braindrips

Of Israel and the Arab World

2010-06-05T17:31:06Z

I'm currently working abroad in Nuremberg, Germany. As I was walking around I stumpled upon a Anti-Israel rally. Plenty of police were around to make sure the the protest was peaceful. As I watched the protest it dawned on me that, regardless of what you think of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the bottom line is that democracy works. Had a minority of Christians or Jews protested in a heavily Muslim country, there would have been violence. But yet here are a bunch of Turks and Algerians protesting Israel in a Christian Democracy. Why are there so many Turks in Germany? Because for the most part Turkey does not provide much opportunity for jobs. So the Turks come to Germany for jobs. Again, because Germany's years of Democracy and innovativeness has provided an opportunity to a foreign minority.

Israel remains one of the only Democracies in the Middle East. Many Arabs and Middle Eastern countries are repressed by their government....Iran...Syria to name a few.

Watching the protest made me very angry. Knowing that had I been in many parts of the Arab world, I would not have been able to protest and feel safe. And yet these people have the freedom to do this in a Western Democracy. How fair is that? And they are protesting against a goverment that stands for the very freedoms that allow them to protest.

The Republican Strategy To Bring Down America

2010-05-14T02:03:12Z

Throughout debates on health care, the financial crisis, confirmation of various cabinet members, energy policy, military policy, and many other subjects over the last year since Barack Obama took office, it has seemed like the Republicans have only had one thing to say: "No".

Republicans: The Party Of No

Although they continually claim that they have their own proposals and answers, they keep claiming that the Democrats are keeping them out of any policy-making meetings. Their resounding drumbeat during the health care debate was "Scrap it all and let's start over."

Finally, I see what their strategy is: Make as horrible a mess as possible of America and the government. Then, when elections come up, they can point the finger at the Democrats and scream "They did it! They're in charge!"

With so many threats and challenges that America and Americans face, I find this absolutely shameful. Although I've voted both Republican and Democrat over the years, I will have a very difficult time ever pressing the button for a Republican again.

It's time the American people turn off American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, Lost, and other mindless programs and care about what happens to America. Dig deeper than the 10 second sound-bites spewed by both Republicans and Democrats that are flashed during the commercial breaks, and take five minutes to contact YOUR representative and tell them to stop screwing around and get something done to help rather than trying to score political points.

There are serious problems facing America, and we need adults in Congress that are willing to sit down and figure out what's best for America; instead of sitting around trying to figure out how best to screw the other party.

The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of Congress - all of them - and so am I.

Mark

The Celebration of Profanity

2010-04-05T01:41:50Z

A while back when President Obama was signing the heath care reform bill, Joe Biden managed to make himself look even more foolish than what he normally is by commenting with an open mic about the health care bill. It's not necessarily the profanity that is upsetting. After all Cheney had some problems with profanity himself. It's the celebration of the profanity. It's the t-shirt. The twitter post. Friends, this is the type of people we elected. I thought the White House had a little bit of class. Unfortunately they're just as crass as the rest of us.

How Much Is A Human Life Worth?

2009-10-08T21:31:12Z

How Much Is A Human Life Worth?

In today's environment, where jobs are being cut, families are scrounging to get by, public assistance programs are being cut, and personal net worths have suffered a severe hit, President Obama is pushing health care reform. I certainly agree that something has to be done. Exactly what is a debate for another day. What I want to write about is something that I thought about while shaking my head at the mobs yelling about "death panels" and "rationing".

Of course, any organized insurance plan has a list of things that they will pay for. In the private insurance field, it's called a formulary. If your preferred pill is on the formulary, they will pay X amount per prescription. If your pill is not on that list, they usually won't pay a dime.

]]>

This list of drugs and treatments is put together by people in meeting rooms in some corporate office somewhere. Typically they are experts in the part of the list they are involved with. Cardiologists work on the heart pill section, while Oncologists work on the cancer pill section, and so forth. At some point, there are pills and treatments that they look at and say "No, we won't pay for that." So, when your doctor prescribes that pill or treatment and you try to get your insurance company to pay for it, they will say "No, we won't pay for that."

This is the same situation that Democrats have proposed and have been accused of putting together "death panels", while Republicans have been telling people to "die as quickly as possible." I don't see the big deal with the Democrats plan because it is exactly what exists in the private insurance sector today. Big companies like United Healthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield, as well as the small ones, have panels of people that decide what they will and will not pay for. I guess, in a sense, they all have death panels.

I don't blame insurance companies, though, because it's necessary for a company to decide what it will and will not pay for. It is much easier to determine what their claim costs will be so they can charge an appropriate premium to the insureds. They can't have Joe Blow submitting a claim for a $1 million stop smoking patch developed by his uncle Billy and be expected to pay for it. The company would quickly go out of business.

However, the difficult part comes in when the medical experts must sit down and parse hundreds of different drug treatments and medical procedures to decide which ones are the most likely to be the best treatment option for the most people. Some are no-brainers. Applying raw pickles to your left butt cheek will not cure cancer. Reducing blood pressure will reduce the risk of stroke. Simple.

But what about the thousands of variations between? At some point, they have to say "No" to a variation that will be the best treatment option for someone, but not the best treatment option for most people. Only by reducing the number of options can an insurance company successfully negotiate reduced rates for medicines, equipment, and treatments. Those economies of scale help to keep insurance rates down for their clients.

What they are really looking at is cost to benefit ratios. How much does it cost versus how much benefit will be received. When you look at hundreds or thousands of patients, it's easier to think of the numbers in chances. Drug A will cure disease X 99% of the time. Drug B will cure disease X 75% of the time. No brainer? For the big numbers, sure. But what about that 1% of people who may die while taking Drug A? What if they would have been cured under Drug B? Does the cost to benefit ratio make sense if you know that not paying for Drug B will kill 1% of the people?

People die every day because they could not afford to pay for the medical treatment they needed. People who would have been cured if they only had the money to pay for the treatment. However, they didn't have the money, so their option was to die.

Now, with the government considering a public health option, many people will believe that the government will pay for any and all medicines or treatments when they get sick. Should a public health option pass, they will be sorely upset to find that to be inaccurate. They'll believe that the government has plenty of money to spend, so they should get any treatment needed; or more accurately, they think they should get any treatment requested. However, a panel will decide what treatments will be paid for and which treatments will not. This is simply to control costs. Some will say this is unfair. Some will say they are murdering people who are too poor to pay for treatment and relied on the government in the first place.

So, in a round-about way, this led me to begin to consider: How much is a life worth?

Say you were in a doctor's office one day and a nurse approached you. Suppose that she told you that the person next to you had a fatal disease, but a treatment was available. There was a single pill they could take that was 100% effective at curing the illness. However, they needed you to decide if the government (i.e. taxpayers) was going to pick up the tab. Some silly government regulation requires you to okay the expenditure (suspend logic for a moment. Imagine you're in Congress). The cost of the pill would be divided by the number of taxpayers and each person would pay an equal share on their next tax year filing. Sounds fair to me.

So, how much is this magic pill? It's $100.

Duh, give me the pen. No brainer, right? Sure.

What about $1,000? Sure.

What about $100,000. Well, okay. Spread out across all taxpayers, that's not that much.

What about $1,000,000? See where this is going? A cool million could do a lot of different things, but perhaps the person's life is worth it. It's a guaranteed cure, so I'd probably sign.

What about $1,000,000,000 (a billion dollars). That could really help a lot of people, instead of just one. I don't know if I'd sign.

What about $1,000,000,000,000 (a trillion dollars). I'm pretty sure I wouldn't sign. First, that's a lot of money that each taxpayer is going to have to pay. Assuming 200,000,000 taxpayers (two hundred million), that would be an extra $50,000 in taxes for each taxpayer. I'm sure most of the taxpayers couldn't afford such a financial hit. How would you explain to them that they needed to fork out $50,000 for this stranger?

Now, what if the person was a ten-year-old kid? What if they were ninety-five-years-old? Does that change how much you think their life is worth? Probably.

So, this exercise simply asks the question: How much is a life worth?

The answer is: I don't know for sure, but a human life does seem to have a price tag - at least for me.

What about for you? What do you think a human life is worth?

Mark

Healthcare Reform In America

2009-08-21T13:32:52Z

After watching a newscast of a Barney Frank town hall meeting that was disgraceful, I was furious. The town hall meeting that was meant to be full of concerned citizens wanting information or those who had legitimate concerns was actually packed with vocal health industry hit-men and women who were spouting lies and trying to scare the senior citizens there. They kept bringing up the lies about 'death panels", the government having access to your bank account, rationing, and the stripping of benefits for the elderly on Medicare. LIES! ALL LIES!

After seeing that, I had to write a letter to each of the Kansas Senators and Representative who (supposedly) represents fellow Kansans. My letter follows:

*******************

]]> Senator Sam Brownback, KS August 20, 2009

303 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Re: Support for healthcare reform legislation

Senator Brownback,

I hope that the legislative session is treating you well. I am writing today to voice my support for legislation to help reform the healthcare system in the United States of America.

I first must express my disgust at the tactics being used in an attempt to derail legitimate conversation regarding healthcare change. As a former Republican who currently identifies myself as an independent voter, it only underscores the validity of my decision to no longer identify myself as a Republican.

As an average American, what I see from my living room is this: health insurance and healthcare companies whose profits are threatened are walking lock-step with profits-first Republicans to do almost anything to block any form of legislation that would slow the wide-open spigot of money flowing into those companies. It is obvious to me that various organizations are sending very vocal plants to town hall meetings and demonstrations. They present themselves as average, concerned citizens in order to spread lies and rumors to those who are attempting to gain information and engage in a thoughtful discussion. It is particularly shameful that this deception and these practices extend upward through the ranks of radio and television talk-show hosts and, seemingly, into Congress itself. This behavior has done one thing for me: it has solidified my stance that legislative changes to the health system must be pushed through despite the fear-mongering and outright lying from some.

As a true average American citizen, I am outraged at the behavior shown in the hallowed halls of Congress. In my younger, more naïve years, I imagined Congress as a collection of intelligent, honest representatives of the people. I know now that a portion of those walking the same halls John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan walked are as dishonest as they come and are only there to represent their own and their friends' wallets.

I will state that I am in favor of a government insurance plan as an alternative to private health insurance. This option should be open to anyone who cannot obtain private insurance or when private insurance is beyond their fiscal means. I am also in favor of the plan being available to anyone who chooses to join the plan on their own accord, assuming a sliding-scale premium based on income.

I am opposed to mandating that small businesses contribute to health insurance for their employees, but would be in favor of tax incentives to small businesses who do contribute. I believe that many small businesses just could not afford the additional cost on top of the current government-mandated costs for each employee.

I am in favor of eliminating tax breaks for large insurance companies who report record profits year after year. The only reason to pad the insurance company's pockets with taxpayer money is greed, and that should be stopped. The taxpayer money saved could be better utilized by helping to provide additional health care to those in need. While you're at it, drop the tax breaks for the oil companies who are recording all-time world-record profits in a time when most average Americans are struggling financially. That additional taxpayer money could also go toward healthcare spending or toward reducing the deficit.

I sincerely hope that there is serious, intelligent conversation going on within the halls and behind closed doors of Congress. I understand the competition that low-cost, government-run healthcare presents to private health insurers and providers. Hopefully a middle-ground approach can be found that would lessen the impact to them. However, at this time in history, I believe that too many have-nots are suffering in a country of plenty to justify sustaining the status-quo for greed's sake.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Mark

Twitter Will Die

2009-05-04T20:55:32Z

Off all the recent social networking tools which have recently come of age, Twitter has to be one of the most fickle ways of communicating.

Is this what communication has come to? Text based messages of 140 characters or less? What profound idea could be expressed in 140 characters or less? What is particularly disturbing is that once legitament news media outlets are promoting this netspeak phenomenon. I tried reading Twitter posts, but they come out as being nothing more than what a middle school girl would text to her friend right before class starts.

Consequently only 40% of Twitter users return the following month. By definition Twitter users are forced to have a short attention span, and consequently will find other things to devote their time to. This is why Twitter will die. I'm predicting by the end of Summer 2009. You will stop hearing about your local television news station having a Twitter, and we will have more time for promotion of whatever is the next big thing. And somehow I'm already dreading being told of yet another internet service that I MUST sign up for in order to stay connected.

AIG Bonuses Will Not Be Recovered

2009-03-18T16:14:26Z

Right now there is a lot of hand-wringing and outcry about $165 Million that was paid out in bonuses by AIG. People in government and in the media have suggested several remedies; none of them will work. The best course of action is to shake your head and move on. A majority of those bonuses will not be recovered. Nor should they be.

People don't realize several things about those bonuses.

]]>

Many of those bonuses are due to contractual obligations. AIG signed contracts that said, essentially, "You do this, you get this bonus." Well, those people met the contractual obligation, whatever that was, and will be paid that bonus. A contract, especially a business contract, is a difficult instrument to change or undo. And, in many cases, there are penalties for breaking a contract; so AIG would have the option of paying the bonus, or paying the default penalties and get a black eye. It's better to just pay the bonus and non-renew the contract. The two parties could agree to rewrite the contract, but that takes agreement. If you worked your ass off for a bonus, did nothing wrong, would you give up what you were deserved? Put it in these terms: If you boss came to you and said "The company's in a bad financial position, and we want you to give up one month's salary." Would you?

What if the receiver of the bonus cannot afford to give it up?

What if that person, let's name him Steve, hired employees, rented buildings, and bought equipment so that he could achieve the objective to get the bonus? Perhaps Steve took out a one year loan to finance his dramatic expansion and was relying on that bonus to pay off that loan. If Steve doesn't get the bonus, Steve has to lay off all of his employees, auction off his equipment (or return it to the leasing company, probably with early lease termination penalties), and try to get out of the building lease he signed. Steve may have even put up his personal assets (house) to finance the deal. What is Steve to do? He cannot afford to give up the bonus. Furthermore, he shouldn't have to. He didn't do anything wrong. It was AIG that made bad bets. Steve was successful. The government taking that bonus away from Steve is government punishing Steve for its own mistakes. AIG doesn't lose. The government doesn't lose. Steve loses, and so do his employees and family.

Several people have mentioned taxing the AIG bonuses at 100%. First, a tax law written for a specific company is unconstitutional. They could create a law that says "Bonuses received from any company receiving a bailout are taxed at 100%." Great. Define "bonus". Good luck. What if the bonus is stock options? Or company stock to be issued at a future date? How do you tax an intangible financial asset that isn't received yet? A law to encompass all of the possibilities fairly is not possible.

Many of the people receiving the bonuses aren't even in the U.S. So U.S. tax laws don't apply to them anyway. They bank the bonus and move on.

Others have suggested that AIG should "pay back" the bonus money to the government before they get their next installment of bailout money. Great. How about this deal, from me to you: I'll give you $1 Million dollars, but you have to give me $5 first. Feel free to borrow it from a buddy and pay it back tomorrow. Or, even easier, I'll just deduct it from the $1 Million I'm going to give you. Problem solved. Great.

Some have said "Bailout money can't be used for bonuses." So, "other" money can be used? Fine, then move $165 Million out of the reserve fund to pay bonuses and then move $165 Million from the bailout money into the reserve fund to replace it. Technically, the money wasn't used for bonuses. It was used to rebalance a balance sheet item. Once money was put into AIG, the government lost all control over that money. It was AIG's money to spend as they see fit.

The bottom line is this: The government made a hugely bad decision by believing they could prop up all of these companies without losing any control over the money they pumped into them. You can let relatives borrow money, but good luck telling them how to spend it.

The best course of action is to just shake your head and move on. The bonuses are not coming back, nor should they. The government is getting a huge black eye from the giveout... er bailout, and it isn't over yet. The government continues to pump taxpayer money into companies that are too big or too integral to the U.S. economy to fail - whatever that means.

Instead of giving out $1 trillion to banks, the government should have split that money up between every U.S. citizen 18 and older. The citizens would then put that money in their savings account at banks or spend it. The banks would then have the funds they need to balance their books and start lending again, and the extra consumer spending would have buoyed the economy. But, the government decided to trust CEOs and Wall Street money makers instead of citizens. Wrong answer, we all lose. The big wigs pocket the money and taxpayers (current and future) are left holding the tremendously heavy bag.

Mark

Why Banning Lawnmowers Will Not Stop Global Warming

2009-03-12T16:45:01Z

Now, let me first say that I believe that the Earth is warming. Second, let me be very clear that humans are not the sole cause for it; and here is why I believe this:

Although there are many theories and computer models that predict catastrophe based on the data supplied, the models are not perfect, and they don't include every variable involved. These models are based on our current understanding of the climate, which is not total. We are learning more every day, and as we do, those models are being changed. Have you noticed how notoriously bad your local weather forecast has become over the last few years? That's because they switched models, and although those models included more variables, they were prone to be wrong more often because the information fed into them was either inaccurate or the model was not calibrated properly. The same happens with global climate modeling.

Again, I do believe that the climate is warming, but I believe it is 99% due to natural cycle and 1% due to human activities (rough estimate of percentages). Why do I believe this? Because of several things:

]]>

First, few people know that NASA found that Venus, Mars, and Jupiter were all experiencing increases in average global temperature over the last several years. The last I read, they didn't know why. Some speculated that an increase in Solar output was to blame, but they didn't have data to prove one way or the other. So, can we blame humans for global warming on Venus, Mars, and Jupiter? If not, then why is Earth's global warming caused by humans, but not by the same cause that is heating Venus, Mars, and Jupiter? I argue that all four planets are being affected by the same thing; and it's not a human cause.

Second, the data that "scientists" are looking at is over the last twenty or thirty years - since satellites started taking global measurements. Anyone that knows anything about history knows that such a short time span is like taking a single 5-minute period of a day and extrapolating from it what would happen over a year. So, if you measured the temperature at 8:00AM to be 60F, and then checked at 8:05AM and found it to be 62F, then could you truly say that the temperature would rise two degrees every five minutes for a year? Holy cow, the temperature after a year would be over 350,000F!! So, why are the scientists taking a 30 year period, adding in a lot of assumptions because they don't really know how it all works, and extrapolating what will happen over the next 100 to 200 years?

I am amazed when these so-called "scientists" say over and over that they've done studies and found X. Such as saying that "the ice sheets are melting, we can't let that happen!!" Why not? According to scientists, the ice sheets weren't always there. In fact, many of these scientists say things like "it hasn't been at this level for a few thousand years." Is that so? Then why was it like that a few thousand years ago? Did cave men burn too much firewood and cause the pre-historical ice sheets to melt? No. It was due to natural climatological cycles. Cycles that we cannot stop and we must simply deal with as they happen.

Few people also are unaware of the 21,000 year precessional wobble that the Earth's axis takes. Simply put, the axis of the Earth's rotation wobbles like a top. Every 21,000 years, it makes a full cycle. So, every 11,000 years, the seasons in the northern and southern hemisphere swap. In 11,000 years, June 22nd (or thereabouts since calendars are subject to error too) will mark the SHORTEST day of the year in the northern hemisphere. That's right, June will be Winter for North America and Australia will be basking in the warmth. Take this quote from Space.com article http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/orbit_climate_010212.html :

"About 23 million years ago, a huge ice sheet spread over Antarctica, temporarily reversing a general trend of global warming, decreasing ice volume and ushering in a generally calm climatic period. The new study suggests this period corresponded with a rare combination of events in the pattern of Earth's trek around the Sun."

What?!?! A global warming trend 23 million years ago? Where were the humans? Not around yet, it turns out. So, it must be a NATURAL phenomenon that causes these trends.

Another fact that few people know: Manhattan Island in the U.S. (where New York City is) was created by a glacier. As it spread south, it pushed rock and dirt ahead of it. It got as far as where Manhattan Island is before stopping and then retreating (melting). The leading edge of rubble and rock is Manhattan Island!! So, where'd the glacier go? It melted! Not due to humans; due to NATURAL global warming.

I'll wrap up by saying this: I absolutely believe that humans have a responsibility to keep the environment as clean as we possibly can. We need to do this for the health of humans and animals that live here. However, we should not falsely claim that by eliminating fossil fuel cars and machinery we can stop global warming. It just will not be so. Just like sailors once held firmly to the belief that if you sailed far enough, you'd fall off the edge of the Earth, stopping all internal combustion engines will not stop global warming.

Think about it...

Mark

Israeli Navy Should Have Sunk Rep. McKinney

2008-12-31T17:54:56Z

Perhaps the rest of the world doesn't know the supreme power and importance of former U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney. The Israeli Navy certainly doesn't, since they nearly sunk the pleasure boat (aka relief vessel) she was riding in as it tried to evade the Israeli Navy blockade.

Of course, they may have not seen her with all of the other people on board, such as doctors, nurses, and other aid workers. That is understandable, and certainly gives McKinney the right to blame the Israeli Navy for seeking out their pleasure craft on a mission of aid to attack.

Oh, get over yourself Cynthia. You have absolutely no room to blame anyone except yourself for being rammed by the Israeli Navy ship. You were on a ship that was attempting to break through a military blockade. HELLO!? I would have been fine reading a story about how the Navy had sunk your vessel and you had drowned. Perhaps the story should have included a few warning shots followed by a missile into the fuel tank of your vessel. That would have gotten a chuckle out of me for sure. In the words of President Bush: Bring her to justice.

]]>

You see, former Rep. McKinney earned herself a bad name in my book by showing up in headline after headline that proved one thing: That Cynthia McKinney believes she is superior to everyone else. She proved that when she assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer -- because he asked to see her ID. My GOD, who did he think he was dealing with? It was obviously the vastly superior Cynthia McKinney (THE Cynthia McKinney) that was in his presence. He should have run in front of her with a broom and swept away any dirt that may have contacted her shoe. Instead, he chose to do his job, like he had done for every other Congressman and Congresswoman that entered the building every single day.

It seemed that every few months there would be another headline about Cynthia breaking some law or generally being a nuisance and blaming others because they didn't know who she was.

So, to say that Cynthia McKinney didn't know that what she was doing was illegal, or that she believed that she had the moral right to accompany the other lawbreakers trying to undermine the Israeli Government would be giving her the benefit of doubt. There should be no doubt why she was on that boat: She believed she was above the law, above the Israeli Government, and above the Israeli Navy. For that, I would have chuckled to see a headline portraying her demise. Maybe another day will see her foolishness lead her to glory.

Although the others on that vessel were supreme idiots for attempting to break a navy blockade, I haven't heard the same idiotic comments about the meanness of the Israeli Navy flowing from their mouths. They should count themselves lucky to have been able to get the boat to shore. Perhaps they should consider appealing to Hamas to end the bloodshed so that the Palestinians will finally be able to have a peaceful life. But, that's a discussion for another post...

For now, I'll leave it at the Israeli Navy should have sunk former Rep. McKinney.

Mark

Moving Voting to the 21st Century

2008-10-20T02:06:38Z

Yesterday I attempted to cast my vote during the early voting. However once I arrived I found the line to be much too long for the convenience to be worthwhile. The whole purpose for me to ulitize early voting was to bypass long lines. So I decided to try again later on in the week or maybe even wait until election day.

Which begs the question: Why does the voting process in the world's greatest democracy have to be so painful? Why can't elections be held over a long period of time at multi-locations? (I know, it's called "early voting").

Those who control the voting process - i.e. the elected officials and political appointees obviously want the status quo to be maintained. So no major changes in the way we do elections since the start of this democracy. One always as to go to their designated polling place near their home to cast their ballot. Always register months ahead of time; all the while making the process difficult to understand to those of us used to convenience.

Why not utilize online voting via the internet? Have a login username such as one's SSN. A password in the form of a PIN number could be mail to the voter a few weeks before the election. Then at the designated time, one could cast their vote online from the convenience of their home or workplace.

Online voting is not going to happen for many years to come. The old hats are too afraid of voter faud, even though they themselves transfer other forms of sensitive information via the internet such as making a credit card transaction and online banking. Those in charge want a papertrail.

I find it interesting that I've never been asked to provide a photo ID at the traditional polling place. A voter card seems to suffice. So the traditional way of voting seems to be just a prone to fraud as the 21st century way of voting.

Sarah Palin - Okay, I'm Officially Scared Now

2008-09-25T16:16:56Z

Okay. I know it was only a couple of days ago that I wrote that Palin was energetic, but that wasn't enough. However, recent developments have caused an even further shift into the "must be a token skirt" column.

Sarah Palin, the nominee to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States, has been kept away from the press for good reason: She don't know crap 'bout nothin'!!

When she has been allowed to speak to the press, she is usually unable to answer any specific questions. She talks in vague generalities while emphatically stating that she and John McCain are ready to assume the top spots in the country.

For instance, Katie Couric asked Palin in a recent interview about legislative stances on economic issues regarding regulation to "... give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?"

]]> What was Palin's response? Was it a laundry list of examples? No. Was it a top ten? No. A top three? Nope. Palin's response was: "I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you."

WHAT?!?! A month from an election to make her the Vice President of the United States of America and she can't list even ONE instance when McCain has taken a stand on economic issues? What have she and McCain been talking about on that thar' Straight Talk Express?

But, on the other hand, when she does happen to mention specifics, she is usually followed by John McCain or a campaign spokesperson who "clarifies" or outright corrects what she had said. After she told Couric that the U.S. would drop into another Great Depression if the $700 billion government bailout wasn't passed, John McCain "clarified" their stance by saying: "I don't think we need to scare people, but I do think we need to tell people the truth," he said.

Some have defended her by comparing her lack of political insight to Ronald Reagan. He was seen as a Hollywood outsider that lacked the political knowledge to be president. Of course, he showed everyone wrong. However, Palin ain't no Reagan.

Even Laura Bush was called in to defend her lack of foreign policy experience by saying "I think that she is a very quick study and fortunately John McCain does have that experience." That's what we need one heartbeat away from the presidency: A quick study.

The McCain campaign has attempted to bolster her foreign policy appearance by having her meet with foreign dignitaries, though. (Like she needed it? I mean, come on, she can see Russia from one of the Alaskan islands, right? What other foreign policy experience do you need?) The response from the dignitaries has been seemingly unanimous about Palin: Boy, she sure is pretty. Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari called her "gorgeous" and went as far to indicate that he'd like to hug her. An "official" hug or one that was off the record? But when pressed about her readiness to be the Vice President, those at the U.N. who had met her and would answer were seemingly unanimous too: She's not ready.

So, why am I scared? Because the Republican campaign (supposedly) looked at her credentials and approved her to go on the short list of potential running mates. Then, John McCain compared her credentials against the others on the short list - including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Anne Richards, and other tremendously qualified individuals - and said "Yep, she's the best." WHAT?!?!?!

I honestly hope that they didn't pick her because she was an attractive Republican woman governor with the hopes that they could quickly train her to speak on command and regurgitate what they feed her to the press. I sincerely hope that the Reublican party has not stooped so low. Perhaps it's just a case of "she looked good on paper".

But, if the polls are correct, it appears that Sarah Palin will soon be returning to Alaska to finish her term as Governor. The polls indicate that Barak Obama and Joe Biden are pulling away and gaining steam. We can only hope that the American people realize the same come November 4th.

Mark

No Bailout For Corporate Gambling Debts

2008-09-23T21:42:41Z

I wanted to share this letter that I sent to my two U.S. Senators and Representative in Washington today.

************************************************************************************************

RE: Financial Bailout Plan Opposition

I know your time is valuable, but I must speak up at this time. I want to record my opposition to the bailout as described by Secretary Paulson and Mr. Bernanke.

It is my opinion that the bailout is in opposition to the capitalist system that we rely upon. Such a bailout simply rewards those individuals who were too greedy to establish solid financial planning. There are thousands of U.S. businesses that are not on the verge of bankruptcy today due to their diligence and fiscal responsibility. Instead of rewarding the huge gambling losses that these people racked up, we need to focus on supporting those fiscally strong companies through government backed loans to those who wish to fill the gaps that would be made by the failure of the weak ones. I would trust my tax money to those companies who are responsible over those who took my money for services and lost it on a gamble.

I certainly understand that there will be a financial impact throughout the economy, but we cannot be so afraid of it that we abandon the principles that make this country strong. The United States is a strong country and we will pull through. In a capitalist society, the weak companies will fail or be taken over by the strong companies. That is how it should be. Government should create regulations to make sure that company executives are properly held accountable for mismanagment or fiduciary irresponsibility. Companies like Bank of America can step in at times like these and take advantage of the situation because they planned properly throughout the years and are a strong company. By bailing out those who gambled and lost, we set the precedent that if you gamble big and lose big, the government will bail you out. If you are fiscally responsible and lose, then tough luck, that's capitalism.

Again, I realize that not bailing out those institutions will lead to multiple financial shockwaves as they fall, but I believe it will lead to a much stronger fiscal mindset in company executives in the future. That, I believe, will lead to a much stronger United States of America. After watching the events of the last two years unfold, I believe we all want a stronger financial system in the U.S.

I thank you for your service to our community and our country in the Legislature. Have a great day.

************************************************************************************************

Mark

Palin Is Energetic - But That's Not Enough

2008-09-18T02:06:19Z

When a presidential candidate is looking for a vice presidential candidate to run with him, what does he put on the list of qualifications? I have heard countless political analysts talk about the symbiotic and complementary characteristics that the running mate should have. They should have strengths where the presidential candidate has weaknesses.

However, there is a list of things that both of the candidates should have in common - ideology, good character, excellent knowledge of domestic and foreign situations, excellent grasp on macro-economics, and proven experience in highly stressful situations where they are forced to make difficult decisions on the fly.

When John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was one of the millions of watchers out there who collectively said - WHO? My first gut reaction was that he had picked an unknown woman to be - as my father-in-law says - "a token skirt". I drew a deep breath and declared the election over and done with.
]]> But over the next week I began to read about the great Sarah Palin - or Barracuda, if you like. It seems that she is a highly energetic woman who has shot to the top of Alaskan politics by running on energy, honesty, and a campaign of change. Good for her. Good for Alaska. I began to wonder if I had been to harsh and had judged her too quickly. I saw the polls begin to shift toward a McCain presidency and wondered how wrong I was.

Then the dirt began to fly - her daughter's pregnancy, Trooper-gate (where's G. Gordon Liddy?), "What does a vice-president do?" she says, and her vague tough talk on the economy where she demands that something needs to be done and they're the ones to do it. Whatever needs to be done is never mentioned, of course, but by God, they'll get the job done!

Today her e-mail account was hacked and Alaskan state business e-mails were posted to a public website. The hackers didn't need to wade through encrypted VPN tunnels, domain authentication, 3DES passwords, or anything fancy that the Alaskan IT folks have put together. Why is that, you ask? Because the vice presidential candidate was using Yahoo e-mail to conduct Alaskan government business.

As an IT professional, I am responsible for security on our corporate network. I deal with encrypted VPN tunnels, software patching, encrypted file systems, and everything else that keeps our stuff in and the bad guys out. We don't let our employees use public e-mail systems from work because of the security risk. Using a public e-mail system for business use would be grounds for termination. But here we have the proposed vice president of the United States of America using a public e-mail system for government e-mails. I personally am in awe and shock, to borrow another well-worn phrase.

The more I look at Sarah Palin, the more I see how totally unqualified for the position she is. With McCain's age and health, many people say we need to put added emphasis on the "what if he dies in office" argument. I think that argument needs to be weighed heavily for EVERY vice presidential candidate. Accidents happen. People have unexplained aneurysms and heart attacks. Planes and helicopters crash. Psychos shoot guns. It is possible that any sitting president might die in office, not just one who would be starting at 72 years old. He would be 76 when he finished his first term and 80 if he was re-elected, so his death in office would be a morbid consideration Americans need to consider.

McCain's death in office would promote Palin to the presidency. The woman who can see Russia from an Alaskan island, and claims that as foreign policy experience, would then be in charge of treaties with other countries and dealing with heads of state around the world. They wouldn't be lenient on her; they would want specifics on the spot. When asked about specifics about her grasp of international affairs, she could only say "I am prepared...I have that confidence. I have that readiness. And if you want specifics with specific policies or countries, you can go ahead and ask me. You can play 'stump the candidate' if you want to. But we are ready to serve."

I'm not worried about a 'stump the candidate' game. I am worried about a very serious 'stump the president of the United States' when Putin comes calling, or when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends his navy out to shoot at our navy again, or when Hugo Chavez plays games with Cuba again. Palin's lack of experience could lead to two things - inaction due to uncertainty or improper action due to lack of experience but the need to act.

So, I am left wondering why McCain chose Palin. Sure, she's energetic, but is that enough? I don't think so.

Mark

Counting Electoral Votes

2008-09-12T01:20:00Z

I was wrong. I figured Sarah Palin would cripple the McCain ticket. If anything she has energized the ticket. It's still anybody's game.

To illustrate this, look at he electorial map to the right. This was a snapshot from August 18, 2004, of the electorial vote polling from Electoral-Vote.com.

Kerry 317, Bush 202.

The 2nd map to the right is today's map.

Obama 273 McCain 238

It could go either way depending on how many voters turn out and who stays home.

It'll be an interesting election night.

McCain's Hail Mary

2008-08-31T05:51:44Z

On August 29th, John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate. It was considered by some to be a hail mary pass for a lagging campaign. Consider this. Palin's public experience has amounted to being mayor of a town with less than 9000 residents and being governor of Alaska for approximately 20 months. That's it. Although I admire her values and her energy, I don't think she is the best choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Somehow VP picks have been less about experience and more of a beauty contest and a balance of the ticket. Consider Dan Quayle. Bush 41 picked him for youth. Did he contribute to the cabinet as a whole? Probably not as much as the more experienced advisers in the Bush camp.
Ten years from now we'll talk about Sarah Palin like we talk about Admiral Stockdale. An asterisk for the history books. A discussion subject for VH1's "I Love 2008."

Obama is going to win this thing. The writing is on the wall.