exact number.
As it turns out, Mrs McCain, through several of her corporations has purchased seven or in some reports eight properties mostly condominiums for her children to live in and others as investments. As a legal matter, there is the question of ownership. Are these owned jointly by Senator and Mrs McCain or are they owned, that is, titled by the corporate entities? Had McCain answered with a number there is little doubt that the media would have been quick to point out any discrepancies.
The McCains have 2 homes, one of which is not technically a "house" but a condo in Virginia and his ranch in Sedona, Arizona. What would have happened if he had simply anwered "two" to the question? Even though in his mind, this could well have been the correct answer as he didn't live in the other properties.
In this post-Clinton era of parsing every word, politicians of both parties have to think, often too carefully, when answering questions. It is not in the interest of the country however to play the gotcha form of journalism.
The Edge
Thursday, August 21, 2008
McCain/Obama and the Supremes
Senators McCain and Obama both point out that the next President will most likely send 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court candidates to the Senate for confirmation. Additionally, there may well be over 100 open seats in the federal judiciary that includes the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals and the 94 U.S. District Courts that will need to be filled. There is little doubt that the choices made in this area will have a profound and lasting effect on individual rights and freedom.
SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY
Under article lll of the Constitution the only qualifications established for federal judges is that they are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during "good behavior", typically for life. The judiciary exercises its check on both the legislative and executive branches in that it can declare laws and presidential orders unconstitutional.
Until the 1940's, Senate confirmation hearings were fairly perfunctory respecting the President's perogative and were limited to examining the nominee's standing in the legal community, intellect, legal knowledge and judicial temperament. The current process has become much more adversarial with both right and left leaning senators trying to discern a nominee's position on specific issues such as abortion or the second amendment. The nominee is then forced to resist telegraphing his position or feelings on the issues as he would then be faced with having to recuse himself should he be asked to hear a case involving those issues.
The Supreme Court is currently divided along two philosophical schools of thought. While understanding these different approaches to interpreting the constitutionality of laws is no guarantee of how a Judge will ultimately decide a specific case, it is possible to infer the tendencies of the prospective jurist.
In spite of his teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, Obama has surprisingly published and spoken little on the subject. The issue is not addressed on his web site or in his stump speech and there is little in the public record that would illuminate his philosophy. One of the only times he has gone on the record was in September of 2005, when Senator Obama explained his vote against the confirmation of Judge Roberts.
Obama stated that "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified ..." He went on to praise Roberts for his decency, respect for opposing views, impartiality and legal expertise. He went on to say "The problem I face ... is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of constitutional contruction will dispose of 95% of the cases -- what matters is the 5% ..." Obama said that these most difficult cases would be determined on " the basis of one's deepest values, one's core beliefs, one's broader perspective and the depth and breadth of one's empathy".
Ignoring the text of the constitution or some other law and substituting instead his own preference for what it ought to say, or to deciding a legal issue on the basis of personal empathy and core personal beliefs rather that the law or the constitution is the definition of judicial activism.
Senator McCain has stated that he is an Originalist. The most well known proponent of originalism as it applies to interpreting the Constitution is Justice Antonin Scalia who explains that those who believe that the Constitution is a living document that changes with societal changes overlooks the obvious. " The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things."
One of the dangers that originalists point to is that judicial activism often involves putting something into the text that isn't there or taking out something that is there in order to arrive at an idealogically based outcome.
Once again, the candidates have drawn a distinct difference in how they will administer the duties of highest office.
The Edge
SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY
Under article lll of the Constitution the only qualifications established for federal judges is that they are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during "good behavior", typically for life. The judiciary exercises its check on both the legislative and executive branches in that it can declare laws and presidential orders unconstitutional.
Until the 1940's, Senate confirmation hearings were fairly perfunctory respecting the President's perogative and were limited to examining the nominee's standing in the legal community, intellect, legal knowledge and judicial temperament. The current process has become much more adversarial with both right and left leaning senators trying to discern a nominee's position on specific issues such as abortion or the second amendment. The nominee is then forced to resist telegraphing his position or feelings on the issues as he would then be faced with having to recuse himself should he be asked to hear a case involving those issues.
The Supreme Court is currently divided along two philosophical schools of thought. While understanding these different approaches to interpreting the constitutionality of laws is no guarantee of how a Judge will ultimately decide a specific case, it is possible to infer the tendencies of the prospective jurist.
In spite of his teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, Obama has surprisingly published and spoken little on the subject. The issue is not addressed on his web site or in his stump speech and there is little in the public record that would illuminate his philosophy. One of the only times he has gone on the record was in September of 2005, when Senator Obama explained his vote against the confirmation of Judge Roberts.
Obama stated that "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified ..." He went on to praise Roberts for his decency, respect for opposing views, impartiality and legal expertise. He went on to say "The problem I face ... is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of constitutional contruction will dispose of 95% of the cases -- what matters is the 5% ..." Obama said that these most difficult cases would be determined on " the basis of one's deepest values, one's core beliefs, one's broader perspective and the depth and breadth of one's empathy".
Ignoring the text of the constitution or some other law and substituting instead his own preference for what it ought to say, or to deciding a legal issue on the basis of personal empathy and core personal beliefs rather that the law or the constitution is the definition of judicial activism.
Senator McCain has stated that he is an Originalist. The most well known proponent of originalism as it applies to interpreting the Constitution is Justice Antonin Scalia who explains that those who believe that the Constitution is a living document that changes with societal changes overlooks the obvious. " The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things."
One of the dangers that originalists point to is that judicial activism often involves putting something into the text that isn't there or taking out something that is there in order to arrive at an idealogically based outcome.
Once again, the candidates have drawn a distinct difference in how they will administer the duties of highest office.
The Edge
Friday, August 8, 2008
HEALTHCARE - IT COMES DOWN TO PHILOSOPHY
This will be the first in a series in which each issue will be explored using the candidates own words. It is hoped that a careful review and analysis of how Senators McCain and Obama view these national issues and how they plan to address them, will serve to assist in deciding who should be successful on November 4, 2008.
HEALTH CARE
It may come as a surprise to some that there is little or no disagreement between the presidential candidates as to the scope of the problems in the current healthcare system. Both McCain and Obama agree on the following:
HEALTH CARE
It may come as a surprise to some that there is little or no disagreement between the presidential candidates as to the scope of the problems in the current healthcare system. Both McCain and Obama agree on the following:
- There are 47 million individuals who either have no insurance or inadequate coverage with approximately 9 million of them children.
- Healthcare should be affordable and available to all without regard to their employment status or income level.
- The current system needs to be made more transparent with published prices for regulary performed proceedures and tests.
- The need to lower prescription costs through re-importation and fast tracking generics.
This is the point at which the two diverge along fundamental philosophical lines. John McCain relies on the free market arguing that a nationalized program run by a new federal beauracracy would result in a less efficient, more irrational and costly system.
The McCain plan would feature health savings accounts and tax credits of up to $5000 per family which he says will allow for marketplace competition to assert itself resulting in lowering costs. As for those without employer provided group coverage and the unemployed, he would rely on individual states to establish "risk pools" to limit premiums. He promises to work with governors to create "Guaranteed Access Plans"(GAP) with federal assistance. The cost for the McCain plan, according to the campaign, would not require any additional taxes.
In contrast, Barack Obama's plan would establish a new government department called the National Health Insurance Exchange (NHIE) which would act as a watchdog over private insurers by creating rules and standards while monitoring them to assure that their plans meet basic requirements and would have control over premiums and rates. Further, the plan would require that all employers including those with few employees to contribute a percentage of their payroll towards health insurance coverage. The Obama plan would mandate coverage for all children. Other than the new payroll tax, funding for the plan is not clearly spelled out. Experts seem to agree that if implemented in full, the Obama plan would require 90 Billion dollars per year. Since he has not mentioned cutting any other program, it would appear that the money would have to come from increasing taxes. For the small employer with 2 employees, they could expect to pay an additional $7500 annually.
Americans have accepted for generations that primary and secondary education is a right and but has resisted its nationalization, insisting that control should be local and reflective of the community. The healthcare debate has traditionally been over the similar assertion that healthcare is a basic right and therefore should be guaranteed by the government. The question is the role of the federal government. The choice that the two candidates have put before the voters addresses this fundamental quandary.
The Edge
Monday, August 4, 2008
IS AMERICA A RACIST NATION?
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it." - Malcolm X
Nothing so sums up the purpose of this blog than the above quotation. As someone who has waged a personal war against racisim for the past 45 years while simultaneously maintaining a deep and abiding love of country and especially for the ideals of the founders, I want take a dispassionate look at the state of race and color in America.
Supported by several DNA studies, an argument can be made that race itself is a social construct rather than a reality based on genetic differences. However attractive this is as a concept, it does nothing to advance the discussion of the realities we all face. Recognizing this, I will use the commonly accepted definition of race focusing on the black/white relationship.
The nature of racism is the belief that one group of people of a certain racial make-up is superior to other groups of differing racial make-ups. By virtue of their "superiority" they are deemed to be allowed to gain economic, social and political power. We have all been subject to or heard of individual acts of racism; the black man being unable to hail a cab, or the famous police action of pulling over a driver who feels his stop was based on DWB (driving while black). To make a judgement of whether a country is racist however, the nation must be viewed not from individual or anectodotal actions but as a societal or governmentally based phenomena.
In order to make a fair determination of whether America is racist a look at the extent of representation of blacks in the institutions that make up the country is called for. Blacks make up approximately 13% of the population in the U.S. True equality of opportunity would therefore be attained if blacks were represented in the nation's institutions at that level.
America has attempted many changes in law and society to battle discrimination. Affirmative action has been an attempt to ensure equal opportunity in employment, education and housing. Television and movies have changed both format and story lines as well as casting decisions resulting in the general public's recognition and acceptance of blacks and other minorities in positions of power and authority.
Is there an institutionalized opression of groups based on their race? A CNN poll taken in December 2006 revealed that 84% of blacks thought racism in America is a serious problem while 66% of white Americans agreed. A more recent Rasmussen poll of July 31, 2008 indicated that 85% of Americans would vote for a black for president. Do the above results reflect the reality or do they simply highlight the respondents perceptions?
In the areas of politics, it is clear that blacks have successfully run from both parties and at all levels from city, county, state and federal levels across all demographics. Likewise, in the entertainment, news and sports fields, blacks are represented in highly visible and executive levels. Researching these institutions did not result in any disparity or unequal access.
A review of U.S. Census Bureau statistics reveal that in some areas America has honored its commitment to equal opportunity but has fallen short in others. The most current U.S. census report issued in 2002 reveal that blacks have made significant advancement from the previous report of a decade ago in the areas of employment and education with 26% of all managerial positions in non-farm businesses being held by blacks. 80% of blacks over the age of 25 were high school graduates with 17% holding a bachelors degree. In a society that praises the entrepreneurial spirit, the results are less impressive. Only 7% of small businesses nationwide are owned by blacks. Median income for blacks in the workforce is $18,000 below that of whites. Projections tend to show that this gap is closing and may be halved by 2010, when the next census is taken.
If there is any area that highlights the disparity between black and whites it is in the criminal justice system. Bureau of Justice reports that the likelihood of a black male going to prison is nearly 8 times more than for whites. One of the reasons pointed to is the difference in charging policies practiced by district attorneys, or their equivalent. Blacks are more likely to be charged more severely than whites arrested for the same offense. One of the results of this is that blacks are sentenced to longer prison terms and on release have a more difficult time finding gainful employment.
It would seem that the question of racism in America cannot be answered in simplistic terms? Statistics would seem to show that the country has made dramatic improvements since the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in altering many of the institutions but there remains a way to go in others. The fact Americans of all races are having the discussion and are working towards true equality could be an effective argument that America cannot be called racist at its core.
The above article addressed only certain features of racism and could not, based on space, cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Racism has become a national obsession and is not limited to black and white issues but influences how America deals with all aspects of diversity.
Racial reconciliation is a shared responsibility amongst us all.
The Edge
Nothing so sums up the purpose of this blog than the above quotation. As someone who has waged a personal war against racisim for the past 45 years while simultaneously maintaining a deep and abiding love of country and especially for the ideals of the founders, I want take a dispassionate look at the state of race and color in America.
Supported by several DNA studies, an argument can be made that race itself is a social construct rather than a reality based on genetic differences. However attractive this is as a concept, it does nothing to advance the discussion of the realities we all face. Recognizing this, I will use the commonly accepted definition of race focusing on the black/white relationship.
The nature of racism is the belief that one group of people of a certain racial make-up is superior to other groups of differing racial make-ups. By virtue of their "superiority" they are deemed to be allowed to gain economic, social and political power. We have all been subject to or heard of individual acts of racism; the black man being unable to hail a cab, or the famous police action of pulling over a driver who feels his stop was based on DWB (driving while black). To make a judgement of whether a country is racist however, the nation must be viewed not from individual or anectodotal actions but as a societal or governmentally based phenomena.
In order to make a fair determination of whether America is racist a look at the extent of representation of blacks in the institutions that make up the country is called for. Blacks make up approximately 13% of the population in the U.S. True equality of opportunity would therefore be attained if blacks were represented in the nation's institutions at that level.
America has attempted many changes in law and society to battle discrimination. Affirmative action has been an attempt to ensure equal opportunity in employment, education and housing. Television and movies have changed both format and story lines as well as casting decisions resulting in the general public's recognition and acceptance of blacks and other minorities in positions of power and authority.
Is there an institutionalized opression of groups based on their race? A CNN poll taken in December 2006 revealed that 84% of blacks thought racism in America is a serious problem while 66% of white Americans agreed. A more recent Rasmussen poll of July 31, 2008 indicated that 85% of Americans would vote for a black for president. Do the above results reflect the reality or do they simply highlight the respondents perceptions?
In the areas of politics, it is clear that blacks have successfully run from both parties and at all levels from city, county, state and federal levels across all demographics. Likewise, in the entertainment, news and sports fields, blacks are represented in highly visible and executive levels. Researching these institutions did not result in any disparity or unequal access.
A review of U.S. Census Bureau statistics reveal that in some areas America has honored its commitment to equal opportunity but has fallen short in others. The most current U.S. census report issued in 2002 reveal that blacks have made significant advancement from the previous report of a decade ago in the areas of employment and education with 26% of all managerial positions in non-farm businesses being held by blacks. 80% of blacks over the age of 25 were high school graduates with 17% holding a bachelors degree. In a society that praises the entrepreneurial spirit, the results are less impressive. Only 7% of small businesses nationwide are owned by blacks. Median income for blacks in the workforce is $18,000 below that of whites. Projections tend to show that this gap is closing and may be halved by 2010, when the next census is taken.
If there is any area that highlights the disparity between black and whites it is in the criminal justice system. Bureau of Justice reports that the likelihood of a black male going to prison is nearly 8 times more than for whites. One of the reasons pointed to is the difference in charging policies practiced by district attorneys, or their equivalent. Blacks are more likely to be charged more severely than whites arrested for the same offense. One of the results of this is that blacks are sentenced to longer prison terms and on release have a more difficult time finding gainful employment.
It would seem that the question of racism in America cannot be answered in simplistic terms? Statistics would seem to show that the country has made dramatic improvements since the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in altering many of the institutions but there remains a way to go in others. The fact Americans of all races are having the discussion and are working towards true equality could be an effective argument that America cannot be called racist at its core.
The above article addressed only certain features of racism and could not, based on space, cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Racism has become a national obsession and is not limited to black and white issues but influences how America deals with all aspects of diversity.
Racial reconciliation is a shared responsibility amongst us all.
The Edge
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
CAN A GLOBAL WARMING HERETIC BE GREEN?
Twenty or so years ago, the hue and cry arose from the environmental community warning that the earth was doomed if immediate attention wasn't taken to stop global cooling. That's right, we were told that due to the use of chloroflourocarbins (CFC's) and other chemicals being released in aerosol form a hole in the ozone layer over the poles had been created and that the earth was headed for another ice age. Now we are being told by these same folks along with convert to the cause and leading spokesman Al Gore, that due to harmful human actions, we are heading for the apocalypse of global warming. Some in the "movement" are covering their bets through the use of the non-specific term global climate change. Recently, in response to a question, Al Gore stated that "The scientific question regarding global warming has been settled."
In the absence of any rebuttal in the mainstream media, this statement goes unchallenged. The questions that beg an answer are simple; is there a consensus in the scientific community that: A) Global warming is happening? and B) Is the cause of this climate change the result of human action?
The answer, it turns out is amazingly, not by a long shot. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has recently announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed a petition stating that "...there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate..."
Esteemed scientist and Nobel Prize winner Freemon Dyson, professor of physics at Princeton and Cornell (ret.) has further challenged Gore's position that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is real or that it is caused by human activity. The self-proclaimed science heretic states that, "There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer but the warming is not global...and all the fuss...is greatly exaggerated."
There is, of course the major discovery resulting in the 1996 Tyler Award (the environmental Nobel) being shared by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark, Hans Oeschger of Switzerland and Claude Lories of France. The award was in recognition of their discovery of the 1500 year cycle as the only explanation for the modern warming that is supported by physical evidence.
It seems that there is a large number of scientists, disciplined to rely on replicable studies and confirmable data to concur that current climate models simply cannot be verified as accurate predictors due to lack of sufficient time and reliability of the underlying data.
Through studies of polar ice cores which can illuminate climate conditions over thousands of years and can be accurately dated scientists have pointed to natural causes such as volcanic activity and massive fires as the cause of climate changes often lasting several decades. One vulcanologist has pointed out that a major eruption can emit more carbon into the atmosphere than all that has been released by humans since the dawning of the industrial revolution.
Does all of the above mean that those who favor the research, developement and implementation of so-called green technologies should abandon their efforts? Quite the contrary, there are any number of reasons to support alternatives to petroleum based energy sources. A strong and convincing case can be made on an economic as well as environmental reasons that the future needs to be green. But to use the scare tactics espoused by the global cooling, global warming climate change proponents is inapropriate and scientifically flawed.
The Edge
In the absence of any rebuttal in the mainstream media, this statement goes unchallenged. The questions that beg an answer are simple; is there a consensus in the scientific community that: A) Global warming is happening? and B) Is the cause of this climate change the result of human action?
The answer, it turns out is amazingly, not by a long shot. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has recently announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed a petition stating that "...there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate..."
Esteemed scientist and Nobel Prize winner Freemon Dyson, professor of physics at Princeton and Cornell (ret.) has further challenged Gore's position that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is real or that it is caused by human activity. The self-proclaimed science heretic states that, "There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer but the warming is not global...and all the fuss...is greatly exaggerated."
There is, of course the major discovery resulting in the 1996 Tyler Award (the environmental Nobel) being shared by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark, Hans Oeschger of Switzerland and Claude Lories of France. The award was in recognition of their discovery of the 1500 year cycle as the only explanation for the modern warming that is supported by physical evidence.
It seems that there is a large number of scientists, disciplined to rely on replicable studies and confirmable data to concur that current climate models simply cannot be verified as accurate predictors due to lack of sufficient time and reliability of the underlying data.
Through studies of polar ice cores which can illuminate climate conditions over thousands of years and can be accurately dated scientists have pointed to natural causes such as volcanic activity and massive fires as the cause of climate changes often lasting several decades. One vulcanologist has pointed out that a major eruption can emit more carbon into the atmosphere than all that has been released by humans since the dawning of the industrial revolution.
Does all of the above mean that those who favor the research, developement and implementation of so-called green technologies should abandon their efforts? Quite the contrary, there are any number of reasons to support alternatives to petroleum based energy sources. A strong and convincing case can be made on an economic as well as environmental reasons that the future needs to be green. But to use the scare tactics espoused by the global cooling, global warming climate change proponents is inapropriate and scientifically flawed.
The Edge
Friday, July 25, 2008
IS THAT AN OIL SLICK (STER)?
The capitalist system is dependent on several tenets that form its support and insures its continued health and vibrancy. The foremost among these is the law of supply and demand.
We are told that this relationship is one of the only economic laws that is absolute. To challenge this is looked on as sacrilegious.
In 1999 the price of a barrel of crude oil was $12.00. In less than a decade the per barrel price topped $147.00. We are told by oil companies, economists and oil producing countries that this dramatic increase can be explained and justified by the law of supply and demand. To account for this it has been pointed out that given no change in the supply, demand world wide, would have had to exceed 300% in nine years. While demand has risen in China and India, the worldwide demand has, in reality much more modest and it should be pointed out that supply has not remained stagnant.
The most obvious example that there is something else at work is the drop in price per barrel of crude from $147 to $123 in the 10 days since the lifting of the federal ban on drilling. With just the expectation of drilling, not adding a single barrel to the supply chain, we are witnessing a downward trend that even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicts will stabilize at $100 per barrel.
Speculators have been targeted for scrutiny in the press and on capital hill. Congress is currently considering regulations opening up the process of commodity future trading including raising the margin limits to rein in what is widely regarded as as an out of control system. Those inside the futures trading community point out that their world is quite small and once a trend is started it can snowball very quickly.There is another player that requires even closer scrutiny.
Oil companies defend pump prices citing the supply and demand argument and further state that their profit margins have remained the same over the past 2 years during which the most dramatic increases have occurred. These claims have largely gone unchallenged. Not only do these assertions strain credibility on their face, evidence is mounting that revenues have been stratospheric supported by unprecedented stock price increases. It should be pointed out that these huge profits have come at a time when the companies have received large subsidies from the government.
Another question is why the price posted at gas stations across the country is changed upwards, often several times in a single day, on the announcement of a per barrel wholesale price increase while it takes several days after a decrease.
While supply and demand remain bulwarks supporting the economic system, it has to be recognized that the system is subject to manipulation and to other forces that need to be examined and understood.
The Edge
o
We are told that this relationship is one of the only economic laws that is absolute. To challenge this is looked on as sacrilegious.
In 1999 the price of a barrel of crude oil was $12.00. In less than a decade the per barrel price topped $147.00. We are told by oil companies, economists and oil producing countries that this dramatic increase can be explained and justified by the law of supply and demand. To account for this it has been pointed out that given no change in the supply, demand world wide, would have had to exceed 300% in nine years. While demand has risen in China and India, the worldwide demand has, in reality much more modest and it should be pointed out that supply has not remained stagnant.
The most obvious example that there is something else at work is the drop in price per barrel of crude from $147 to $123 in the 10 days since the lifting of the federal ban on drilling. With just the expectation of drilling, not adding a single barrel to the supply chain, we are witnessing a downward trend that even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicts will stabilize at $100 per barrel.
Speculators have been targeted for scrutiny in the press and on capital hill. Congress is currently considering regulations opening up the process of commodity future trading including raising the margin limits to rein in what is widely regarded as as an out of control system. Those inside the futures trading community point out that their world is quite small and once a trend is started it can snowball very quickly.There is another player that requires even closer scrutiny.
Oil companies defend pump prices citing the supply and demand argument and further state that their profit margins have remained the same over the past 2 years during which the most dramatic increases have occurred. These claims have largely gone unchallenged. Not only do these assertions strain credibility on their face, evidence is mounting that revenues have been stratospheric supported by unprecedented stock price increases. It should be pointed out that these huge profits have come at a time when the companies have received large subsidies from the government.
Another question is why the price posted at gas stations across the country is changed upwards, often several times in a single day, on the announcement of a per barrel wholesale price increase while it takes several days after a decrease.
While supply and demand remain bulwarks supporting the economic system, it has to be recognized that the system is subject to manipulation and to other forces that need to be examined and understood.
The Edge
o
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC?
Fortune tellers and psychics have thrilled and mystified people with their ability to give insights into the future. One of the classic props used is a crystal ball into which they stare intently and issue their pronouncements. It's not unusual for the amazed patron to leave convinced of the accuracy of their prophecy. In most cases the explanation for their delphi-like performance is much more mundane.
While in Iraq, Senator Obama was asked 3 different times if knowing what he now knows about the current situation he would change his vote and support the surge? While admitting that the situation has improved. In each instance he said he would not change his vote and refused to credit the surge strategy opining that the real reason for the progress was due to the Sunni Awakening and other factors. He went on to say he didn't have a crystal ball and that no one could have predicted the positive outcome.
When Senator McCain actively lobbied the Bush administration to send more troops and more importantly change strategies, he was met with resistance from both sides of the aisle. He steadfastly maintained that a surge was the only way to turn the tide and allow the Iraqi government the breathing room to reach political stability. It is not an overstatement to point out that he staked his career on this effort. In an uncharacteristic statement he proclaimed he would, "rather lose an election and win a war."
The Sunni Awakening and the capitulation of Muqtad Al Sadr was credited at the time to the trust of the tribal leaders that the Americans were committed to stay engaged for the long haul. To disconnect these breakthroughs is imply historically incorrect.
Sen. Obama must, by his own statements believe that Sen. McCain is in possession of a crystal ball. The more likely answer is, of course, much simpler. McCain has the experience of war. He has studied war while at Annapolis. Even more telling is he knows through his Viet Nam experience what doesn't work. In retrospect he just looks prophetic.
The Edge
While in Iraq, Senator Obama was asked 3 different times if knowing what he now knows about the current situation he would change his vote and support the surge? While admitting that the situation has improved. In each instance he said he would not change his vote and refused to credit the surge strategy opining that the real reason for the progress was due to the Sunni Awakening and other factors. He went on to say he didn't have a crystal ball and that no one could have predicted the positive outcome.
When Senator McCain actively lobbied the Bush administration to send more troops and more importantly change strategies, he was met with resistance from both sides of the aisle. He steadfastly maintained that a surge was the only way to turn the tide and allow the Iraqi government the breathing room to reach political stability. It is not an overstatement to point out that he staked his career on this effort. In an uncharacteristic statement he proclaimed he would, "rather lose an election and win a war."
The Sunni Awakening and the capitulation of Muqtad Al Sadr was credited at the time to the trust of the tribal leaders that the Americans were committed to stay engaged for the long haul. To disconnect these breakthroughs is imply historically incorrect.
Sen. Obama must, by his own statements believe that Sen. McCain is in possession of a crystal ball. The more likely answer is, of course, much simpler. McCain has the experience of war. He has studied war while at Annapolis. Even more telling is he knows through his Viet Nam experience what doesn't work. In retrospect he just looks prophetic.
The Edge
Monday, July 21, 2008
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - FUEL OR FOOD
Adam Smith, the great 18th century Scottish philosopher and economist coined the term and defined the Law of Unintentional Consequences which he applied to the building of wealth. In 1936, the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton, further codified the law applying it to political and sociologic policies and actions. He listed 5 sources for this phenomenon: 1. Ignorance
2. Error 3. Imperious Immediacy of Action 4. Basic Values and 5. Self Defeating Prediction. Ignorance and error are pretty much self explanatory and Basic Values and Self Defeating Prediction will require an in-depth discussion at a later time. The 3rd cause is the focus of this article.
Basically what is meant by Imperious Immediacy of Action is that a person or group wants the intended consequences of an action that there is willful ignorance of any unintended effects.
The word Imperious is significant because it imports to the person advocating a position, a place superior to all others. This arrogance results in the denigration of anyone who dissents or questions the policy.
In the rush to make Ethanol the main alternative fuel additive, those who raised
precautionary issues were dismissed and written off. Recent events now make those dissenters seem prescient.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 18 to 20% of the domestic corn crop has been taken out of the food chain in the last 12 months with the expectation that the figure will rise to over 25% in the coming season. This diversion has resulted in a dramatic rise in corn prices. Mexico has seen a doubling in the price of corn tortillas resulting in massive demonstrations. In the U.S. the cost of food products that use corn and corn by-products such as corn syrup has increased dramatically. The price of chicken, pork, eggs and other foods dependent on corn as feed has also gone up as much as 25%.
As these unintended consequences have become widely known their appeal has diminished even among the most green eco-activists.
Sen. JohnMcCain has joined with over 2 dozen Republican senators in opposition to the Ethanol subsidy. McCain has long questioned the governmental support for Ethanol and voted against it. Sen. Barack Obama has been a staunch supporter of Ethanol even crossing party lines to vote for the Bush administration's Energy Bill citing its inclusion of Ethanol and other forms of alternative energy.
A more comprehensive look at alternatives should include a discussion of Butanol. Offering a 20% increase of energy efficiency over ethanol with a 13.5% less evaporation, Butanol also has the benefit of compatability with existing infrastructure allowing it to be transported through existing pipelines rather than having to be delivered via truck,barge and rail. It also has the added advantage of not being an additive but a 1 for 1 replacement of gasoline. It should be clear that Butanol is made through the fermentation of grass, leaves, agricultural waste and other biomass. The only biproduct created in the fermentation and exhausted from an internal combustion engine is CO2 so is considered environmentally green.
As the infatuation for Ethanol continues to diminish and other alternatives are developed, it is hoped that there is a clear-eyed dispassionate look down range assessing those troublesome unintended consequences.
The Edge
2. Error 3. Imperious Immediacy of Action 4. Basic Values and 5. Self Defeating Prediction. Ignorance and error are pretty much self explanatory and Basic Values and Self Defeating Prediction will require an in-depth discussion at a later time. The 3rd cause is the focus of this article.
Basically what is meant by Imperious Immediacy of Action is that a person or group wants the intended consequences of an action that there is willful ignorance of any unintended effects.
The word Imperious is significant because it imports to the person advocating a position, a place superior to all others. This arrogance results in the denigration of anyone who dissents or questions the policy.
In the rush to make Ethanol the main alternative fuel additive, those who raised
precautionary issues were dismissed and written off. Recent events now make those dissenters seem prescient.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 18 to 20% of the domestic corn crop has been taken out of the food chain in the last 12 months with the expectation that the figure will rise to over 25% in the coming season. This diversion has resulted in a dramatic rise in corn prices. Mexico has seen a doubling in the price of corn tortillas resulting in massive demonstrations. In the U.S. the cost of food products that use corn and corn by-products such as corn syrup has increased dramatically. The price of chicken, pork, eggs and other foods dependent on corn as feed has also gone up as much as 25%.
As these unintended consequences have become widely known their appeal has diminished even among the most green eco-activists.
Sen. JohnMcCain has joined with over 2 dozen Republican senators in opposition to the Ethanol subsidy. McCain has long questioned the governmental support for Ethanol and voted against it. Sen. Barack Obama has been a staunch supporter of Ethanol even crossing party lines to vote for the Bush administration's Energy Bill citing its inclusion of Ethanol and other forms of alternative energy.
A more comprehensive look at alternatives should include a discussion of Butanol. Offering a 20% increase of energy efficiency over ethanol with a 13.5% less evaporation, Butanol also has the benefit of compatability with existing infrastructure allowing it to be transported through existing pipelines rather than having to be delivered via truck,barge and rail. It also has the added advantage of not being an additive but a 1 for 1 replacement of gasoline. It should be clear that Butanol is made through the fermentation of grass, leaves, agricultural waste and other biomass. The only biproduct created in the fermentation and exhausted from an internal combustion engine is CO2 so is considered environmentally green.
As the infatuation for Ethanol continues to diminish and other alternatives are developed, it is hoped that there is a clear-eyed dispassionate look down range assessing those troublesome unintended consequences.
The Edge
Friday, July 18, 2008
TO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL
Gasoline prices have apparently reached the tipping point causing an actual change in behavior. Percentages vary depending on the source but it is clear that American's have reduced their driving from 10 to 20 percent since the average price per gallon passed the
$4.00 mark.
Whether the rationale is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources or to
reduce the price at the pump, most polls reveal that the majority of Americans now favor drilling for oil. The Drill Now and We Can't Drill Our Way Out advocates have begun their campaigns to convince us of the rightness of their positions.
The anti-drilling proponents use basically 2 arguments in support of their position. The
first is that drilling will not result in new supplies for many years and secondly that there is
a significant risk of pollution. In the interest of space, I will not attempt to explore the
pollution issue in depth other than point out that there are hundreds of offshore rigs currently in use and there is no evidence that they have impacted negatively on their ocean ecology.
New Mexico's governor and former Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson said about drilling offshore,"It's a bad idea. First of all it will be 30 years before it affects gas prices". This statement is clearly at odd's with other experts even those who support the anti drilling position. The oil and gas analyst for Oppenheimer & Co, Fadel Ghett has stated that,"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking we should not expect a barrel of oil...for 3 maybe 5 years."
On the pro drilling side, arguments have been made that these estimated delivery times are exagerrated and that the actual time for intitial increase of oil supplies may be as soon as 1 to 2 years. Who ever is correct, it is clear that additional oil will not reach the market soon enough to suppress prices in the short term. But is this a good reason to oppose drilling.
Newt Gingrich, on his American Solutions website states," Opening up new fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won't actually reach our gas tanks for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil."
This argument is supported by the news that within days of President Bush announcing the lifting of the federal moratorium on drilling, the price of oil dropped $9.00 per barrel.
It is clear that even as demand for oil flags and the efforts to transition to alternative sources of power escalate, we will require fossil fuels in large amounts for the forseeable future. America cannot afford to depend on foreign governments, often hostile to be the primary vendor of this vital commodity. Drilling therefore seems to be the rational and intelligent approach.
The Edge
$4.00 mark.
Whether the rationale is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources or to
reduce the price at the pump, most polls reveal that the majority of Americans now favor drilling for oil. The Drill Now and We Can't Drill Our Way Out advocates have begun their campaigns to convince us of the rightness of their positions.
The anti-drilling proponents use basically 2 arguments in support of their position. The
first is that drilling will not result in new supplies for many years and secondly that there is
a significant risk of pollution. In the interest of space, I will not attempt to explore the
pollution issue in depth other than point out that there are hundreds of offshore rigs currently in use and there is no evidence that they have impacted negatively on their ocean ecology.
New Mexico's governor and former Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson said about drilling offshore,"It's a bad idea. First of all it will be 30 years before it affects gas prices". This statement is clearly at odd's with other experts even those who support the anti drilling position. The oil and gas analyst for Oppenheimer & Co, Fadel Ghett has stated that,"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking we should not expect a barrel of oil...for 3 maybe 5 years."
On the pro drilling side, arguments have been made that these estimated delivery times are exagerrated and that the actual time for intitial increase of oil supplies may be as soon as 1 to 2 years. Who ever is correct, it is clear that additional oil will not reach the market soon enough to suppress prices in the short term. But is this a good reason to oppose drilling.
Newt Gingrich, on his American Solutions website states," Opening up new fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won't actually reach our gas tanks for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil."
This argument is supported by the news that within days of President Bush announcing the lifting of the federal moratorium on drilling, the price of oil dropped $9.00 per barrel.
It is clear that even as demand for oil flags and the efforts to transition to alternative sources of power escalate, we will require fossil fuels in large amounts for the forseeable future. America cannot afford to depend on foreign governments, often hostile to be the primary vendor of this vital commodity. Drilling therefore seems to be the rational and intelligent approach.
The Edge
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
When is a flip flop a flip flop?
For many years I was adamant in my support of the death penalty. My support was philosophically based on the idea that as a society we have the right and the obligation to punish people who have committed certain heinous crimes.
Cases have come to my attention over the last several years leading me to believe that our legal system is seriously flawed. Many on death row have been cleared through DNA evidence, admissions by other parties and other means.
My position has changed. While I still believe that the death penalty is appropriate it should reflect a level of proof not now required. It's really simple; There needs to be NO DOUBT. I should add, once this burden is met, it shouldn't take 14 years to execute the sentence.
The above brings us to the question framed in the title. Does my change in position constitute a flip-flop or would it more fairly be described as a carefully considered evolution of thought?
Is the flip-flop label applicable whenever someone changes or modifies their previously stated positions or should it be reserved for special cases? Is a flip-flop good or bad?
Case 1: Sen. John McCain co-sponsors a bill with Sen Ted Kennedy addressing the illegal immigration issue. Oversimplifying the bill, it basically offered a path to attain legal status. The conservatives called it amnisty and McCain almost went to defeat in the primary. He has since stated,"I got the message." He has since modified his position. He now says his first concern is securing the border.
Case 2: Sen. Barack Obama takes the position early in the primary season that he is in favor of public financing of campaigns which would limit the amount of fundraising and make for a "level playing field" in the general election campaign. He subsequently defeated Sen. Clinton and has set records in raising funds. He has recently decided that he will not abide by his earlier agreement and will not limit his campaign by living within the public financing pledge he made.
Both candidates have changed their positions. Should both be labled flip-flops? Further, is it a good or bad thing?
At issue is whether the reassessment is based on a change in the candidate's philosophical foundation or on political expedience. Has McCain altered his fundamental beliefs or is he recognizing the political reality that Americans want a secure border. Is there any doubt that McCain is still committed to immigration reform but has come to understand that the first priority must be border enforcement?
When he made the pledge and voiced his strong support for the "level playing field" offered through public financing, he was trailing Sen. Clinton and was a long shot. After a successful primary his campaign benefitted from unprecedented levels of contributions. In fairness, the question must be asked. Did anything happen that would cause Sen. Obama to reassess his earlier stated position or did the change simply reflect the reality that by foregoing public financing he would most likely have a 2 to 1 capital advantage?
The Edge
Cases have come to my attention over the last several years leading me to believe that our legal system is seriously flawed. Many on death row have been cleared through DNA evidence, admissions by other parties and other means.
My position has changed. While I still believe that the death penalty is appropriate it should reflect a level of proof not now required. It's really simple; There needs to be NO DOUBT. I should add, once this burden is met, it shouldn't take 14 years to execute the sentence.
The above brings us to the question framed in the title. Does my change in position constitute a flip-flop or would it more fairly be described as a carefully considered evolution of thought?
Is the flip-flop label applicable whenever someone changes or modifies their previously stated positions or should it be reserved for special cases? Is a flip-flop good or bad?
Case 1: Sen. John McCain co-sponsors a bill with Sen Ted Kennedy addressing the illegal immigration issue. Oversimplifying the bill, it basically offered a path to attain legal status. The conservatives called it amnisty and McCain almost went to defeat in the primary. He has since stated,"I got the message." He has since modified his position. He now says his first concern is securing the border.
Case 2: Sen. Barack Obama takes the position early in the primary season that he is in favor of public financing of campaigns which would limit the amount of fundraising and make for a "level playing field" in the general election campaign. He subsequently defeated Sen. Clinton and has set records in raising funds. He has recently decided that he will not abide by his earlier agreement and will not limit his campaign by living within the public financing pledge he made.
Both candidates have changed their positions. Should both be labled flip-flops? Further, is it a good or bad thing?
At issue is whether the reassessment is based on a change in the candidate's philosophical foundation or on political expedience. Has McCain altered his fundamental beliefs or is he recognizing the political reality that Americans want a secure border. Is there any doubt that McCain is still committed to immigration reform but has come to understand that the first priority must be border enforcement?
When he made the pledge and voiced his strong support for the "level playing field" offered through public financing, he was trailing Sen. Clinton and was a long shot. After a successful primary his campaign benefitted from unprecedented levels of contributions. In fairness, the question must be asked. Did anything happen that would cause Sen. Obama to reassess his earlier stated position or did the change simply reflect the reality that by foregoing public financing he would most likely have a 2 to 1 capital advantage?
The Edge
Friday, July 11, 2008
LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF
It seems that the motivation for starting a great number of projects arises from anger, frustration and the feeling that someone just has to do something and it may as well be me. This is true in the case of this blog which I have named for what I believe is lacking in the main stream as well as alternative media including the blogosphere, ie: intellectual honesty.
Call it spin or quotes (soundbites) taken out of context, it infuriates me when I hear purposefully interpreted comments from clearly agenda driven pundits and show hosts when I and frankly any fairminded person knows what was actually said and more importantly what was meant. I am left shouting at the radio or TV or slamming the paper down exclaiming "That's not what he said!". This practice has become so prevalent across the idealogical and political spectrum that I have reached the point that I decided I had to speak out.
I'm not so vain as to think this effort will change the way the media personalities ply their trade but I am hopeful that we can start to discuss the news and issues of the day in a rational and truthful way.
I have been told that to gain an audience I need to stake out and advocate certain positions and have a clear point of view. Well here's my position; Words are important and have power so they should be treated with respect. I will focus my efforts at being ethical and intellectually honest. When I hear a persons words being treated unfairly, I will use this forum to point it out.
There may be some folks that want to read and comment. I look forward to the discourse.
My first blog entry is complete. Hey, this wasn't so hard.
The Edge
Call it spin or quotes (soundbites) taken out of context, it infuriates me when I hear purposefully interpreted comments from clearly agenda driven pundits and show hosts when I and frankly any fairminded person knows what was actually said and more importantly what was meant. I am left shouting at the radio or TV or slamming the paper down exclaiming "That's not what he said!". This practice has become so prevalent across the idealogical and political spectrum that I have reached the point that I decided I had to speak out.
I'm not so vain as to think this effort will change the way the media personalities ply their trade but I am hopeful that we can start to discuss the news and issues of the day in a rational and truthful way.
I have been told that to gain an audience I need to stake out and advocate certain positions and have a clear point of view. Well here's my position; Words are important and have power so they should be treated with respect. I will focus my efforts at being ethical and intellectually honest. When I hear a persons words being treated unfairly, I will use this forum to point it out.
There may be some folks that want to read and comment. I look forward to the discourse.
My first blog entry is complete. Hey, this wasn't so hard.
The Edge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)