The New Era of Statism

I have a question that I believe is on the minds of a lot of people. Since when did statism become so attractive? I bring this up in light of of the recent economic policy of the Obama administration. The bailouts under the Bush administration were folly. The extended bailouts with pet projects that are entirely unrelated to boosting growth and employment signed into law by the Obama administration were folly. The mortgage plan to cover the collective buttocks of millions of Americans who can't afford their mortgages rewards bad behavior. The continued bailout mentality for the financial, auto, and mortgage industries is not just misplaced, but incredibly counter-productive and yes, statist. The government is very good at creating new dependents, and that is exactly what it is doing with the bailouts, attaching the money it lends to preferred stocks and huge chunks of the company. That kind of behavior frightens current stock holders and future investors. With the flight of new and old investment those companies continue to hemorrhage, forcing the government to bailout their bailouts. And, in the big picture, government becomes the de facto controller of a massive part of the private sector (ie: the banks).

Here is the definition of statism as defined by oh so reliable wikipedia (I corrected some spelling mistakes):

Statism (or Etatism) is a term that may refer to any of the following:

1. Government having a major role in the the direction of the economy, both through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the central planning of overall economy.

2. The "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government."

3. The Fascist concept of statism which holds that "basic concept that sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The fascist concept of statism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline."
However, if all of the statist-leaning policies were not enough for you, charitable tax deductions will be significantly reduced or disallowed and the President and his administration aim to raise taxes during a recession, creating more unbalance by putting the most burden on the wealthy. You might think, "Well that doesn't affect me." Yes it does. First off, the tax increases on the wealthy are not going to cover the administration's new drive to overhaul the entire healthcare system and foster green energy with a cap and trade systems, so you can count on tax hikes hitting people who make anywhere upwards of $75,000 a year. In fact, there will be tax hikes all around, but Geithner and the Obama administration seem to think that the economy will be out of its "funk" by the time they actually take effect, which will be 2010 and 2011. However, they seem to forget that people react to these events prior to them happening. So, the announcement alone of tax hikes during this economic malaise is only exacerbating the crisis, as is evidenced by the continued downturn of all markets. Oh, and lest I forget, we will soon enter an age where more people do not pay taxes than those who do. That means that more people will feel entitled to government services without paying a single dime. Under the current Obama tax plan, there are a lot of breaks and rebates for people who do not pay taxes, and the lower income tax brackets will become smaller.

Just had to get that off my chest. Some of Obama's projects might even be good, or at the very least well-intentioned, but he needs to wake up and realize that now is not the time to overhaul the health care system or put a cap and trade policy into effect. Just like any family or individual, the government should not spend money it does not have. We got into this economic predicament by spending more than was in our means and taking on bigger loans than we should have. Explain to me Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and President Obama how we are going to get out of this problem by doing the same thing that got us into it. All of these trillion dollar pump-priming initiatives and this $3.6 trillion budget are going to do is increase debt and the size of government, cause rampant inflation, and prolong the recession, perhaps turning it into a depression. It is also important to remember that the money that is being spent now does not yet exist. The government is spending money on expected revenue. But, how is it going to have this money to spend if it negates the incentives to earn it with higher taxes and cutting deductions? If you have a problem with it, raise your hand.

But this stupidity really is not surprising. I mean, since when did the government do a good job of managing anything? Why do we seem to think that having the government take over the financial sector and the health care system is going to make things better? Just look at the SEC, FDA, SSA, TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. Are those good examples of administration? Do we truly want the government to take over our lives even more, with it's track record? I think not.

Shameless Promotion

There comes a time when we must question our motives. We all do lots of different things, some consciously, others almost by reflex. Well, some of you might wonder at times why I write so religiously on this blog. I am devout. Perhaps at times even more devout than some Hasidic Jews are to the Torah or Talmud. Well, there are many reasons why I blog, but I guess it would be best to let the cat out of the bag. I blog so I can promote my blog. 

I mean, if I didn't ever write anything, how in the world would you expect me to promote it? It reminds me of the movie Tommy Boy, where Tommy (played by Chris Farley) says, "Hey, I can take a sh*t in a box and stamp it guaranteed, but what are you buying? A guaranteed piece of sh*t, that's what you are buying." I have to have something to sell before I start selling. If I just kept throwing up the URL to my blog on twitter and facebook all the time while linking it to a page with a hamster running around on a wheel, people would start to get restless. They might even work up the nerve to buy their own wheels and run around in them to get out all their angst. So, instead of allowing that to happen, I write stuff. Is it good? Well, I'd say there's a chance. 

Like in Dumb and Dumber when Lloyd (Jim Carrey) asks Mary (Lauren Holly) what the chance would be of a guy like him getting with a girl like her. She responds, "One in a million," to which he responds, "So you're saying there's a chance?" 

So I write stuff. However, even more interesting than writing stuff, is promoting it. And, if I'm going to promote it, I might as well do it shamelessly. With that I mean ubiquitously and like a used car salesman. I don't just write on twitter or my facebook status, "Check out my blog, I wrote stuff." I write something more along the lines of: "Giant mutant rabbit attacks President Obama while he sells radioactive golf clubs on eBay," which of course actually happened.

But, beyond just promotion of my blog, I have, on more than one occasion told and even encouraged people to click on the advertisements on this blog. You might think my rationale for doing that is because I make more money. That's simply not true. I do it because every ad you click creates more jobs. You are supporting the economy, and perhaps even saving the world. One click at a time people. You can make a difference. And on that note, click on the ads, visit their sites, buy their stuff, and read my blog like it's water after a marathon. Read it like it's oxygen after holding your breath for 30 seconds. Read it like it's the cure for whatever ails you, because, it is.

Leaders and Followers

To be a good leader, first one must be a good follower. 

If you cannot follow, and run to the beat of your own drum, you set an example that says that you don't respect authority. And, if you don't respect authority, than why should people be expected to respect you as an authority? Of course to be a leader you cannot just follow. Likewise you cannot just lead when you are a follower. Both must be done in concert.

This is probably not new news to anyone, but it remains important nonetheless. And, this is not just applicable to Presidents, Senators, and politicians. People probably think I refer more to politics at this period of heightened electoral fervor, but I do not. Whether we are speaking of the leadership and followship of mothers and fathers, teachers and students, Assistants to the Regional Manager and Regional Managers, it is no less valuable a principle.

It is possible to teach and be taught as a teacher and as a student. In fact, I would say that good teaching only occurs when there is a healthy interplay between the two. The student must be just as involved as the teacher. And, consequently both will learn together, formulating new ideas and approaches. However, that does not mean the teacher cedes his or her authority and sits as an equal to the student on the subject being taught. It means that the teacher sees that he or she is defined just as much by his or her students as he or she defines them.

So, lead me well and I will follow. Then I will lead you well.

Write-in Michael Powers!

The steady march of the oncoming election is inevitable. And, if you are instilled with the concept of patriotic civic duty, you also believe that at least the act of voting is also inevitable. However, you may have found yourself slightly dissatisfied, or even disaffected with your options. So, to that end, I provide you with another option.

Vote for me. Just take the ballot and write in "Michael Powers." 

I can make the claim of true bipartisan goals, and post-partisan ambitions. I can make the claim of truly putting America first, and seeing value in every person from those in the most humble of circumstances to with plenty to spare. 

I will work for you. I will always choose the right path, and not be subjected to a mob mentality. I promise to do the research and get to the root of our problems so that we create long term solutions as opposed to short term band-aids. I'm not interested in getting re-elected. I'm interested in making the future solid. I'm therefore not on a 4 year time table, but on a long term, big vision time table. I will not be subject to whims and fancies, but will be grounded in solid study, firm moral convictions, and belief in the American dream. 

It is that American dream that is attainable for all. But that dream is not made possible by the government, but by you the people. You are what make this country great. America is great in theory, but it is excellent in its practice. There are things in its practice that theory cannot account for and never will. Those are the intangibles. 

In a Powers administration you will not be coerced by general ideas that lead to dangerous ideologies and pantheism. You play an active role, by being your best self. It is not a matter of what your government can do for you as an individual, but what you as a citizen can do to make your government and civil society better. Catch the vision!

Write in Michael Powers this November 4th!

Election fatigue, again.

Politics.

The study of politics is a very important subject, that has unfortunately been smeared by hypocrites who paint themselves as angels and in truth are demons.  

People cringe when they hear the word, and often absolve themselves from conversations touching on anything even remotely related to their perception of what it is. However, politics are a part of our day to day life, our conversations, relations, and all interactions. There are the politics of the family, the politics of our immediate social circles, the politics of our home towns, the politics of our states and nations, and international politics. But what fatigues us is not its study, but rather the corruptive nature of competitive "balance of power" politics.

Most people at this point in the presidential election are fatigued. They are fatigued by the attempts of both candidates to paint the other in a negative light, using flimsy arguments and half-truths. Both are equally guilty. In commercials aired by both candidates, allegations have been made that cannot be completely dismissed, but cannot be completely denied. And, unfortunately, this is why they continue to distort facts. If they both can claim transparency, and be nothing but opaque, why should they stop, if it will win them the election? 

People in general do not want to do a lot of research by themselves to determine which candidate most closely adheres to their personal beliefs. They want it easy. They expect that campaign commercials, CNN and Fox will fill them in enough. Well, good luck with that. Here's a link provided to me by a commenter on my previous post that debunks and rates the truthfulness of different campaign smears from both candidates. Whether it helps or not I do not know, but I hope so.

Genuinely Calculated

There are a lot of fakers out there. They put on a facade that they care, or that they don't care, while inside they feel conflicted. However, for all the superficiality out there, we should not confuse good calculated planning with insincerity. It is possible to be genuine in our calculation.

In fact, if you really care about an issue you probably should think about what you are going to say. Maybe even write it down. But, at the same time, I see the value of speaking from the gut, off the cuff. But neither method is an absolute indicator of heartfelt sentiment. This is because, often times our gut speaks what our mind would not, and in the converse, our mind speaks often what our gut would not.

This brings me of course back to politics, and more specifically politicians. There is nothing wrong with being coached on policy that you believe in so that you say what you want to say. However, it is bad if you are being coached to say something 'politically correct' when you don't agree with it. 

In Palin's interviews with Charles Gibson so far, you can tell she was coached, and you can see sincerity. However, she does come across as conflicted. This however, is not entirely her fault. Gibson asks tough policy questions (that would most likely not be asked to Obama or Biden as flatly), and is trying to paint her a certain way. Asking whether she thought Iran posed and 'existential threat' to Israel, Mr. Gibson tried to imply with follow ups that she would be hawkish. Palin repeated that she believed Israel is within its right to defend its sovereignty from a legitimate threat. She at no point claimed that the US would get involved, but didn't say it wouldn't either, and, given the delicate nature of the situation, it was the correct response. 

This brings me to a problem with these candid interviews. Regardless of who is being interviewed, there are certain questions that cannot be answered yes or no without limiting the ability of the state department in its negotiations, and putting our foot in our mouths. The issues, as much as they might seem black and white to some, are grayer than that. Trying to force a candidate to respond in an ideological way does not seem like a very revealing way to explore character. The best response therefore, in my opinion for whatever candidate would often be, "I cannot say exactly what position we would take at this time, because I do not have the full intelligence reports in front of me." Then of course, if given a more solid hypothetical, I could answer. For instance if Mr. Gibson were to say, "Let's say we knew 'x', would you do 'y'?" Then it would be easier to come up with a good specific response. When questions are to the point, but general at the same time, they are misleading and unenlightening. That is why hypothetical questions are good, because they provide a narrowing and also reveal the person being asked.

I know Gibson is being put in a difficult situation in this interview, but that is always the case with news reporters. They need to keep their opinions in check, remain objective, but get the goods at the same time. They have to tiptoe, and they have to be rough. It's a difficult job, but he knows the right way to do it. Having not seen the entire interview I cannot condemn and I cannot say I approve. So far my position is mixed. Gibson treats Palin with a certain condescension, like when he asked her if she was ready to be President. Palin said yes, 'without blinking' and Gibson then said that she then must have been showing hubris. But, at the same time, the initial question is absolutely fair and necessary. His further conjecture however, was perhaps not quite so journalistic, and showed bias, as did much of his demeanor. However, at the same time Palin's referring to Gibson as 'Charlie' to create a more comfortable intimacy that never existed to begin with didn't work either.

So, I suppose all I can do now is watch and see what happens tonight.

The World doesn't elect America's President.

You know what I just love? Don't answer that (that could lead to a number of crude responses). I love the media's use of polls. The media loves them. Politicians love them. Or, they hate them. If the poll says what they want, they put it on the front page. If it doesn't, it gets put in the classifieds. Well, a recent poll that has no relevance at all says that the people of the world want Obama as President.

First off, just a little FYI to media people who thought that poll somehow mattered, this is an AMERICAN election. In this election, who matters are the AMERICAN candidates, and what the AMERICAN people want. 80% of the French want Barack (This picture of Barack comes from the French magazine Le Monde. 

Well guess what France, you can have him after the election, if he defects and becomes a French citizen, but for now, we decide. Obviously the percentage is just as high in Kenya, but once again, Kenya is not the US, and neither is Russia, another country that also wants him to be President.

And, if it weren't enough that we have to hear about how the rest of the world wants to run our country, the beleaguered British PM Gordon Brown praised Obama's charisma and economic platforms, in a time when his party is anything but motivated. He claims that he has not endorsed Obama, but in the article that was written by one of his party's junior staffers, there was no mention of McCain. Seems like a 'not so discreet, under the table, while handing the goods to the wrong hands' type of endorsement to me. 

At any rate, while some may argue that the Presidency of the US is a global issue, because we are the world's lone superpower (excluding an emerging China, and a resurgent Russia), the fact remains, that the responsibility and privilege to elect OUR head of state, does still reside in the hands of the American people, and not in the world's hands. It is not the United States of the World. But the United States of America. Now let's stick to the issues, and let America figure out its own domestic affairs (I know we don't always let the rest of the world do it, but if I were president, sovereign states would remain that way under most conditions, and as far as I know the US is a sovereign state).

Obamamania!

You know what I've heard from the McCain camp, and numerous non-American press outlets? I heard that Obama is getting more publicity from the media than McCain. I am shocked. I mean, it just doesn't make sense for the press to be chasing around a handsome, young, energizing mulatto from Chicago's south side. They should be chasing a battle-worn, cranky, white septuagenarian like McCain.  

The statistics are pretty interesting though. In the past month, of the new stories regarding Presidential candidates, 77% have been about Obama, with only 33% about McCain. That disparity is a tad disconcerting. And, many in the press have been blatantly open about their lack of objectivity, saying, as Chris Matthews did, that they have "felt a tingling sensation go up [their] legs" when hearing Obama speak and campaign. It would not be quite so funny if it weren't actually happening. But, at the same time, most American news is nothing but sensationalism passed off as journalism. And that's one reason I read more news from Britain and other countries.

However, I can't help but think I am only contributing to the Obamamania by mentioning him in my blog as much as I do. I try to get both McCain's name, and Obama's in the same post, or in the same sentence (like this one), but it can be tricky. They are trying to outmaneuver each other using the press.  Well, I won't be bought. The fact is, regardless of the press's favoritism of Obama, the polls have remained relatively the same. Obama has a slim 2-3% point lead and it hasn't changed much at all for a few weeks. That should be comforting to McCain, and a little sign of trouble for Obama. Either way, I think it will be a fun race to watch in these upcoming days and months.

It's not a race issue.

It's not. For me it never was. I don't care what race, sex, or religion you are - that does not influence my vote. What does influence me are your ideas, your platform, your plan.

When Obama made the comment a couple months ago that his grandmother was a 'typical white person,' no one flinched. Why? Because it's okay to be racist against the majority, not the minority. And, if you share some blood of the minority, you are allowed to say non-PC things. Imagine if McCain had said, 'typical black person?' His campaign and political career would be over. And, that is stupid. There need not be a double standard.

Then, if that weren't enough, to pre-empt future racist commentaries from McCain's campaign, Obama made a statement more recently saying that racism would be used to defeat him. He said that before a single race-charged comment had been made by the other camp! He thinks he cleverly brought racism to the forefront while denouncing it. He made it an issue when it was not one. Why? Because if he can paint McCain as intolerant before he makes any intolerant remarks he is setting McCain on a pedestal - and everyone will watch for even the slightest non-PC falter. And, that's cheap politics. Why has no one pointed out Obama's racist comments, demeaning blacks, and even his own white grandmother? Oh, that's right, it's okay because he's part black. Justice never was a part of politics, just a bothersome nuisance.

Making mountains out of molehills

A new way to give yourself and your life a new boost and a new image of self-importance has arrived. The age old phrase of 'making a mountain out of a molehill' has come back in fashion. Whatever your schedule looks like - be it taking the kids to soccer practice, PTA meetings, violin lessons, board meetings, or trips to Hong Kong - make it sound like you are the President or Secretary of State to your friends. Or, if you prefer Warren Buffet.


By doing so your life will start to become worthwhile. You can run around like a chicken with its head cut off and feel fulfilled. Because, hey, you're CEO of your World. That's right, you sure are. Not only will you start feeling better about what you do and who you are, but other people will start to be impressed.

They'll mill around asking themselves questions like "How does he do it?" and "Where does she get the tenacity?" Well, you won't tell, and neither will I. So when they ask you questions like that just say, "It's in-born. You can't teach that kind of success. She learned how to walk on water before she knew how to ride a bicycle. That's life. It's not my place to explain why some of us are mortal demi-gods and you are an untouchable. Just admire and make 'oooo' and 'aaaa' sounds."

Shantaram

Just recently I purchased a book on a recommendation of a friend. The book is called Shantaram. I haven't started it yet because I'm still reading a book by Richard L. Holm called 'The American Agent.' The latter I know is good, and I recommend it to all of you. Especially if you don't like the CIA.


FYI - Everything the CIA does is known to three groups before it does anything: the President, the National Security Council and select senate and congressional oversight committees. However, if they screw up, all three of those groups deny culpability and blame it on the CIA. If they are successful, you don't hear about them, but the President gets all the credit. Not to say that the CIA hasn't screwed up in the past, but they've got an unfair portion of the blame. It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' catch-22 for them. Often they are told to do something by the President that they don't want to do, but have to, then get blamed when it doesn't work. Anyway...I'm rambling.

But let me just say one thing about Shantaram. This caught me immediately. Here is the 'About the Author' section:

"Gregory David Roberts was born in Melbourne, Australia. Sentenced to nineteen years in prison for a series of armed robberies, he escaped and spent ten of his fugitive years in Bombay - where he established a free medical clinic for slum-dwellers, and worked as a counterfeiter, smuggler, gunrunner, and street soldier for a branch of the Bombay mafia. Recaptured, he served out his sentence, and established a successful multimedia company upon his release. Roberts is now a full-time writer and lives in Bombay."


I think that's all I need to say. Read the book.

The New Draft!

Due to new demands on the military and low recruitment numbers, the President has re-instituted the draft. And there is no beer involved this time. Anyone who's name rhymes with Dick, Rupert or Marv is now called from the spinny wheel thingy. And all of you draft dodgers from Vietnam who lived in Canada for the war, or those of who still call yourselves Canuks are now called to report to service. This also means wildlife. All moose, geese, and pheasants must get in line too. Mounty's behind them.









The draft will go on indefinitely as the President sees fit. Don't cry about it; you can still bring your Molson Ice and maple syrup. You will be assigned to report to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Your mission will be to fight the enemy. The enemy being either the Cubans or whoever we have imprisoned there without cause. Good luck men. Serve with honor and you will get extra rations of beans and Marlboro lights.