Happy 8th Anniversary Sweetheart!

Today is the 8th anniversary of me somehow fooling the most wonderful, worthy, capable woman in the world into marrying me. I certainly have no regrets. I married far above my station. Everything I've achieved since then has been because of Becky's influence. I was going to do a list of all the eventful things we've done together , but that would be REALLY nerdy and unromantic, and since I'm nerdy and unromantic the other 364 days of the year, I though I'd try something new.

Since Becky blogged me a sonnet, I'm going to return the favor:

So oft have I invoked thee for my Muse
And found such fair assistance in my verse
As every alien pen hath got my use
And under thee their poesy disperse.
Thine eyes that taught the dumb on high to sing
And heavy ignorance aloft to fly
Have added feathers to the learned's wing
And given grace a double majesty.
Yet be most proud of that which I compile,
Whose influence is thine and born of thee:
In others' works thou dost but mend the style,
And arts with thy sweet graces graced be;
But thou art all my art and dost advance
As high as learning my rude ignorance.

So, Happy Anniversary to you, my muse, my friend, my inspiration, my wife. Thank you for giving my life "double majesty" I look forward to many, many more years of fun.

Love, Chris

When Are You Moving?

WARNING: this is a LONG, dry, economics rant post. Beware!

"When are you moving?"

I get asked this question every time I mention that we live in Ogden, but I work in Provo. The people asking the question have a point. A 156 mile round-trip commute isn't the most pleasant part of my day, and on snow days I often can't get either down or back.

The short answer is . . . who knows!

Here follows the long answer:

I do know why we haven't moved yet. Besides the wonderful generosity of family, for which we are very grateful, housing prices are not . . . shall we say . . . stable. MSNBC has an article today about the housing market. Apparently none of the measures being taken by the Federal Reserve have done anything to stem the tide of foreclosures or to increase the number of homeowners or the median price of a house. They have a spiffy graphic showing what housing prices have done since 1999:

Now, this raises two questions in my mind.

1. Why are homes worth more in the middle of every year and less at the beginning and end?
2. How does this track with median income changes over the same period?

I have no comment on the first question, and I only asked the second because I already knew the answer. That's why I'm writing this post.

So, as to question 2 - the amount a family can afford to pay for a house is related to their income. "Well. . . duh!" you say. Bear with me. It's more obvious when you think about housing prices in terms of years of income. In the UK, for example, the size of a mortgage you can qualify for equals 3 times your annual income (ignoring all other factors). Thus if you earn $50,000, then you can get a $150,000 mortgage. The ratio in the US is a bit more generous, but, same idea. With that in mind, let's look at another chart (thank you Wikipedia):

If you'll notice, median income peaked in 1999. Since then it has declined.

Everyone assumes the housing market was healthy in 1999. So, we'll start there. In 1999 median income was about $46,000, and the average home cost about $138,000 (just eyeballing the chart for the end of the year). That works out to . . . let's see . . . carry the 2 . . . oh, yeah, 3 times the median income. Those mortgage people were on to something. I'll call this 3:1 ratio a "healthy ratio."

Now let's look at 2005. Housing prices that year were $230,000 for most of the year, while median income had declined to $45,326. That comes out to over 5 times the median income. Not a healthy ratio.

When I look at the numbers that way, it's perfectly obvious why houses aren't selling. The latest income figures available are for 2007. They show that median income has risen slightly since 2005. It was about $50,000 in 2007. the housing slump was in full swing in 2007, so for that year the ratio declined from 4.6 times median income to 4 times median income.

What really gives me pause is this:

Looking at the income chart, median income starts to slide before every recession, and continues to decline till well after the recovery is underway. As every news outlet in the country recent told us, we are in a recession. Chances are good, therefore, that median income is falling, and has been for a while. (we don't get income figures till after the fact).

If this is one of the sharpest recessions ever, as we are reminded daily, chances are median income will fall steeply, and housing prices will continue to follow until well after the recovery is underway.

With that in mind, I'm going to make some predictions. Since they will be memorialized on the internet, we'll all see what my predictions are worth in a few years. (it's really win-win: if, as is most likely, I'm wrong, you'll all know to stop wasting your time reading my blog, and I'll know to keep my mouth shut on topics of which I am ignorant). These are also the reasons, in my mind, we aren't moving yet:

• I think housing prices will return to something much closer to the "healthy" 3:1 ratio they were at in 1999.
• Prices won't even begin to recover until unemployment starts to fall, and median income starts to increase at the earliest. (probably more like 6 months later).
• All the fancy things lenders did to make up for the increasing gap between income and housing prices are gone for good.
• I think the national median home price will easily fall below $150,000

I think the low prices will stay around a while because 1) All the speculators fueling shows like "Flip this House" lost their shirts (and good riddance), and 2) Lenders will be gun shy for a while, given the number of banks that went under from bad mortgages.

We'll see what happens, but I'm not optimistic for the next few years.


PS - Sorry for the abrupt ending, I tried to think of a good closing with a smooth transition and a hard-hitting conclusion, but I couldn't. The thoughts have stopped, hence so does the post.

...

Who Knew Detroit Was This Bad? - Part II

As a former Michigan resident, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the state . . . well most of the state. I never did learn to like Detroit. I did learn to pity it, however. I have written previously about the problems facing Detroit. Here are some updated factoids, courtesy of MSNBC:

• The jobless rate has climbed past 21 percent
• There are 15 candidates for the Feb. 24 special mayoral election necessitated by the conviction of [mayor] Kwame Kilpatrick for trying to cover up an affair with a former top aide.
• The city's deficit is approaching $300 million, and he ordered all departments to cut their budgets by 10 percent.
• Several dozen schools have been closed in the past three years
• The FBI's latest statistics, for 2007, show Detroit with the highest violent crime rate of any major city. . . some offenders, notably those without homes of their own, were now expressing reluctance to leave jail when their sentences were done. (But, on the bright side, "property crime in some Detroit neighborhoods [has] stabilized or declined because targets of opportunity [are] fewer now that most remaining residents are poor and many of the homes have been abandoned and cannibalized.")
  
• About 44,000 of the 67,000 homes that have gone into foreclosure since 2005 remain empty, and it costs about $10,000 to demolish each vacant house. (do the math, and that means 440 million dollars just to tear down vacant housing created within the last three years).
• The residential real estate market is catastrophic, with the Detroit Board of Realtors now pegging the average price of a home in the city at $18,513. (According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400).

Keep in mind these stats were likely taken before the recent near-collapse of the American auto industry. If the "Big 3" go under, it may just be time to admit that the city has failed, move everyone out and just plow everything under. Over half the population has left in the last 50 years. I've never heard of a city being depopulated like that, not since the black plague in the Middle Ages.

One observer does manage to diagnose the root of the problem, however:

"Up until the '70s, you could come to the city without education, without speaking English, and get a job in the auto industry and instantly be in the middle class, economically speaking," said Mike Stewart, director of Wayne State's Walter P. Reuther Library and an expert on the auto industry. "A lot of folks in the city depended on these jobs for generations — they don't exist anymore," he said. "A lot of Detroiters are unprepared, educationally and technologically, to cope."

If a mind is a terrible thing to waste, then three generations of minds are . . .?

"Unprepared educationally" is a nice PC euphemism. What he meant was "illiterate." As I cited in my previous post on this subject Detroit has a 47% adult illiteracy rate.

The article points out that the surrounding areas aren't doing too bad. I can confirm that from personal experience. Prospects for improvement aren't good when all the need is concentrated in the area least able to deal with it.

Maybe we should declare a hurricane and disperse Detroit's population throughout the country, like we did with New Orleans. Many wouldn't return, but would that really be a bad thing? America can help that many people, Michigan alone can't, nor can the city of Detroit.

I wonder how much we'd need to pay Canada to take Detroit off our hands?

One More Thing to Worry About . . .

And just when I thought I had enough to worry about:

Forward-facing strollers may harm babies emotionally

Oh dear, I'll be sure to put that on my list of important things to worry about . . . let's see . . . that'll be about number 154,567. I'll get right on that.

I can't wait for the activists to ban non-conforming strollers.

Apparently I Don't Understand Economics

We all know inflation is bad. Rising prices devalue our money and make it harder to buy things. Apparently the opposite is also bad. Deflation - falling prices - is also bad for the economy, at least according to economists quoted by MSNBC.

“A benign decline in prices amidst a sluggish but recovering economy would be unwelcome but tolerable,” Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a note to clients this week.

Unwelcome to whom, Mr. Rosenberg? I know plenty of people who like to pay less for goods of all types. I've heard of weirdos who like to pay more, but they're much more rare.

“But the price slashing now under way as the consumer beats a hasty retreat could allow that corrosive deflationary spiral to take hold — something the Fed wants to avoid at all costs.”

The Fed wants to avoid falling prices "at all costs?" boy, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

As I said, I'm not an economist, but perhaps someone who is could answer this question for me:

If inflation is bad and deflation is bad, then what, precisely, do you expect prices to do?

Should a pound of cheese always have the same price? If so, then the USSR had this economics thing all figured out. They just printed the price right on the label. Year after year a jar of tomato sauce was 40 kopeks. Your parents paid 40 kopeks and, by darn, your children would pay 40 kopeks. Is that the answer?

The problem I have with this idea is that (as I have learned both in life, and in school), in a market, there needs to be a mechanism to balance supply and demand. That mechanism is price. If I want 40 dollars for a widget, and you don't think it is worth 40 dollars, guess what? No sale. Deflation has to occur to meet your demand.

At this point any "real economist" is probably either rolling on the floor laughing, pulling out his hair in frustration, or muttering incoherently about Econ 110 having no relationship to "real economics."

Well, maybe not - but the economists in the MSNBC story seem to have nothing but contempt for consumers. They give the distinct impression that they believe the average of consumers' judgments about the worth of goods (otherwise known as the 'market price') is wrong, and that they, the "elite" know what things are worth.

Pardon my skepticism, but are these the same "elite" who have guided our economy to it's current prosperous state? The ones who never saw the housing bubble coming? Who watched house prices rise 10% per year as wages rose 2% and saw nothing to worry about? Who thought sub-prime mortgages were a terrific idea? Or, a little farther back, thought stratospheric stock prices for unprofitable .com businesses were just the "new economy?" Or thought that Pres. Bush's tax cuts would unacceptably reduce govt. revenue? or that Reagan's tax cuts would do nothing the stimulate the economy? Or thought that Sweden was a model of a well-run economy?

Now who should be laughing?

I'll say it again. Economics is not a science. It is a pseudoscience. Any claims to truth or predictive ability that it makes are a fraud.

Economics is a descriptive art - like psychology. Also like psychology, it has no power to predict future behavior because every person in the system is an agent unto herself, and not an automaton. This is why no one saw this crisis coming. Economists admit that this is unprecedented and was almost completely unforeseen - and they are right - they just don't see it as a failure of their 'science.'

Economics is (at best) a social science, a descriptive study of human behavior. It is individual psychology mis-applied to huge groups of people, and it goes through fads just like any other field of study. It also has its quacks like any other field. Keep this in mind next time an economist claims to know something.

Get Snuggie!

I saw the funniest TV infomercial this morning. It featured one of those made-up problems where people just can't get anything to work right. It's for those who can never seem to get warm and are always getting tangled up in blankets.

The answer: Snuggies

The video in the upper right is the best. I kept thinking of Friar Tuck (watch it, you'll understand).

Best of all, they double as a Halloween costume, just get a flat piece of wood and you're a monk!

Unintentional Insight

Every now and then someone says something which unintentionally offers insight into a deeper issue. This time it was Ashley Dupre (Former NY gov. Eliot Spitzer's former callgirl (does that make sense)).

Anyway, she gave an interview to People magazine in which she (of course) asserts "I'm just a normal girl" yada, yada, yada. Then this unintentional insight:

In the interview, Dupré also opens up about her troubled past — running away at age 17 into a non-stop life of drinking and partying and how a girl from the suburbs could fathom becoming a prostitute: "This wasn't any different than going on a date with someone you barely knew and hooking up with them," she reasoned. "The only difference is I can pay my rent."

Hmmm . . . profound. Any promiscuous people care to explain the difference? When a culture cheapens sex, as ours has, to a harmless recreational activity, what is the harm in getting paid for it? Cruise directors get paid. Personal trainers get paid. Vacation planners get paid. Recreation is big businesss.

Yet people still seem to draw a line between 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again' and 'sleeping with someone you'll never see again . . . who gives you $100' and they declare the former normal and natural, and the latter contemptable.

Not seeing the difference myself . . . except, as Ashley said - one can pay the rent.

The "Right" to Win

Good article by Thomas Sowell today.

He points out that the losing side in recent elections act as though they have a "right" to win. Also talks about the protests against the church by gay marriage activists.

I recommend the whole article, but here are some highlights:

Americans have long had the right to put their candidates and their ideas to a vote. Now there seems to be a sense that your rights have been trampled on if you don’t win . . .

. . . Hillary Clinton’s supporters were not merely disappointed, but outraged, when she lost the Democrats’ nomination to Barack Obama. Some took it as a sign that, while racial barriers had come down, the “glass ceiling” holding down women was still in place. Apparently, if you don’t win, somebody has put up a barrier or a ceiling . . .

. . . In Oakland, California, a mob gathered outside a Mormon temple in such numbers that officials shut down a nearby freeway exit for more than three hours.

In their midst was a San Francisco Supervisor who said “The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs.” He added, “This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they’ve forgotten some lessons.”

Apparently Mormons don’t have the same rights as other Americans, at least not if they don’t vote the way gay activists want them to vote.

“No justice, no peace!” was a slogan that found resonance [in the 1960s]. Like so many slogans, it sounds good if you don’t stop and think — and awful if you do. Almost by definition, everybody thinks their cause is just. Does that mean that nobody has to obey the rules? That is called anarchy.

Global Warming Alert! III

Don't you hate it when the world just refuses to cooperate with your political agenda?

NASA has been caught falsifying global temperature data again. Amazingly enough, this error also made it appear that global temperatures are rising. Huh, seems like all the errors are only in one direction. Weird.

On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So it's not like they're arguing over "warmest" vs. "3rd warmest." So, how did this happen?

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

So, September was the warmest October ever, amazing! Most disturbingly:

last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Strangely enough:

The figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

This type of statistical blindness is evidence of either malicious intent, or rank incompetence and lazy fact checking from seeing exactly what you expect to see, and not questioning it.

Here are links to the blogs of the two scientists who are policing Hansen's stats.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Gay Protestors' Violent Assault on Michigan Christians

It's not just California that gay and lesbian protesters are engaging in violent and destructive activities. Gay protesters interrupted an Evangelical Christian church service in Lansing on Sunday. This hasn't gotten any national press, and only small, dismissive local coverage. There weren't even any gay issues on the ballot in MI to provoke them.

http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2008/11/10/13335/904

This is one of the biggest churches in Lansing. They have thousands of people at meetings, and their own security force. What's to prevent gay protesters from doing the same, or worse, to our (much smaller) LDS meetings? I worry that this could become a regular tactic, especially in California. I hope someone is coming up with a plan to counter this type of thing. The easiest is probably also the simplest: introduce yourself to anyone you don't know at church and offer to sit with them, find out where they're from, in a word - fellowship. (oh, and make sure they aren't wearing pink underwear or something).

Can you imagine the reaction the media would have if just ONE conservative protester had infiltrated a mosque and yelled offensive slogans, or thrown bacon around? The media would, literally, make a Federal case about it - complete with Congressional resolutions, calls for stronger hate-crimes legislation and Presidential addresses condemning the incident.

Here, in a nutshell is what happened if you don't want to follow the link above:

"The [protesters] were a part of a liberal organization known as Bash Back Lansing and their collection of radical blogs, including one of the state's most widely read "mainstream" progressive blogs (none which will receive a link on this website) called on "queers and trannies" from across the state and the region to converge on Lansing for what they refer to as an 'action.'

Prayer had just finished when men and women stood up in pockets across the congregation, on the main floor and in the balcony. "Jesus was gay," they shouted among other profanities and blasphemies as they rushed the stage. Some forced their way through rows of women and kids to try to hang a profane banner from the balcony while others began tossing fliers into the air. Two women made their way to the pulpit and began to kiss.

Their other props? . . . from another . . . liberal blogs:

'(A) video camera, a megaphone, noise makers, condoms, glitter by the bucket load, confetti, pink fabric . . .'

The video camera they put to good use as they attempted to provoke a violent reaction . . . The "open minded" and "tolerant" liberals ran down the aisles and across the pews, hoping against hope to catch a "right winger" on tape daring to push back (none did). And just in case their camera missed the target, they had a reporter in tow.

An hour after police and security had collected and removed who they thought were the last of the [protesters], a volunteer security person discovered two more, hiding together, in a public restroom. While their compatriots engaged in openly violent protest in front of everyone these two snuck away to potentially stage their own protest of sorts, and only by the grace of God did one of the hundreds of kids at the church not happen upon that particular restroom in those moments. Precisely how long they'd been there and precisely what they'd been up to we don't know."

Nice and tolerant, aren't they? This picture is from the protesters' own website - draw your own conclusions:

Global Warming Alert! II

In my previous post I listed several cold weather events which were all no doubt just amazing coincidences, and not any evidence against global warming.

After all, a few incidents do not a climate make. But what if it was more like a whole year of data, and not just from one or two places, but from say the entire continental United States.

BEHOLD:



But, one year does not a climate make. There has to be some kind of trend. Okay, how about 10 years. Surely over ten years, CO2 and temperature would increase together, right?



Ok, so the global average temperature hasn't increased in 10 years, it's decreased. We're talking about a long-term trend here. let's look at the last 600 years. Surely man hasn't been impacting global climate any longer than that:



The correct temperature line, the darker one, shows that it was much warmer 600 years ago than it is today. This is obvious from history. Grapes grew in England during the 12-15th centuries. the Vikings colonized Greenland. They only left because of global cooling. If Greenland is warming today, it isn't the first time.

What's my point?

Global warming advocate always pick their time frame very carefully.

It's usually from the 1940s to 2000. (leaving out the warmer 1930s and the cooler 2000-2008) That temperature graph show an increase. As I've shown above though, pick a different time and you get a different result. You start to see the forest, not just the trees.

Are some areas warming? - YES. Are some areas cooling? - YES. Is the climate changing? - YES. Has the climate ALWAYS changed? - YES. Is today's climate ideal? - no one knows, but it certainly isn't unprecedented, unusual or out of control.

A good resource to counter all the hype is found here.

The "Work Spouse"

I remember hearing, and telling jokes about someone having a "work spouse." All in good fun, right?

Apparently CNN believes that the phenomenon is real enough and serious enough to warrant an advice column on managing the "work spouse" relationship. Because, after all, no human interaction is so straightforward and uncomplicated that it can't be micromanaged to death if enough psychologists put their minds to it.

Don't know if you have a "work spouse?" You're not alone. Many people have one (or more) work spouses, and don't know it. Luckily, CNN has a quick and easy seven point test you can take to see if you have a "work spouse."

(I can imagine the rationalizations for a positive test result: "it can happen to anyone." "It's no one's fault, really." "When working together in close quarters, work spouses happen." "Don't feel stigmatized, work spouses cut across all racial and economic lines." "We just need to raise awareness . . ." blah, blah, blah)

If you discover that you have, inadvertently, acquired a work spouse - don't panic, you can manage your condition. CNN knows what to do:

Keep the lines of communication open. Make sure that other co-workers are not feeling shut out by the perception that you and your work spouse are an exclusive clique of two. If you are working on a project together that also involves the team, be sure to reach out to everyone for feedback and suggestions.

In other words, be promiscuous in your work relationships, exclusivity leads to jealousy, "Make 'work love' not 'work war'" in that giant corporate commune that is the office.

Avoid crossing boundaries. It's great to have a support system and a close confidante, but be sure to set boundaries for how much to share with your office mate. More importantly, honor those boundaries. If the relationship becomes antagonistic or is too close for comfort, let your work spouse know you need a little space.

Avoid crossing boundaries!?!? You mean like thinking of co-workers as your "spouse?" That kind of boundary? And if the relationship is destructive, by all means take "a little space" don't end it. You can make it work, 'work divorce' is not the answer!

Lighten the mood. If your life at home and at work is filled with complications, bringing a co-worker into the middle of those issues may not be beneficial for you. You should aim to keep the mood light and happy with your work spouse. You'll look forward to enjoying gossip, taking breaks and being able to relax with a friend without any concerns or complications.

Relaxing with a friend without any concerns or complications is the purview of a REAL spouse. if you are more relaxed at work than at home, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your life.

I kept hoping to see some evidence of humor in the article, but I didn't. That fact both scares and saddens me.

The Pet Bill of Rights . . .

. . . has been proposed in Britain. They don't call it that, of course. They call it "proposed new codes of conduct for dog, cat and horse owners"

Some highlights:

The dog code of conduct says they should not be taken for a walk when the weather is too hot.

Cat lovers have their own rules to follow and are urged to make sure, apart from advice on hygiene and diet, that the pet has a "secure place to hide".

Here are some other provisions from "The Daily Mail"

There aren't "plenty of things to stimulate [me] mentally" here at work. I'm a human being, and my employer doesn't even give me a "secure place to hide" or even "suitable toys." I work in a cubicle for crying out loud.

Lucky animals. I need better lobbyists.

Global Warming Alert!

Grab you shorts and shades, and lets head for the beach!

• Snow blankets London for global warming debate: "Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922."
  

But one event does not a climate make you say?

• Record snow storm triggers delays: "According to MeteoNews, the Swiss lowlands received the most snow for any October since records began in 1931. Zurich received 20cm, beating a record of 14cm set in 1939."

But that's Europe too, it's the same storm, it's not like it's Florida, right?

• Record cold swept over the [Ocala, FL] region Wednesday: It was a record for Oct. 29 and the second lowest temperature ever recorded in October since 1850.

Huh . . . well it's still all the polluters in the Northern Hemisphere who are pumping all that methane gas (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) into the air.

• MIT Scientists baffled by data, contradicts global warming theory: Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas . . . it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Hey, if the Greens can blame individual hurricanes on global warming, I can have my fun too . . .

How to Keep Your Kids From Losing Their Legos

Tired of finding legos all over the house?

Tired of never being able to find that one particular piece you need?

They don't have that problem in England!

Obama's Real Economic Views

This is how Senator Obama talks about economic issues when he's not on his guard. This clip is from an interview he gave with Chicago Public Radio (a friendly audience) in 2001.

Scary stuff. Sounds like Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Watch the clip here.

Read a more spirited condemnation on the National Review. An excerpt:

I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw. . .

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes. . .

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.

The Real Danger of Communism . . .

. . . is that everyone would only be able to buy the items in this old Soviet mail-order catalog from 1983 called: "Goods for Personal Use."

Keep in mind this catalog wasn't just from one company, it was from the only company - the state. There were no other vendors for many of these items. Different factories would produce variants in some cases, but not all.

I ate off those flower dishes myself, and the big brown cabinets near the bottom were in literally every single apartment I ever saw. There were slight variations in color and layout but it was depressingly uniform.

No wonder Feng Shui wasn't practiced in the USSR, any interior designer with an once of artistic ability would be driven to suicide after one look at these items.

California's Prop. 8

The presidency is not the only thing at stake in this election. Also to be decided is the definition of marriage for over 10% of the population of the United States.

Proposition 8 - on the ballot in California - will, if passed, define marriage as between a man and a woman. If this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. California already passed such a proposition a few years back (Proposition 22 in 2000). The state supreme court recently overturned that one in a decision that reads like a newspaper editorial rather than a legal decision.

So this time the definition of marriage will be placed in the state constitution, where it will be immune (in theory) from judicial redefinition. 31 other states already have such amendments. All but 4 states define marriage in the traditional way in either their constitutions or in state law. There is a clear national consensus on what marriage is. I hope the citizens of California are not shamed into believing they are bigots because they want to preserve the foundation of our society.

To those in California: don't be afraid to stand up for what is right. Just because you're told gay marriage will be harmless doesn't mean it will be harmless. In fact, there is much research and opinion to the contrary.

I've be helping out a site called 'What is the harm?' We've collected information, arguments and research in defense of traditional marriage. There is likely something there to help you respond to any argument you may hear. At least it will give you the chance to see the well-written, well-reasoned, but under-reported arguments for preserving marriage.

(Start shameless plug)
I also have a legal paper posted on the site. On the menu, click on 'Arguments' then scroll down till you see "Is Marriage a Right?" It's probably boring to non-lawyers, but I think it makes good points (obviously, I wrote it).
(End shameless plug)

Don't let local issues get lost in the fever of the presidential race, sometimes these local issues can have huge consequences, even beyond the borders of the state.

Electoral Food for Thought

This article may be a little harsh on Obama, but not much in my opinion. Unlike much political opinion, the author does in fact link to supporting evidence.

None of this would go unreported if McCain had said or done it. Anyway read it and weigh it yourself. I find some of it persuasive, some not. But an Obama presidency would not be a good thing.

"Time to use the C word."

He Obviously Has No Children Around

From the "Too Much Time On His Hands" department:

The HMS Hood built to scale from Legos.

The Motto of the European Union

I just found out that the EU has a motto. Who knew?

We all know the motto of the United States "In God We Trust." It's solid, reassuring and says something concrete about the country. As mottos go, it's a good one (as are most things the Founding Fathers put out).

The EU motto also, unintentionally I presume, says something concrete about that "country." The motto is:

"United in Diversity"

That's it!? . . . what the heck is that supposed to mean? That's right out of the Oxymoron Dept.

I can hear the dialog in the committee meeting that came up with that . . .

France: "I'm glad we can come together to celebrate our differences."
Germany: "Yes indeed, we are united in our diversity . . ."
Italy: "Eureka! that's it! the new motto - 'united in diversity'"
France: "Sacre bleu! you are right. It's perfect, concretely vague . . ."
Germany: "Disturbingly reassuring . . ."
Italy: "Universally unique . . ."
France: "It absorbingly reflects all of the foreign policy, economic and social positions on which we've agreed to disagree."
Italy: "not to mention our shared individual non-binding commitment to Democratic Socialism.
Germany: "Plus it has a nice ring to it - like 'French Victory!'"

(stiffled laughter)

France: "That's not funny . . ."
Britain: "But it is seriously ironic!"

Anyway, it is the perfect motto for the EU.

Why Auto Insurance is So Expensive . . .

. . . or "Life Imitates Art" - well, at least life imitates Tommy Boy.

Ever see one of those stories that just couldn't be any more ripe to mock?

This item comes to us from one of America's best-loved newspapers - The Leaf Chronicle. (don't laugh, according to the site, it's "Your Connection to Clarksville, Tenn."). The man's name has been changed to protect the innocent idiot (and the punchline at the end of this blog post),

Anyway:

[A man] was driving home from his job in Dover Wednesday at about 11 p.m. when a beautiful red fox dashed in front of his SUV. After he ran over the fox, he stopped his GMC Jimmy . . .

You may be thinking to yourself, "Oh how nice, he wants to see if the fox is okay. Just like those two guys in Tommy Boy, when they hit the deer - Maybe he's never seen one up close before."

You would be wrong. This is Tennessee after all.

After he ran over the fox, he stopped his GMC Jimmy to get the fox to cut off its tail for a souvenir, and he put it in the back seat, said Dale Grandstaff, a Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency wildlife officer.

The wildlife officer, by way of explanation said:

The tails are real bushy and pretty and thick this time of year.

Ah, well, that explains it . . . at least he's cleaning up the roadkill. But, with the fox in the back seat, (just like the deer from the movie) the eerie parallels to Tommy Boy continue:

Things took an odd turn when [the man] heard a noise coming from his back seat and realized the fox was alive — and not happy.

Gee, I wonder why the fox was enraged?

The driver desperately searched for something to hold the fox back and prevent him from climbing into the front seat and biting him, he told [Wildlife Officer] Grandstaff.

As he looked in the back seat to get a blanket to block the fox, he took his attention from the road.

The SUV crossed the center line and wrecked in a ditch, flipping once and landing upside down in the 3900 block of Lylewood Road, Grandstaff said.

So, an enraged live animal causes the destruction of a car . . . sounds familiar.

[The man] suffered minor injuries and bruises and was treated at the scene by Montgomery County Emergency Medical Service. The fox was found dead in the SUV. Grandstaff said it was not clear whether the fox died of injuries caused by being hit by the SUV or if it died in the wreck.

Either way, a really bad day for the fox . . .

The Wildlife Officer, who obviously knows a lot about animal psychology, explained the fox's behavior:

Grandstaff said there was nothing wrong with [the man] taking the animal after striking it. But foxes don't like to be caged, especially when they are alive, he said.

The dead ones apparently don't mind . . . It's also lucky for this guy that skunk tails aren't "real bushy and pretty and thick this time of year."

And the final irony, (drum-roll please): The man's name is Tommy Fox.

P.S.

It was also not known if Tommy Fox got to keep the tail.

Christianity

No, not the kind you're thinking.

This stems from an conversation I had with my mom last night. She saw my new name badge (see previous post), and lamented that the badge had 'Chris Williams' on it.

"After all the trouble I went through to call you 'Christian.'" she lamented.

I had to explain why I started going by Chris. It began in elementary school when Night Ranger released the song Sister Christian. My class was apparently full of Night Ranger fans, and they enjoyed singing the song over and over to me - at lunch, at recess, in the bathroom, in the hall . . .

As Wikipedia explains above, the song was written about a band member's sister, Christy, he added:

the real Christy was so mortified when the song came out she nearly changed her name.

yeah, no kidding. At least she was A GIRL!

Anyway, the wisdom of my decision was confirmed years later after I met Becky, and she told me about a high school classmate of hers named Christian who referred to himself, completely missing the irony, as 'Christian the anti-Christ'

So now there are two good reasons . . .

Where The Heck Have I Been?

I keep getting comments form my loyal readers (all three of you) welcoming me back to blogging.

First of all, thank you. Second, I should probably update everyone on why I took some time off posting. Let's go through the chronology:

July - we decided to move about July 10th. We spent the following days packing and preparing. All this time I was also studying for the bar exam. We actually moved between July 16th and July 19th. (many thanks to Mike and Melissa for their help). We spent the next few days unpacking while I continued to study for the bar.

July 29-30 - I took the bar exam in Salt Lake City. (and mentally recovered for the next week). I did pass, btw.

August - I . . . hmmm . . . don't remember much but stress, and applying for jobs all month. I had a couple of interviews, but was always rejected. The closest were SirsiDynix and the State Legislature. I really would have loved the State job.

September - More of the same stress. I eventually got one offer from a Tech company in SLC called SIRE Technologies. It wasn't enough money for us long-term, and it utilized only a small subset of my skills. We were at the point, though, where it was Friday afternoon, and I was ready to take the job on Monday if nothing else came up. I sent out a few last applications and went to sleep. Anyway, I got a call back on Saturday, an interview at 7:00am Monday morning, and an offer right there on the spot. Needless to say, I declined the first offer. I eventually did accept the new one.

Now I'm a Network Administrator for Messaging Architects in their Provo office on the Novell campus. It's a good opportunity and I hope to grow into a legal/tech hybrid position. this will serve our needs for the time being. We aren't thrilled at having to move again, but we'll be OK.

Anyway, that's why posts have been scarce. I hope to be more regular from now on.

A Silent Killer - Golf

I hope Becky doesn't read this item. She'll never let me golf again. Here's just one of the seven golfing deaths you can read about by following the link:

1995 - Jean Potevan of Orleans, France was so irate after missing 3 straight puts that he threw his bag into a lake out of sheer frustration. Only problem: his car keys were also in the bag. He dove in and proceeded to drown after getting entangled in the weeds. According to his golf partner, his last words were “I’m going back for the keys, but I’m leaving the clubs down there.”

I'd never do anything potentially dangerous on the golf course, right sweetie?

The Milk of Human Stupidity

PETA is usually good for a laugh, but lately they've been good for little more than a nauseous shudder. Their latest crusade? to convince Ben and Jerry's to use human beast milk in their ice cream.

The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk.

uh.... Why?

Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. . . it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.

So... linked by whom? and, human milk isn't dairy? and shouldn't someone warn the calves not to drink such dangerous stuff?

Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.

So... humans are mammals, and we should milk them instead? Wouldn't taking mothers' milk deprive human babies of something important? After all "the breast is best," right?

I must be missing something. PETA can't be that stupid, can they? Not to be indelicate, but I'm a father. I know about how much milk a human mother produces in a day, and it isn't 30 liters (the average for a dairy cow). I wonder how much a liter of milk would cost if PETA got its way?

Happy Independence Day

Independence Day seems to me to be more than an American holiday, but one the whole world can celebrate. One of the fruits of this country's declared independence is religious freedom. In the 1st amendment to the constitution we read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Because of this religious freedom, the 14-year-old Joseph Smith was introduced to many religions. With so many churches to chose from, he learned much and, in his own words, he "attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit." But, he wanted to know more. If not for religious freedom, perhaps he would never have had the desire to know which of all the churches was true. He would certainly not have had the freedom to investigate many churches, let alone to follow the Lord's instructions and organize His church in this dispensation. 

God prepared the way for His gospel to be restored and the opportunity for all to receive it. The establishment of this nation was a part of that preparation. The Lord has encouraged us to honor the law of the land

and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles (D&C 101:77)

Our religious liberty is essential if we are to have the chance to exercise our moral agency. The Lord has told us the reason he established this Constitution and this nation.

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. . . And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:78, 80)

There are forces today who wish to take away our freedoms. Our nation can be attacked and brought into physical bondage, but the more immediate challenges we each face are daily attacks on our own personal freedom.

When we give in to temptation, our freedom of choice is diminished and we put ourselves in spiritual bondage. During these times we must again and again use our freedom to worship God by choosing to repent and obey God. The freedom to worship God means nothing if we do not in fact worship Him.

The personal battles we are facing don't necessarily require physical weapons, but new tools, obedience, testimony and the courage to share it. With these gifts, we have the chance to exercise our freedom to worship, and to help our friends and neighbors to do the same by sharing the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

Change You Can Believe In - Part I: Economics.

(Sorry, this is a little long).

I was glancing through Senator Obama's "Blueprint For Change" which outlines his policies and priorities, when I began to wonder how much spending has been promised. I decided to search to whole document and find out. All quotes are directly from Obama's Blueprint. Keep in mind that these are only the items that Obama has promised that include a specific dollar amount. I've done my best to weed out duplicate spending and to be generally fair. Let's start with a piece of Obama's plan I agree with:

Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue (ie tax increases) elsewhere.

Well, it's about time! Keep this in mind. I'll come back to it later. Let's take a look at how much spending Senator Obama will need to offset.

---

First direct spending promises:

reduce a typical family’s premiums by as much as $2,500 per year (through government-funded health care)

Cost: 100 billion dollars/year (400 billion for his first term)

(Guessing conservatively, at an average of $1000 times 100 million families; this jives with Obama's own estimated cost for his health insurance plan).

$10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems.

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs (of FMLA reform)

Total cost: 1.5 billion total

Create Automatic Workplace Pensions -employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems...His plan will match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000.

This one is hard to price. Considering the number of families earning less than 75,000 (a large majority) the cost could be enormous. Besides, I thought social security was the answer:

“We … have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it’s a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever.
–Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

So, we won't count that one.

Obama will invest $150 billion over ten years to deploy clean technologies

Cost: 15 billion/year (150 billion total)

Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs

Cost: .2 billion/year (1 billion total)

He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees

cost: 2 billion total

he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal (cutting world poverty)

Total cost: 25 billion/year

Total Spending: 679.5 billion dollars.

Total ongoing yearly spending: 160.2 billion dollars.

---

Now let's look at new tax cuts:

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay

Cost: 20 billion/year (if 20% of families are "working").

Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Cost: 20 billion/year (see above assumptions)

Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide tax relief to homeowners who do not itemize. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners

Cost: 5 billion dollars

an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors

Cost: 9.8 billion dollars

Obama will create a new  American Opportunity Tax Credit...This $4,000 tax credit will be fully refundable...

Also very hard to value. Potentially huge. We'll ignore this one too.

Total tax cuts per year: 54.8 billion dollars.

---

So, by Obama's own reckoning, every year (for at least 5 years)the federal government will need to come up with a minimum of 215 billion dollars additional tax revenue (54.8 billion + 160.2) if Obama is really going to offset these expenses. Of course this also assumes zero spending growth for every other government agency and program: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Military spending, interest on the debt, Education, etc . . . . or Obama could cut spending . . . (yeah, that's going to happen).

Total federal tax revenue for 2007 was 2568 billion dollars. The needed tax increase will, therefore, be 8.4% on average for every taxpaying entity in America. The reality will be much greater for some taxpayers and corporations than others given the fact that nearly 50% of taxpayers pay no income taxes, and Obama's stated preference for raising taxes only on corporations and "the rich."

This minimum increase excludes onetime spending and several ongoing programs I listed above. It also excludes many other programs, funds, grants, commissions and panels which are promised but not given a dollar value.

It also does not include the "cap and trade" carbon reduction program which amounts to an enormous tax on energy production. It also excludes the "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. It does not include the cost to business of increasing the minimum wage or of compliance with any of the additional regulations Obama proposes.

Finally, this assumes that nothing goes over-budget - this is the government we're talking about here.

This is the minimum cost of "change you can believe in."

Communist Humor

Maybe you need to have lived there, but I find Communist jokes very entertaining. The London Times gives this list of such jokes submitted by readers. I actually heard #7 in Ukraine too.

1) Three workers find themselves locked up, and they ask each other what they’re in for. The first man says: “I was always ten minutes late to work, so I was accused of sabotage.” The second man says: “I was always ten minutes early to work, so I was accused of espionage.” The third man says: “I always got to work on time, so I was accused of having a Western watch.”

2) An old man is dying in his hovel on the steppes.
There is a menacing banging on the door.
‘Whose there?’ the old man asks.
‘Death ‘comes the reply.
‘Thank God for that,’ he says, ‘I thought it was the KGB.’  

3) Pravda announced that it welcomed letters to the editor. All correspondents were required to include their full name, address and next of kin.
  
4) Q. "Why do the KGB operate in groups of three?" A. "One can read, one can write and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals."

5) Leonid Brezhnev pays a state visit to France and he's given a VIP guided tour of Paris. He's conducted round the splendours of the Élysée Palace, but remains as stony-faced as ever. He's shown the masterpieces of the Louvre, but the curators fail to get any reaction out of him. He's taken to the Arc de Triomphe, but displays not the slightest interest. Eventually, the official motorcade drives him to the foot of the Eiffel Tower, where Brezhnev finally stares up in amazement and astonishment. He turns to his French hosts and asks in bewilderment: "But, Paris is a city of 9 million people... surely you need more than one watchtower?"

6) Stalin decides to go out one day and see what it's really like for the workers, so he puts on a disguise and sneaks out of the Kremlin.

After a while he wanders into a cinema. When the film has finished, the Soviet Anthem plays and a huge picture of Stalin appears on the screen. Everyone stands up and begins singing, except Stalin, who smugly remains seated.

A minute later a man behind him leans forwards and whispers in his ear: "Listen Comrade, we all feel exactly the same way you do, but trust me, it's a lot safer if you just stand up."

7) A man saves up his rubles and is finally able to buy a car in Soviet Russia. After he pays his money the he is told he will have his car in three years.
"Three years!" he asks "What month?"
"August"
"August? What day in August?" He asks
"The Second of August" is the reply
"Morning or Afternoon?"
"Afternoon. Why do you need to know?"
"The plumber is coming in the morning."

8) Why do ex-Stasi officers make the best Berlin taxi drivers?
Because you only need to tell them your name and they'll already know where you live!

9) Moscow in the 1970s. Deepest winter. A rumour spreads through the city that meat will be available for sale the next day at Butcher's Shop no. 1.

Tens of thousands turn up on the eve of the event: wrapped up against the cold, carrying stools, vodka, and chessboards, they form an orderly queue.

At 3 am the butcher comes out and says, "Comrades, I've just had a call from the Party Central Committee: it turns out there won't be enough meat for everyone, so the Jews in the queue should go home."

The Jews obediently leave the queue. The rest continue to wait.

At 7 am, the butcher comes out again: "Comrades, I've just had another call from Central Committee. It turns out there will be no meat at all, so you should all go home."

The crowd disperses, grumbling all the while: "Those bloody Jews get all the luck!"

10) A KGB officer is walking in the park and he sees and old Jewish man reading a book.

The KGB says "What are you reading old man?" The old man says "I am trying to teach myself Hebrew."

KGB says "Why are you trying to learn Hebrew? It takes years to get a visa for Israel. You would die before the paperwork got done."

"I am learning Hebrew so that when I die and go to Heaven I will be able to speak to Abraham and Moses. Hebrew is the language they speak in Heaven." the old man replies.

"But what if when you die you go to Hell?" asks KGB.
And the old man replies, "Russian, I already know."

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)

(I've been itching to write this post for a while now, and since I'm stuck at work waiting for a massive file copy to finish, here you go).

One of the environmental/no oil crowd's biggest success has been halting oil drilling in ANWR. to justify it they show pictures of the refuge such as this:

Beautiful, who'd want to put a stinky old oil rig there?

And this:

awwww, look at the cute little squirrel, the poor thing must be afraid of the noisy oil well, poor little guy!

What they don't tell you is neither of these pictures is from the area where drilling is proposed. They are from the permanent wilderness area far to the south. No one is suggesting drilling there.

This is where the oil is:

Oh, wait, that's the winter picture, of course it's just a bunch of ice, it's Alaska for crying out loud! I wouldn't want to be accused of falsifying it's true beauty by showing it out of season. Here's the summer view:

Much prettier, no? I hear it often hits 40 degrees in July. Parts of it even grow grass as you'll see. But that's beside the point; it's the wildlife that will really suffer!

The best indication of the horrors that await the caribou and the other wildlife of ANWR can be found by looking at the sad plight of their brethren right down the coast in Prudhoe Bay who are already suffering the effects of the unfettered greed and environmental indifference of Big Oil! BEHOLD THE CARNAGE!!!!

Note the oil drilling operation and pipeline behind all the rotting carcases. . . what? . . . wait a second . . . those caribou aren't dead, they're eating and resting with their young!. . . huh? . . . well I'm sure they're scared of all the development! you'd never see them get any closer than that to an oil rig!

. . . like right on the access road . . . D'oh! Well, caribou aren't the brightest . . .  savvy predators, like bears, surely understand the danger posed by the human intruders!

well, OK. . . those are just dumb brown bears. Polar bears would never. . .

. . . ah, but small animals, like birds, would be driven away by the . . .

. . . they may hunt, but they'd never nest near an oil rig . . .

Um . . . Ok. Maybe we should learn from the other Alaska coastal drilling sites and not hyperventilate over ANWR.

Current Oil and Gas Prices are Self-inflicted Wounds

For several reasons, I always enjoy finding articles that summarize everything I've been thinking on a current issue. First, it confirms what I've always thought - "I'm a smart guy." Second, it saves me the trouble of composing long blog posts - I can just cut, paste and link. Much easier.

so I'm glad I found this post on the real political and historical reasons for the current "energy crisis."

Short version: Congressional dismay about high gas prices is like me blindfolding myself and then complaining when I bump into things a lot.

Long Version:

Americans feeling the pinch at the pump should recognize that the wealthiest nation on the planet has nothing but itself to blame for the third in a series of energy crises that began when Richard Nixon was still in office.

Having largely ignored the previous two shots across the bow — the first coming in 1973 when OPEC decided to ban sales of oil to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the second in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution in Iran — the U.S. seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

What should make Americans on both sides of the aisle even more ashamed is that before the first energy crisis, the United States produced 11.428 million barrels of oil per day. This represented 66 percent of the 17.308 million barrels we consumed that year.

Compare that to 2007, when America produced 8.481 million barrels per day, or only 41 percent of the 20.7 million barrels consumed. Such is the result of the so-called energy policies of seven White Houses and 17 Congresses controlled by both Democrats and Republicans.

Yet, today’s politicians — mostly on the left side of the aisle, of course — have the gall to place all the blame for rising energy prices on increased demand from expanding economies like China and India.

At least those countries are participating in exploration efforts to expand their own supplies. China’s oil production has almost doubled since 1980, while India’s has grown by an astounding 375 percent. At the same time, U.S. production has declined by 22 percent. . .

Closer to home, our neighbors also ramped up oil production. To the south, Mexico has seen its crude output jump 64 percent since 1980, while Canada’s increased 85 percent.

Did I mention that our production declined by 22 percent in the same period?

Putting this in its proper perspective, if America had responded to the second energy crisis by increasing oil production only at the average rate of our North American neighbors, we’d currently be supplying ourselves with 18.86 million barrels of crude per day, or 91 percent of our usage.

It's not as if we don't have the oil available. According to an April 2006 study done for the Library of Congress:

Oil shale is prevalent in the western states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The resource potential of these shales is estimated to be the equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in place. . . . In comparison, Saudi Arabia reportedly holds proved reserves of 267 billion barrels.

That doesn't include ANWR, and it doesn't include offshore drilling.

The real problem, I believe, is that liberals, and environmentalists in particular, want oil to be expensive. Read the words of Sen. Obama when ask his opinion of high oil prices:

I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers.

I think most people fail to see the need for an adjustment at all. the article points out that Democrats don't have this attitude about other scarce "resources."

Why has one political party for nearly four decades viewed energy crises through the narrow prism of learning to adjust to higher prices and declining resources, as opposed to aggressively finding and producing more of what the country and the economy needs?

Such questions seem particularly relevant given how this same party views hunger in our nation and throughout the world. The answer isn’t for those that have less to make an adjustment and adapt to their impoverished condition. 'Adjust to having less' is certainly not the Left’s prescription for Americans lacking health insurance.

Democrats want government to increase the supply of food and medical care to those deemed financially incapable of providing for themselves.

Why doesn’t the same hold true for energy?

Funny Church Schedule

An Incredible Lack of Perspective

Bob Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television (apparent motto: "because white folks just ain't funny") either misspoke, or is deliberately saying stupid things on national television. It has to be one of those two, because I cannot accept that he really believes the following:

I believe that if Senator Obama leads this country the way he ran the primary, it will become a historic event for African-Americans, probably greater than the Emancipation Proclamation, which was signed in 1863.

The election of single man (and a wealthy, liberal, Harvard-educated, socialist man at that) is more important that the freeing of tens of millions of human beings from slavery? Maybe we should ask Mr. Johnson's great-grandparents what they think. If he's correct, my recent graduation from law school must be just as historic to white people as the Magna Charta, or at least the advent of gun racks in pickup trucks.

That kind of thing just boggles my mind. I fear this is only the beginning of Obama's cult of personality, so let me be the first to say "I, for one, welcome our socialist overlords, LONG LIVE THE DEAR LEADER!"

Now, where can I buy a picture of Comrade Stalin, err, Senator Obama for the shrine?

Climate and the Precautionary Principle

We went to a memorial day barbeque today with several families from the ward, and I got into a debate (friendly, of course) with a brother about the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change (whatever it's called now).

Anyway, we each had points and counterpoints. I'm a lawyer and he's a physicist, so it's not like either of us really knows what we're talking about. But I noticed that whenever I'd make a point, the response would be something like "yeah, we don't really know, but we shouldn't risk it."

I've encountered this attitude recently as I wrote my final law school paper. It is basically "better safe than sorry." The formal name for this philosophy is the Precautionary Principle. It's widely used in environmental circles as a justification to prohibit, regulate or tax any activity that could conceivably impact the environment.

the Precautionary Principle is insidious for at least two reasons.

• First, it reverses the burden of proof - forcing one side to prove a negative. Instead of the environmental advocate gathering evidence of actual harm and using that evidence to advocate halting the damaging activity, all the activist has to do is come up with a scenario that will potentially harm the environment, and invoke the Precautionary Principle. The activist doesn't have to prove anything, the other side has to prove that their activities will be harmless. This is nearly impossible. I can't prove that driving to taco bell to get lunch will be harmless. This being the case, the precautionary principle says I should not do it.
• Second, it is used selectively. Environmentalists use it to force industry to prove they will cause no harm, but activists don't take into account the harm caused by their own actions. DDT was banned because it may have harmed some birds, but this ban has allowed millions of people to die from mosquito-bourne malaria over the last 3 decades. One would think that if an action had the potential of killing millions, the precautionary principle would dictate that it not be taken. not so. Only environmental harm is fair game. (and humans are not part of the environment).

Just something to keep in mind next time you hear predictions of possible environmental catastrophe.

Church Irony

As I waited at a stoplight the other day, the sign outside the Mount Hope United Methodist Church here in Lansing was showing the service times, then the alternate worship times, then the following:

Sometimes religion gets in the way of God.

--Bono

(Yes, Bono, as in U2)

So the message is what? Come to worship Sundays at 9:30, unless it gets in the way of God?

Talk about a mixed message.

European 'Human' Rights

A British woman is trying to convince an Austrian court to declare a chimpanzee a 'person' so that she can adopt him and be appointed his guardian. Read the whole story here.

36-year-old Miss [Paula] Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

She insists that the chimp [Matthew] needs legal standing so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests  -  especially if the sanctuary shuts down.

Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.

A person, not a human? I, being a lawyer, know there is a difference, but legal persons who are not human are usually organizations or companies. Maybe the chimp should just incorporate in Nevada. I know a guy on the radio who will do it for just $499.

But later she seems a bit fuzzy on the difference.

'Everybody who knows him personally will see him as a person,' she said.

'In his home in the African jungle, he would have been well able to look after himself without a guardian.

But since he was abducted into an alien environment, traumatised and locked up in an enclosure, it did become necessary for me to act on his behalf to secure the donation money for him and to avoid his deportation.

'Since he has no close relatives, I am doing this as the person closest to him.'

He was 'abducted?' She's trying to 'avoid his deportation?' As to his close relatives, isn't science always harping on how close we are to chimpanzees, genetically?

The sad thing is that the court will probably take the case, and probably rule for the chimp. After all, this is the same court that doesn't recognize that an unborn child is a person. In fact this very court awarded damages to a Polish woman who's "human rights" were violated when she was denied a 'therapeutic' abortion.

Europe's idea of 'human rights' is, I fear, irretrievably lost.

The "New Homeless"

CNN ran a very misleadingly-titled article today: Mom Forced to Live in Car With Dogs. What an outrageous example of elder abuse, right?... No. Kids out of control and trashed the house?... No. A fire or flood?... No.

This poor lady is a member of the "middle class homeless." At the beginning of the article I felt bad for her, but as I read, I gradually found it harder and harder to really sympathize. Let's just say she's not your stereotypical homeless person.

Barbara Harvey climbs into the back of her small Honda sport utility vehicle and snuggles with her two golden retrievers, her head nestled on a pillow propped against the driver's seat. Californian Barbara Harvey says she is forced to sleep in her car with her dogs after losing her job earlier this year.

Poor lady. But wait, she owns a Honda SUV? Oh, then I saw the dateline: "Santa Barbara, CA," so it's all relative. (a late-model Honda CRV in Santa Barbara is like a 78 Chevy Nova anywhere else, right?). She also owns (and feeds) two large dogs. Just the bare necessities for her. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a country where the homeless can't even afford to support two large dogs when forced to live in their SUV.

A former loan processor, the 67-year-old mother of three grown children said she never thought she'd spend her golden years sleeping in her car in a parking lot. . .

Harvey was forced into homelessness this year after being laid off. She said that three-quarters of her income went to paying rent in Santa Barbara, where the median house. . . costs more than $1 million. She lost her condo two months ago and had little savings as backup.

Gee, I wonder why she wasn't able to save anything. Must be George Bush's fault. There might be a place or two where it would be cheaper to live. Especially when you have transportation and no steady job tying you down! That just makes me feel like shouting - MOVE TO A NORMAL TOWN!! The rich can barely afford to live in Santa Barbara.

And her children must be real deadbeats, not helping their mom, huh?

Her 19-year-old daughter moved in with friends to avoid being homeless. Her other children live overseas, and she didn't want to tell them about her living status.

Even if her children offered to help, she said, she wouldn't accept it.

She wouldn't accept help from her own children? But she'll complain to CNN! Are we supposed to just ignore this and feel sorry for her anyway? At least she's an optimist when her daughter calls. (on her cell phone?)

"My daughter especially is very unhappy. Sometimes she'll cry, and she'll call and say, 'Mom, I just can't stand it that you are living in a car,' " Harvey said. "I'll say, 'You know what? This is OK for right now, because I'm safe, I'm healthy, the dogs are doing OK, and I have a job, and things will get better."

Well, as long as the dogs are OK! Things WON'T get better, not in Santa Barbara they won't. Get in your car and leave, find an affordable apartment in an affordable town, get rid of the dogs, and the cell phone and, for crying out loud, talk to your children!

The article quotes an economist blaming the California housing crisis and the dearth of affordable housing in Santa Barbara. blah, blah, blah. The real issue here is stubborn pride and a fundamental disconnect from the realities of life. Unfortunate, yes, but not unforeseeable, and certainly not irreparable.

Discriminatory Dollars

A federal court ruled today that the treasury department discriminates against the blind by . . . get this . . . printing money!

Well, not exactly. But, the court did rule that the fact that different denominations aren't distinguishable by touch violates the Rehabilitation Act. In essence, the government needs to make sure that blind people can tell a $5 from a $10 from a $20 by touch.

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but where does it end? Aren't the Homeland Security color alerts discriminatory? How does someone know what an "orange" threat level is if they've never seen color?

There's no really effective way to comply with this decision. Make each denomination a different size? won't they need to carry several reference cards for comparison? (not to mention the forced redesign or replacement of every single vending machine / ATM / counting machine / ticket machine / cash register / wallet in the country). Print raised marks on the bills? That will last until the bill gets wadded up or washed, and what a great way to counterfeit! a few minutes with a needle, and viola! all my ones are twenties. Texture? How many different textures are there, and do they survive wadding?

Some difficulty is, I think, an inevitable result of blindness. That's why it is called a handicap. There's nothing wrong with trying to help the blind, but I don't think the court thought this one through.

Incidentally, I'm not simply being "ableist", the American Federation for the Blind opposes changing the money too.

Parody of Rev. Wright

This is from the Weekly Standard: