Spread the Wealth Part 2

The gist of the story below is not mine. I have embellished it a great deal, though.

There are five guys who went to high school together and remained friends long after. Arnold became a very successful businessman and makes a very good living. Benny owns his own small business and works very hard to keep it and manages to make a decent living. Charlie is an employee of Arnold and makes a nice living as a manager in Arnold's company. David has struggled and is also an employee of Arnold albeit a low end one. Edward has been in and out of work since high school.

Now in their thirties, the five of them get together once a month at Clinton's restaurant. Through an agreement with the owner Clinton, the bill comes to $100 which Arnold, being the most well off, pays $60 of it. Benny and Charlie each pay $20 and David and Edward pay nothing. This arrangement goes on for some time and everybody is used to it.

Eventually, the restaurant is taken over by new management. Bush, the new owner decides he can increase business to the restaurant by lowering prices. This includes making a new arrangement with the five men who come every month. The total food bill at Bush's restaurant is reduced to $80. Bush decides that since the bulk of the bill had been paid by Arnold, he should get the biggest break. So the new arrangement is Arnold pays $50, Benny and Charlie each pay $15, while David and Edward still pay $0.

Arnold is delighted with the price cut. Benny is also very appreciative. Charlie is unsure how he feels. Yes, he is paying $5 less but is somewhat jealous of Arnold paying $10 less. "Why does the rich guy get the biggest break?" he wonders. David and Edward are frustrated as to why they didn't benefit from the price cut at all. For the first time, there is an uneasiness in the group as three of them felt they got the short end of things. Benny tries to explain that it's only fair that the people paying the bulk of the bill deserve to benefit the most. Charlie, David, and Edward refuse to see it that way. They feel the new arrangement is unfair. Meanwhile, Bush's lower prices attracts a lot of new business and the restaurant booms profits for years.

All good things must end and it is discovered that some staff at the restaurant made poor investment choices with the restaurant's profits. Instead of the restaurant being a model of financial stability, it is a wreck and Bush and his executives struggle to keep the restaurant in business. What's more, this occurred just as Bush was ready to hand over the restaurant to a new owner.

There are two prospective new owners. One of them is McCain. McCain has similar philosophies as Bush. He tells the five men he will maintain the current pricing and the breakdown. He also knows he will have to keep a better eye on what the staff is doing than his predecessor if the restaurant is to stay in business.

The second prospective owner is Obama. Obama has his own ideas on how the restaurant should be run. He is going to "change" things. He talks to the five men and tells them that he will return back to the $100 total price of the Clinton era, but, he will offer the majority of them a better break. Arnold will pay $90, but Benny and Charlie will now only pay $10 each. This allows David and Edward to actually receive $5 each.

David and Edward are thrilled about Obama and passionately hope he becomes the new owner. Charlie likes Obama too as he relishes paying less and feels good about the thought of how David and Edward would benefit from this. "So what if Arnold has to pay more, he can afford it. It's only fair that he share his wealth."

Arnold and Benny, both with business experience shake their heads at what Obama is attempting. Arnold can't believe he will be required to pay such a huge percentage of the bill and be outright paying David and Edward as well. Benny, being the smart small business owner recognizes that even though he is paying less, Obama's vision won't work. Bush already demonstrated that the restaurant does better with lower prices so why does Obama want to go back to the Clinton price? Also, Benny realizes that Obama's plan will hurt Arnold and if Arnold is hurt, he will be subsequently hurt also as he will get less business from Arnold and people employed by Arnold, like Charlie.

In the end, Obama becomes the new owner - much to the delight of Charlie, Edward, and David. Unfortunately, Arnold leaves the group leaving the $100 bill to be paid by the four of them. Benny, Charlie, Edward, and David can't pay. The harmony the five men once had is shattered and the restaurant is eventually shut down.

Spread the Wealth Part I

For those of you who think the Obama "spread the wealth" policy is a good thing should seriously sit down and think this through. I've found a couple of analogous stories that illustrate the problem. The sad thing is that all one really has to do is look at the failed Soviet Union and that should put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, too many people aren't aware of that history.

A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA. The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing". The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party"."

Echoes of 1985

Concerning the NLCS game between the Dodgers and Phillies last night, I have to gather that Joe Torre didn't know that you don't put a fireball right-handed pitcher up against a left-handed power hitter when a playoff game is on the line. Jonathan Broxton, like Tom Niedenfuer 23 years ago, was the poor choice and Matt Stairs was fortunate to play the role of Jack Clark.

I wonder if Torre mouthed "maybe we should walk Stairs" right before the big hit.

Round 3 (Enter Stupidity)

The October 7 Presidential debate featured some really stupid remarks by both gentlemen.

John McCain

And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values. You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments.
As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy.

First of all - Welcome to the Democratic Party Senator McCain. You know, the party that makes all sorts of pledges of ideas that sound good to some people but are really bad ideas? How is "renegotiating at the new value of those homes" going to "do something about home values" other than lower them? Or is that what you meant? Then why did you say "stabilize home values"?

This is exactly what I'd expect from a Democrat. You're promising lower payments and stable home values. Add to that a big government expenditure. It doesn't add up and I am speaking as one who owes more on his house than what its worth. Yeah, part of my brain likes what you said but I'm no hypocrite.

Barack Obama

So here's what I would do. If you've got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor. We're going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.
...
If you don't have health insurance, you're going to be able to buy the same kind of insurance that Sen. McCain and I enjoy as federal employees. Because there's a huge pool, we can drop the costs. And nobody will be excluded for pre-existing conditions, which is a huge problem.

So what's to prevent an employer from offering the worst health care out there to basically force all employees to go for option B and then not have to worry about dealing with employee health care? After all, the employer is offering health care so he or she can't be fined, right? Raise your hand if you'd like Senator-level health care. Mine's up. I guess we'll have to stick the doctor bills to GE, Microsoft, and of course, Exxon/Mobil.

Barack Obama

And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea.

In case you didn't know Senator, fewer and fewer cars are being built in America and one of the reasons why is that American car companies are taxed much higher than those in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and China. And you want to raise them higher, right? This is spoken like a true Democrat. Say what we want to hear even though your policies contradict the result you promise.

McCain was less than brilliant in this debate but he won it, nevertheless.

Round 2

If you missed the October 2'nd Vice Presidential debate. Here it is in a nutshell.

Moderator: Senator Biden, how do you see the bailout situation?

Biden: We need more oversight and McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor Palin?

Palin: I just want to talk about the economy in general. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator Biden, what do you think about being Vice President?

Biden: McCain said the economy is strong. Then he changed his mind. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor Palin?

Palin: Stop playing politics. That's not what McCain meant. McCain is good.

Moderator: Governor Palin, whose fault is the subprime meltdown?

Palin: We need to stop greed on Wall St. McCain will do this because McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama knew this would happen. McCain didn't. We need healthcare. Oh, and McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor, would you care to comment about health care too even though it wasn't asked?

Palin: No, I want to talk about taxes. Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is bad.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama is not bad. Obama is good. McCain wants to raise taxes. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: I'm a straight talker and McCain is good.

Moderator: Since you two want to talk taxes. Say more.

Biden: It's just simple fairness. Rich people should pay more taxes because like John McCain, rich people are bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Bad people like Obama want unfair re-distribution of wealth.

Moderator: Governor, do you support McCain's absurd health plan?

Palin: Yes, McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: I'd rather talk about the good people in Scranton Pennsylvania. John McCain wants them to pay Exxon/Mobil's taxes. McCain is bad. ... Oh and about health care, John McCain wants to tax health care. He really is bad.

Moderator: I'm going to ask you a tough question Senator. What promises can't you keep?

Biden: None. It's all good because Exxon/Mobil will pay for it all. They, like McCain, are bad people.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: How is Obama going to keep the promise he made to one group and the contradicting promise he made to another? See, I don't have to answer the questions either.

Moderator: There's no promise you can't keep?

Palin: Well if you insist. I don't have to worry about keeping promises since I have made none.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Let me take 10 more minutes to repeat everything I have already said about taxes. Obama will lower them and give us free healthcare and clean alternative energy. McCain will raise taxes and we will all choke on oil exhausts.

Oh, and I support windfall profits taxes. They have been proven to be horrible for the economy and is really the stupidest idea ever, so I hope Governor Palin will convince McCain to support them too.

Moderator: Governor, what about legislation regulating the mortgage industry?

Palin: McCain said two years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would be in trouble. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator, didn't you disagree with Obama on this?

Biden: Yes, and Obama predicted the mortgage crisis two years ago. McCain was unaware. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor, is that so?

Palin: Let's talk about energy and not boring old mortgages. It's a subject I really know. I am good. Energy independence is good.

Moderator: Okay, screw that last question. Let's just skip it and move on to climate change. Governor, what do you think?

Palin: Yeah, we feel it in Alaska more than anywhere else. We can help this by being energy independent. Did I mention that I like talking about this subject?

Moderator: Senator Biden, as a leading climate scientist, what has your exhaustive research on climate change led you to conclude?

Biden: All scientific evidence leads me to believe that climate change is McCain's and Palin's fault because they want to "drill, drill, drill".

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: We have oil, gas and coal. We believe in using it. Obama and Biden want to keep it in the ground.

Moderator: Governor do you support clean coal?

Palin: Yes

Biden: Me to, but McCain is bad.

Moderator: Senator, do you support rights for same sex couples?

Biden: Yes

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Yes, but not gay marriage.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: I agree, no gay marriage.

Moderator: This is no fun. Let's move to foreign policy. Governor, you said you believe in an exit strategy in Iraq, is that true?

Palin: The surge is good. Petraus is good. McCain is good.

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: Obama said we will be out in 16 months. McCain wants to keep troops in Iraq. McCain is bad.

Moderator: Governor?

Palin: Our troops have come too far to throw up a white flag now. If McCain is so bad, why did you support him initially and call Obama "not ready to be Commander-in-Chief" Senator?

Moderator: Senator?

Biden: McCain voted against funding for troops. McCain is bad.

I'll end it here and just say that Palin looked particularly strong early and really challenged Biden well on the economic and energy questions. Biden looked more comfortable in the foreign policy arena. He obviously wanted to do what Obama chose not to do and that is to continually attack McCain on every single issue. It was too incessant if you ask me.

My other comment is that the Moderator revealed that she was pro-Obama when she asked Palin if she supported McCain's healthcare plan. She never bothered to ask anyone about Obama's. The climate change question had a similar tone. It also appeared that Biden knew what questions were coming and Palin did not. Maybe he is just gifted at this but Biden had every answer prepared and sounded like a speech giver. Palin 'ummed' a few times and appeared to think about how to answer. She may have diverted some answers but she came across as much more genuine.

Not all that interesting of a debate. I'll call it a tie.

No Predictions

Unlike previous years, I will not post my baseball predictions for the 2008 postseason. Here is why.

1. I was almost spot on last year and I want to continue to bask in that (no, not really).

2. (The real reason) This is the best I have felt about the Dodgers in years so I can't be anything but biased. Dodgers all the way and will crush the Angels in the Series.

Go Blue!

Round 1

Just a few comments about yesterday's Presidential debate.

Why did McCain resort to calling Obama naive and dangerous? Just state your cause McCain. Let us make those determinations for ourselves.

McCain will never win the battle of stage presence. Obama projects his voice like an old-time orator with his eyes outward and his voice strong and steady. McCain always comes across as a bit shifty-eyed and uncomfortable.

Democrats like to argue that Obama comes across as "more Presidential" and I can't argue with that.

However, when it come to content...

It appeared that Obama resorted to simply agree with John McCain several times. Nothing really wrong with that but it also seemed that this tactic just confirmed McCain's superior experience.

Obama, like most Democrats, relies on the ignorance of his audience. He is always stating what he thinks people want to hear.

Listen to his message.

• He stated that Al Queda operates in 60 countries now and we need to devote our attention away from Iraq and focus on these other areas.
• He is going to drastically increase funding for the development of alternative energy.
• He is going to promote American good-will around the globe (with the possible exception of a certain 60 countries).
• He'll get us all free health-care.

The punchline is - he is going to accomplish the above and still lower the taxes of 95% of us. I have a bridge for sale to anyone who is buying this load.

Still, by a small margin. Obama edges McCain in debate number 1.

New Blog

In my continued devotion to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have created a blog for it that includes all my articles from http://www.2001aspaceodyssey.org/. It's posted in my links section.

2001: The Blog

I've been focusing more attention there than here. 2001 averages 50 hits a day. Pure Drivel averages 1.

Pure Drivel - Year 4

Tomorrow begins my 4th year with this blog. Honestly, I don't think I would have thought 3 years ago that I would still be doing this. Nevertheless, I trudge on and have no intentions of stopping now. I always have lots of ideas in my head but I've always had trouble putting my ideas into coherent sentences. My post list is littered with entries that I started, never finished, and just left unposted. They will remain unposted.

My blog statistics indicate a shift in 2008. My blog received a lot of attention earlier this year because of my experience in the Ride and Drive event. I guess a lot of people were curious about what people thought of comparisons between Ford, Honda, and Toyota sedans. That entry was in early 2007 but it was early 2008 when a lot of people Googled and found it. My What is an American Car? article got a lot of attention from web searchers even though that was written in 2006.

I'll probably spend most of the next two months expressing my opinions concerning the election. I may have a thing or two to say about baseball, energy, the economy, or the auto industry. What comes after that may be related to who gets elected.

New Rules on Feminism

Palin: Wrong Woman Wrong Message

Gloria Steinem, the founder of the modern feminist movement has a few things to say about Vice-President nominee Sarah Palin.

" even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president"

"Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters"

In Ms Steinem's editorial, from an after-convention discussion of reporters on CNN, and from Al Sharpton, I learned a few new rules on feminism I wasn't aware of:

A woman who runs for President or Vice President must be viewed as heroic, ground-breaking, and tough to break into the males only club. As long as she is a Democrat.

If a Republican woman runs for Vice President, she must be endlessly scrutinized. Surely she must be involved in some scandal. Other women should question her poor choice of being a Republican. A Republican woman's place is in the home so she can take care of the kids.

Men and women, who have no foreign policy experience can run for President and be considered bold, fresh, and ready to "change" the status quo and our perceptions on foreign relations. As long as they are Democrats.

A Republican woman with no foreign policy experience can't seriously run for Vice President because she obviously is strictly being used to attract the female voters. She, in fact, should be condemned.

A female politician making a speech and talking tough about standing up to fight for what she believes in is lauded for having strength of character as long as she is a Democrat.

A female Republican politician making a speech and talking tough about standing up to fight for what she believes in is accused of secretly being a man.

It is completely understood that all politicians have their speeches written for them by a professional speech writer. Exception: Republican women must write their own speeches. Otherwise, they are just a mouthpiece for a man.

I guess I'm anti-feminist after all.

Eriks Simple World

Big Difference

Alright Erik, you asked for it. You called me out in your blog so I will return the favor.

In the simple world of Erik:

• All Conservatives are racists.
  


• All Republicans are psychopaths.
  


• If you are against Martin Luther King Day being a national holiday, you are a racist.
  


• Republicans are responsible for killing the planet and if you don't think so, you are stupid and don't believe in science.
  


• Any reference to an article or a link that has something to do with Erik's point of view establishes Erik's argument as "fact" and "proof" that he is right.
  


• Any article that Erik does not agree with is published by a right-wing nut member of a biased conservative media.
  


• All Conservatives and Republicans are in lock step with each other so that the actions or statements by one apply to all.
  

In his black and white, simple views of the world, he attacks my character and wonders why I don't post comments on his blog as often as I used to. Unlike Erik, I see the world as complex. Every issue has many variables and I simply won't break them down to an A vs B point of view. When I do respond to his point A comment, he shoves me over to the full point B because he can't handle the idea that an issue may have more than two sides. If I don't agree with him, I'm a "Bush worshipper" or something like that.

Let's look at some examples:

McCain Security Ousts Reporter

This was a slam-dunk for Erik. Since an ousted reporter happened to be black, that was the reason he was kicked out. Plain and simple since it perfectly fits in with Erik's view that all conservatives are openly racist. McCain must be really stupid too, to commit such an obvious racist act.

O'Reilly to San Francisco

Erik says that a man who killed the Arkansas head of the Democratic Party did so because people like Bill O'Reilly said it's okay. We conservatives all think alike. I wonder who I should kill today? Ann Coulter said I can.

On a similar note, here's another gem from Erik:

"This sick individual who shot and killed two people and wounded others in Tennessee is pathetic but he is in the same mindset as a lot of conservatives"

Yes Erik, there is a big difference between us and it has nothing to do with our politics. I'm not questioning your intelligence but I do accuse you of being mentally lazy. Issues and problems should not be broken down as simply as you want them to.

McCain's Courage

I just found a reason to like John McCain.

Barack Obama continues his strategy of saying the things his particular audience wants to hear. John McCain went to Michigan and told the people he's not going to bailout the auto makers. McCain dismissed calls to help Detroit make the cars they should have been making in the first place, or should be able to make now on their own damn dime given all the profits they banked during the SUV and pickup boom.
McCain, in doing this, pretty much blew off his chance of winning Michigan. At least he was courageous enough to make a stand. Good for you McCain!

John McCain: No Federal Loan Guarantees for Detroit

Bailouts are not the Answer

In the late 1970's, Chrysler Corporation was in trouble. They failed to adapt to higher gas prices and newer anti-pollution standards. Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca went to Washington and managed to convince Congress that they could turn things around if the Government would give them a low interest loan. It took some time but Iacocca made good on his promise. Chrysler developed a new kind of vehicle called a minivan and the rest is history, Chrysler was the leading minivan company for nearly two decades. This and an overall improvement in their entire product line allowed Chrysler to pay back the loan - something most people (myself included) doubted they would be able to do. Chrysler, during the 1990's, had a bright future by being smart and creative.

These are not those times.

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are all in serious trouble. They are losing billions of dollars each quarter. As in the 1970's, they didn't have the foresight concerning their slant towards large vehicles - large cars in the '70's and trucks and SUV's now, would come to an end. GMC Yukons, Chevy Silverados, Ford Expeditions, and Dodge Rams and the like were big moneymakers for these companies. So much that even Nissan, Honda, and Toyota began building behemoth vehicles to grab a share of the pot of gold. They are suffering for this action too, now. Not as much though since these companies have their Prius', Civics, Sentras, and such to fall back on.

What do the so-called domestic companies have?

Chevrolet has never had a highly rated small car. Chevettes, Cavaliers, Aveos, and Cobalts are typically at the bottom of most lists. They weren't any better in mid-size either until the current Malibu came out. Dodge had a decent small car in the Neon. They had good compact cars in the Stratus and Cirrus in the mid 1990's. However, Chrysler, under the control of Daimler at the time, utterly failed to update these vehicles and they eventually diminished. Only Ford isn't completely hopeless. They have had a competitive fuel-efficient vehicle in the Focus. The Fusion and Escape Hybrid indicate that they have a clue, but it hasn't been enough.

"The big 2.8" (Daimler still owns 20% of Chrysler) are losing billions of dollars and want the federal government to get them back on their feet. Translation; They want us taxpayers to fork over the bill for their inadequacies meaning we're supposed to pay the price for not buying Fords, Buicks, and Dodges. They argue, of course, that if they go under, thousands of jobs will be lost, not just by their own employees, but in all the dealerships, mechanics, and smaller companies that contribute to the makeup of their vehicles.

It's time to cut the cord and force these companies to fend for themselves, despite the consequences. If they work smartly, these companies have a good chance to survive and grab back what they had lost. Otherwise, they will fail because they deserve it. I believe Charles Darwin's theory of "Natural Selection" applies here. If the government bails them out, why should these companies change their ways when they know they have the taxpayers as a safety net?

Unfortunately, both Presidential candidates are trying to get votes from Michigan by promising aid to the auto companies. They are both wrong and this is really very un-American. America is the land of opportunity, remember? That means one company's failures are another company's opportunities. Maybe it's time for some other company that's is driven and is better able to plan to fill the void. If the 2.8 fail, that's a lot of talented people out of work. Opportunity knocks.

I feel the same way about the bailouts for Fannie May and Freddy Mac. Let these companies die if they made such bad mistakes.

That also applies to people who made bad choices concerning their mortgages. Let them foreclose. Let the housing market stabilize because of free-market balance, not because of artificial, tax-payer paid bailouts.

This is all about responsibility. If we don't exercise it, future generations will pay.

So, Why All The Misery?

Okay, so gasoline is pushing $5 a gallon. Prices seem to be leveling off for now but there's no indication that they'll go down any time soon. Let's look at how this is affecting us.

We are driving less.
We consolidate our shopping - no more going to the supermarket to get a loaf of bread. Also, more of us use carpools, take buses, ride on rails, or even simply decide we had no reason to drive in the first place.

We are dumping our over sized vehicles
Suddenly, small, fuel efficient vehicles are in vogue again. Monster pickup trucks, candied-up SUV's, and V8 sports sedans have suddenly lost their allure. For those who want or need a pickup truck or SUV, these are good times too since dealerships are overstocked and are offering tremendous deals (I've seen 1/3 off of sticker on some).

We are polluting the air less
All these smaller vehicles and less driving add up to less air pollution. For those who consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant, we're even spewing less of that.

We are looking at alternative fuels
Natural gas, bio fuels, hydrogen, and pure electrically powered vehicles are being developed. Everything is still in a pre-larval stage but we have reached that point where the "gas is cheap" argument has finally gone away.

So I ask the question. Isn't this what we wanted? Isn't this all good? Shouldn't we be dancing in the streets since we are finally getting what we've been demanding for 40 years?

So, why all the misery?

Our Ever Expanding Government

So let me get this straight regarding the recent Supreme Court Ruling.

Person A is a citizen of Pakafgahnistovania. He is hard working, law-abiding, and pays his taxes.

Person B is also a citizen of Pakafgahnistovania. He is a slimeball malcontent. He decides that the fault for his discontentment lies in the policies of the United States. Person B goes out to attempt to kill Americans to satisfy his twisted need for his version of justice.

The U.S. Constitution protects and gives rights and privileges to Person B. Person A is at the mercy of his home country.

Concerning Fuel Prices and Recessions

Michelle and I took a short but beautiful vacation last month. We drove up the state to Yosemite and Healdsburg in Sonoma County. In between waterfall gazing and wine tasting, we were in the car. The trip put over 1,200 miles on my car which means, we consumed approximately 55 gallons of gasoline. At a then average of $4.10 per gallon, the trip cost us approximately $225 in fuel alone.

Now I'm telling this because as we all know, the recent sharp increases in the price of gasoline affect us all. Nobody is happy about it. The economic impact it has on us is real and we are reminded of it every time we go by a gas station. We cringe as we sneak a peak at how high the price has gone up since we last looked. We look down at the fuel gauge and hope that the needle is still on the F half.

Then we hear about house foreclosures, food shortages, and massive layoffs in the auto industry. Indeed, the economic news has been virtually 100% negative in the past few months. It's no surprise then, that polls show that most Americans believe we are in a recession.

But here's the rub; A recession is explicitly defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Well, as it turns out, the GDP (that's gross domestic product) of 4'th quarter 2007 and 1'st quarter 2008 were positive, that's right, positive. Yes, they were the lowest in six years but when you think about recession, you have to realize it's about negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters. We don't have negative growth for even one!

Why is the news so negative?

Well, it just happens to be an election year. Our friends of the main stream media are up to their usual tricks. They repeatedly pound in our heads that the economy is sagging. On top of that, they tell us that the Presidential election is focused on the economy. No wonder since that's all that seems to be reported now a days.

When was the last recession?

Look it up and you'll find the last recession (or two consecutive quarters of negative GDP) was in 2000 to mid-2001 during the Clinton administration and the beginning of the Bush administration. Remember all the negative news about the economy then? No, I don't either.

Now It's Tainted

Yesterday, the NBA officially stated the obvious. That is that Fischer fouled Barry at the very end of game 4 and Barry deserved the chance to tie the game with two free throws. Thanks refs for tainting the whole Laker drive to a championship! If the Lakers win the series, I could never look a Spur fan in the eyes and say "we beat you".

Now I know what it would have been like to have been a Patriot fan in early 2002.

A Small World for Small Minds

At both Disneyland and Disney World, the timeless attaction It's a Small World will be updated. The boats are going to be changed to be more comfortable. That's good. The attactions will be re-painted as the vivid colors of the ride have faded somewhat. That's good. General repairs will be done as machinery that moves various parts of the ride has worn down or stopped working. That's good. Various parts of the attractions will now be themed to fit with recent Disney movies.

What?

For those of us who have visited Disney parks many times, It's a Small World has always been the charming, somewhat hokey, but classic ride that carried a simple, yet beautiful message of world-wide harmony. It featured all the children of the world in their national costumes and decorum singing together. This ride has been adored for decades by generations, young and old.

Why Change it?

Is putting an animitronic Alladdin in the Arabian section, or Mulan in China, going to attact more riders? No, but Disney thinks it might sell more dolls (action figures for the boys) and DVD's. I could go on about what I think about the lack of integrity this whole idea represents, but I, instead, will provide a link to what professional animators say about this compromise of vision.

The World of Animation Speaks

Think about it

I was sent this email recently.

Where will we all be working in the next ten years? How about 20 years?

John Smith started the day early having set his alarm clock (MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 am. While his coffeepot (MADE IN CHINA) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (MADE IN HONG KONG).

He put on a dress shirt (MADE IN SRI LANKA), designer jeans (MADE IN SINGAPORE), and tennis shoes (MADE IN KOREA).

After cooking his breakfast with his new electric skillet (MADE IN INDIA), he sat down with his calculator (MADE IN MEXICO) to see how much he could spend today. After setting his watch (MADE IN TAIWAN) to the radio (MADE IN INDIA), he got into his car (MADE IN GERMANY), filled it with gas (from Saudi Arabia) and continued his search for a good paying job.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day - checking his computer (MADE IN TAIWAN), John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (MADE IN BRAZIL), poured himself a beer (MADE IN HOLLAND) and turned on his TV (MADE IN INDONESIA).

And then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in AMERICA!

To any of you who are going out to protest your employer today for treating you unfairly or because you don't believe in Corporate America, remember that once upon a time, the U.S. had steel workers, welders, automobile assemblers, clothing manufacturers.

Look at the clothes in your closet. Did you think about who put them together? Did you think about the Americans you put out of work when you bought the cheaper toaster? As for that Toyota in your garage, do you ever think about all the unemployed auto workers in Detroit?

Obviously, you didn't. So why are you protesting now that your own job is in danger?

I am reminded of a poem.

First they came for the Communists
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Bush Gets it. Do You?