THINK SMALL

2009-12-01T22:50:00.000-08:00

TALES OF A (REPUBLICAN) PARTY CRASHER

I hereby submit my resignation as a "Republican". I used to be a proud pachyderm and considered myself died-in-the-wool, but no more. Three main reasons: 1) repubs are (lately) as corrupt as democrats 2) The republican party seems to stand for "the polar opposite of democrats - whatever that may be", instead of uniting under their own distinctive direction. 3) Sure, Harry Ried is a corrupt self-server on behalf of the people, but now the would-be hope of NV - republican Ensign - is a dirtbag adulterer who takes no responsibility and dodges accountability. My state is in the hands of a senate majority-leading liberal megalomaniac, whereas the republican "good guy" turns out to be a corrupt adulterer who stands for conservative values. I love being a Nevadan right now!

Information is a funny thing. News can be so probing and the scandal coverage so nauseating. There are so many new sources and outlets of information that it is nearly impossible to engage in any form of corruption without someone somewhere somehow finding out about it. Aside from tawdry celeb scandals and DWTS updates, the pervasiveness of news does also expose myriad corruptions on the part of our elected officials. In this case, advantage general public. Too many republicans have been caught up in scandal in recent years for me to believe they care any more about country than they do self. We elect them and they manipulate us. That isn't working for me anymore.

So now I feel like an orphan, a vagabond, a Ronin. Human nature is such that we want to belong to something. What will I say the next time someone asks if I'm a democrat or republican? Can't say "independent", what does that really mean anyway? I think saying you're an "independent" is a quasi cop-out. All it says is that you don't stand with either party. Great. But what do you stand for? "Independent" is more nebulous than democrat and republican combined. What I do know is that believing in something is of much greater importance than merely belonging to something.

So I guess I'll go with "Pro-republic who advocates adherence to the constitution with a government that facilitates private enterprise while repudiating corruption." Sounds like Theodore Roosevelt, he seemed to cover all the bases. Maybe I should consider myself a "Rooseveltian Progressive"? Not to be confused with the other, more revered and canonized Roosevelt (argument for another day)...

Ideally, I'd like an amalgamation of things. Kinda like a cake mix. The batter being a lot of Teddy with some Jefferson & Reagan, William F. Buckly Jr, Arthur Laffer & Adam Smith, some Ayn Rand, but probably hold the John Birch; that's going a bit too far. What would you call that all mixed together? I don't know, nothing more than a lot of name dropping I suppose. Oh well, I give up. Who is John Galt??

2009-08-23T21:27:00.000-07:00

I SAY NEVADA, YOU SAY NEVAHDA

There is a dubious, but long-standing debate over the pronunciation of this, the 36th of these United States, otherwise known as Nevada. Or is it Nevah-da? Nevada or Nevah-da? Potato or potah-to? Tomato or tomah-to? You get the idea.

It seems that everywhere I turn in the media, people refer to this state in the Spanish pronunciation of "Nevahda", with the "a" in the middle making the "ah" sound, hence my phonetic spelling for the sake of this post. It appears everyone outside of the Nevada media refers to us this way. No other state seems to have this issue. While I am aware that Nevada is a Spanish word meaning "snow capped"; Arizona, California and New Mexico also have names of similar Spanish etymology, yet no one gives those states a proper Spanish pronunciation. So my beef here is that if you insist on a proper pronunciation of NEV-AH-DA, then you ought to extend the same courtesy to CAHL-EE-FOR-NEE-AH (the Arnold pronunciation would be correct), AH-REE-SO-NA, and NEW MEHICO. People shouldn't discriminate on phonetic correctness, it should be universal among all states. So I propose that we either use what is considered to be correct pronunciation - akin to NevAHda - for everyone; or settle the dispute by doing something that perhaps no one has thought yet to do: ask the people who live there. Whoa, genius!

For the purposes of this post I will consider myself a person of authority in settling the long-standing dispute. My authority comes from that very, very rare thing which is defined as being a native Nevadan (or is it Nevahdan??) Not only am I a 33 year native of this state, born and raised (save for a 3 year stint in AhReeSoNah), but my father was a 50+ year native himself having landed in Henderson in 1946 when his family moved here following WWII. My dad always said Nevada without the "ah" sound but with the "a" sound found in "land" or "sand" (both of which this state has more than enough of). And he's not the only one; never in all my years of living here have I ever heard another native pronounce it "Nevahda". Never. Not once. One can only conclude then, that if Nevadans themselves don't say "Nevahda" then they have the final say in the matter. Nevada it is.

Funny thing, Nevada has a national reputation for being populated by under-educated people. With that in mind, what does it say about people who can't even correctly pronounce the name of the very state they consider under-educated...?

2009-02-23T20:21:00.000-08:00

PREDICTION: 2012

2012 - the date we all await with as much (maybe more) anticipation than even Y2K. Year 2000 was all about technology crashing and therefore the world ending, whereas 2012 is the historical & astronomical enigma that marks two occurrences: 1) the abrupt and unexplained end of the Mayan long count calendar; and 2) conjunction of the Winter Solstice Sun with the crossing point of the Galactic Equator that happens only once every 25,000 years or so. What do I think about all of that? The end of the long count calendar probably means, well, nothing. Hey, even 'War and Peace' has an ending, Tolstoy couldn't go on forever. Maybe the Mayans just decided to stop already and it happened to be on December 21, 2012. How many years would YOU want to make a calendar for?? As for the astronomical anomaly, it is indeed unique and an interesting point of fact. But the end of the world? Not so fast. As the scriptures say "If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear." Have you finances in order, store food, water and necessary supplies to sustain reasonable conditions to sustain life and you'll be fine. Let's talk about today for a moment and we'll return to 2012 shortly.

President Obama is off to a rocky start, no question about it. His "new Washington" and ethics reform hit a brick wall with Geithner's tax evasion scandal, then Daschle's tax evasion scandal, a Commerce Secretary that declined the post due to stark philosophical differences, and so on. Geithner is heralded as a financial whiz but didn't know he needed to pay taxes on a 1099...? Daschle for sure is the quintessential tax-loving, big Gov't spending liberal Dem - yet blatantly avoided paying his own taxes. Some bad picks to start things off. Then Obama signed-off on a 17,000 troop increase in Afghanistan. True, he did say he would reduce troop levels in Iraq, but correct me if I'm wrong, he said he would "bring them home"; by "home" did he mean Afghanistan?! Now I don't disagree with his decision - in fact I support it - but y'all elected him to be pacifist, didn't you? I thought you liberals/dems/independents wanted a more isolationist America complete with fewer foreign interventions? What happened to "bring the troops home?" Seems Obama is simply continuing the much-maligned Bush doctrine on this one. And finally, there's the economy. Obama has ripped a page from FDR's playbook and opted to spend our way back to prominence. Will that work? We don't know because the depression came to an end as a result of our involvement in major international conflict and NOT all that spending. One thing is for sure, the New Deal was slow-going until Dec 1941. So what exactly is happening here? Where's the CHANGE?? So far, no good.

That brings us to the all important date of 2012. Not the world-ending, mind bending, prophecy version; but the election year event that, in my opinion, will be the most complex election year in our nation's history. The complexity comes with the underlying social implications of that election. President Obama will be eligible for another term. Two questions hover over election year 2012: Will Obama have earned another term? And second: does he need to earn it or will he just be automatic based on ? It is my belief that if his name is even on the ballot then he will keep his post, no matter what the current state of affairs.

That President Obama is the embodiment and realization of Dr. King's dream I have no doubt. President Obama is an inspiring figure and should give inspiration to all American citizens that they can - and they should - have boundary-free aspirations. However, what I fear is that there will be an entitlement ideal that sweeps the nation come election time. That no matter the state of the economy, foreign policy, national security, etc; President Obama is still the first African-American President and he must be re-elected. In other words, now that he's been ushered in no one dare usher him out. Would anyone risk damaging their reputation; or worse - be accused of the r* word - if they didn't vote for him again? It would then be said that his was a "token" election; that the non-African American constituency just made a 4 year concession but now they're over it. My point is that I can see (and fear) that regardless of the circumstances, President Obama is automatic for another 4 years come 2012. He may well earn his keep in the White House but regardless of how poorly our nation fares, who will dare not vote for him? And if you don't re-elect the first-ever African America president, what will that make you?? The RNC must be befuddled by this unique predicament. Who should be the 2012 republican nominee? Do they even bother trying in 2012? Who will want to essentially waste a quarter-bil on a pointless campaign against arguably the most socially important president ever to take office? Or is it possible we could have the first truly uncontested re-election in history?

There is only one hope for republicans in 2012 - and dare I say it: a minority candidate. There, I said it. Because Obama's election is based as much on ideals (or more so) as on policy, it would require someone to embody similar ideals to even the playing field. Republicans have to take social implications and ideals out of the equation. Unfortunately the republican party is thin on solid, recognizable minority candidates; and that would be their own fault. Its time for republicans, and more importantly conservatives, to reach out to minorities and not only persuade them to that way of thinking but also to make a few (gulp) concessions. Soon minorities will no longer be called that, but instead will be the majority. I myself am conservative and therefore (reluctantly) a republican; so I can say WE must find a way to appeal to minorities or literally be left behind in the future of American politics.

Right now, every quality potential republican candidate is scratching his/her head, wondering if 2012 is really worth it? If it were me, I'd take a pass on 2012 and save up for 2016. Besides, if the calendar ends and the galactic alignment ushers in the end of the world, you won't have wasted your last days on an ultimately futile campaign anyway...

2009-01-24T22:24:00.000-08:00

STOP WITH MEXICAN "CUISINE" ALREADY!!

Okay people, why do we love Mexican food? Not because it's fancy, or has endless culinary possibilities. No. We love it because it is spicy, cheesy, wonderfully flavorful, and just easy and good to eat. There's nothing better than a taco and enchilada plate at a decent Mexican restaurant complete with beans & rice and some chips and salsa for starters. Give me a deep-fried shredded beef taco and a cheese enchilada combo plate at Macayo's any day! Heaven!

So a few years back I went with a friend to El Jefe's here in Las Vegas. He swore up an down about how terrific the place was and just how much he loved it. I was glad to accompany him and must be sure to thank him again for the free meal as he sprung for me. For starters they brought us out some chips and as I recall a bean dip that was quite good and enjoyable, a step up from the usual chips and salsa. So far so good. Then I opened the menu. Uh oh, this is not Macayo's - or any typical Mexican restaurant for that matter. This was "gourmet" Mexican food. I knew I was in trouble...

I've always enjoyed a good enchilada plate and so I opted for the enchi's. Upon receiving my dish I had to do a double take. Had I been unknowingly sedated and secretly moved to a French bistro for lunch? All I did know was that these things didn't look like Enchilada's what with the pale yellow-orangish sauce with a white drizzle back and forth down each of them. Surely this is not Mexican food!

I took a bite and cringed at the idea that someone dare call this over-the-top poseur an enchilada. And logically speaking - if the dish bears no resemblance to it's ethnic root or at least it's Americanized accepted form - can it really be called "Mexican food"?? Surely this atrocity could not be classified as such. So I reluctantly partook of the impostor dish while dreaming of my sloppy, predictably low-brow enchilada plate at Macayo's complete with rice and those yummy frijoles refritos. My next bite of gourmet Mexican cuisine brought me back to the disappointing culinary experience at hand. The worst travesty of all was that I found myself more than satisfied to be done eating. Not full, not "hit the spot", just being done was good enough.

So today while working a physicians trade show at the Venetian hotel, I had the distinct opportunity to take in lunch somewhere on the property courtesy of the company. Being that we had only an hour, it had to be fast and not overly expensive (think I counted several Wolfgang Puck eateries within the Venetian/Palazzo). We found a place called Dos Caminos that was advertised as Mexican food. Upon entering the restaurant, it appeared we had ended up in a high end steakhouse or sushi joint as opposed to a Mexican cantina. It was impeccably decorated with the latest in dining furnishings, wall art, lighting, etc. Beautiful place inside, the experience and ambiance were absolutely terrific. But there's one slight problem with all of that - I could care less!! After all, I'm here for Mexican food for crying out loud! Our waitress, errr.. "server", asked if we wanted guacamole - which we affirmed - and it was no better than what my wife makes. Oh and by the way, it cost $18. Yeah, $18 for about 6 ounces of guac! So we savored our grossly overpriced guac and waited for the chicken enchis. They soon came out in their artistic splendor - one rojo the other verde with a thin, curvy line of sour cream carefully strewn the length of each enchilada. Like the interior of the place, the presentation was superb; but how would they taste? I eagerly took a bite of the verde roll and, as I unfortunately expected, found it nearly inedible. Dry, nearly cheeseless, and stuffed with oodles of dark meat; this culinary concoction no more resembled an enchilada than a hamburger does pizza. Needless to say, I struggled to choke down 3/4 of it and focused my attention more on the tolerable guac and chips & salsa. After my third coke and stuffed on chips, I was happy to be leaving. But my colleague was not - he received a $72 bill for the both of us - for guac, 2 enchilada plates and 2 sodas. I would pay half that at Macayo's and been blissfully satisfied.

My advice: just say NO to anything with the words "gourmet", "cuisine", "fine" and "Mexican" in the same sentence. Stick to the old Mexican restaurants you know and love - or to your local "ethnic" taco shop - and you'll be glad you did.

2008-11-13T21:53:00.000-08:00

ECONOMY'S BROKE, TIME TO FIX IT. ONE SMALL IDEA:

Guns don't kill, people do. Just like credit - and the ever-present availability of it until now - didn't do anyone wrong, we did wrong by abusing it. Just like bad drinking habits, we as consumers and as a nation, didn't know when to say when; and we must take responsibility for our fiscal behavior. But there is something to say for (gulp) regulation. Make guns too available and easy to acquire and that's not a good thing. Lowering the legal drinking age is likely not going to yield positive results either. Extension of revolving credit seems to have no boundaries though, and that has had dire results for households nationwide. Encouraging people to spend money they don't have and to save less to pay for it over time is bad financial policy. This has to change, but how do we change it?

Exactly how we got here is answered by your daily trip to the mailbox. Let me test my clairvoyant skills as to what was in your box today: postcard from auto dealership, bill, credit card solicitation, bill, valpak, bill, credit card solicitation, another credit card solicitation, etc. Okay, so you get the point. I don't know about you but there are usually at least two credit card solicitations daily in my mailbox. Just how many could I apply for and how many would approve me? A few? All of 'em?? I wonder just how many a person could be approved for until the credit companies would finally shut off the valve?

Credit card companies and banks that issue cards have a for-profit goal in mind when issuing all those solicitations. They don't regulate each other and don't know about each other's solicitations. Exactly how much credit a person can be extended is a mystery, but one thing is for sure - everyone and anyone with nearly any credit rating can obtain some credit. So how do you limit instances of over-extention leading to potential abuse? Here's one idea:

What if every person was designated a credit threshold based on their capacity to pay first and foremost. This threshold would be, say, a percentage of your annual income. In other words, the metric would be the ratio of revolving credit to income. Lets consider a revolving credit threshold of 15%. If you make $50,000 per year, your persoal revolving credit threshold would be $7,500. Considering that a $7,500 credit balance would carry monthly payments in the neighborhood of $250-$400 depending on the rate & terms, this would seem to make sense; given that same person will also likely have rent/mortgage, car payment, utilities, etc. Certainly this is a very hypothetical scenario, but one that lends thought to the idea. Remember we are talking about revolving debt which is only credit cards or unsecured debt; NOT auto loans, student loans, mortgages, etc; although those items could be considered for the same treatment...

If you advocate a flat income tax or flat sales tax, which seemingly most conservatives and/or republicans seem to support, then why not a flat revolving credit threshold for everyone? Is it a perfect scenario? Probably not. But would it prevent the over-extension of credit to those without the true capacity to repay? Most of the time, yes. And over-extension of credit (and the abuse of it) for the past several years has proven to have been a silent epidemic - one that went unnoticed and without consequence - until now.

2008-11-04T18:00:00.000-08:00

THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'...

Obama-rama swept the nation and we have a new President. So republicans & conservatives of the world, unite and embrace the impending "change". I like change, personally. Those new state quarters are really fun to collect and the new nickel looks sharp. Oh yeah, wrong kind of change. Well, the change (I shudder to say this) PRESIDENT OBAMA (painful) promises to bring is less tangible and perhaps of less real value than the jar full of change I have sitting on my desk. I trust in that change much more than I do Obama's.

I said it in an earlier post and I'll say it again - the scale and scope of change Obama is promising will quietly never happen. Change rhetoric is used in every election. Didn't W promise positive change? Lots of things went wrong in his presidency and he was faced with some unusual challenges and circumstances; but the net effect is we are not better off than in 2000 or 2004. And why not? Sure, Iraq is a problem. The economy is a problem. The deficit and debt are a problem. Did Bush mastermind these problems? Was this his intended result? Of course not. Stuff happens while you're President. Some of it you can control and some you can't. Just the nature of that job. Bush made mistakes he could have avoided and encountered stumbling blocks he could not. For all the change he promises, Obama better HOPE (there's that word again) and pray (if he does that sort of thing) that he doesn't encounter the kinds of gut-wrenching issues and challenges that President Bush has these past 8 years.

Then there's Congress. In order for all this "change" to happen, folks in the house and senate will have to bite on it. And one of three things happens when President Obama takes office:
1) He is hailed as the Augustus of our age and rules triumphantly with the unyielding support of the legislature thereby resulting in sweeping change. Perhaps a democratic congress will anoint him as such. If this happens, change is more likely; but I think it's long odds...
OR
2) He is afforded no more or less carte blanche than Mr. Bush and has to fight hard for his ideals to become bills and may have to engage in some good 'ol Washington dirty back-scratching to get some of them passed (likely), making him no better a president than the others - including W.
OR
3) He is given the cold shoulder from veteran politicos in congress. These guys have big egos after all. I can hear their thoughts now: "Who does this freshman senator think he is marching all the way to the 'house and demanding I fall into sync with all his rhetoric??" Resistance will happen despite what is, right now anyway, overwhelming support from Capitol Hill; (also likely).

So Pres Obama's "change" agenda will come to a screeching halt his first year or so in office simply because of the way the Washington machine works. I do believe some changes will indeed happen over the next 4 years: The US will become more isolationist than we have since FDR. Obama will embrace global economic policy and ignore the faltering domestic economy. His answers will always come by and through embracing globality in every sense - economics, immigration, etc. He may cut the deficit and reduce the debt but only if the broader economy naturally and cyclically improves (as it did in the Clinton era). By the way, what can the President directly do to influence the economy? Fiscal policy, i.e. taxation. He can raise or lower taxes, that's it. Obama will choose to raise them during tough economic times. Good fiscal policy there, right out of Hoover's playbook. That didn't turn out so well for Hoover, or anyone for that matter.

In summary, I fear that Obama has oversold himself. He is an idealist in every sense of the word. Hope. Change. Ideals work in universities, think tanks, and Silicon Valley start ups where ideals can be tossed about and may or may not become reality with little or no consequence. Pitching lofty ideals of sweeping changes to the American public is a dangerous game most politicians play, but Obama is playing to reckless abandon with his hollow rhetoric. He is inspiring, charismatic, and a natural leader. He is quite frankly, Presidential. But so was Kennedy. And while Kennedy is revered in history, it is not because of what he did; but rather who he was and how he died. Obama is revered for the idea of him - a person that promises change, and we, the public, are voting with the belief and HOPE that he can actually deliver. Will he deliver? We have the next 4 years to find out. My bet is that we all will be at least just a little disappointed...

2008-10-23T20:54:00.000-07:00

WHERE SHALL I FIND MY BELOVED MOUNTAIN DEW??

Listen folks (or folk, as there is probably only one person reading this; probably me) Obama has the momentum and is pulling away. What was looking to be a photo finish will instead likely be an Obama win by a neck or even a length at the wire. So with that imminent reality firmly in place, I can now turn my attention to other important matters such as the widespread proliferation of Coke products among the notch-above-fast-food joints.

It was winter/spring 2007 and I set out for a Baja Fresh close by where I could get the usual: 2 Baja tacos (1 chx 1 stk) and a medium fountain drink cup. That cup, of course, would be occupied by a generous helping of ice and filled with bubbling, light-emerald green nectar from heaven itself: Mountain Dew; or as I affectionately refer to the fountain variety - "fountain" Dew; so much better than out of the can or bottle. Ah yes, I could almost taste the sweet bite of the fizzy green stuff even before stepping through the doors. I walked in and up to the counter, happily ordered "the usual", took my cup and turned to walk toward the soda fountain, and... NOOOOOOOOO!!! Oh no, they didn't!! Oh yes, they did. They had committed the unpardonable sin by switching to Coke products; (actually it is pardonable but only by switching back, which has yet to happen anywhere). I was a lost soul at that moment. My tasty Baja tacos just didn't taste quite the same being washed down by thick, syrupy cola. And ever since, I've reduced my Baja visits to about a third of what they used to be.

Today marked another dark day as I was in the area of a Firehouse Subs eatery. Good subs, jalapeno chips, and - you guessed it - Pepsi products. A "fountain" Dew and a hot turkey sub with melted provolone sounded great for lunch. But a great lunch it would not be. It happened again - the unpardonable (sort of) sin committed at Firehouse. It had only been three weeks or so since my last patronage and the deed was done. So I unhappily washed down my otherwise tasty sub with a mix of Coke Zero and regular spiked with a lemon slice but it was a distant second to Dew. And by distant second I mean the Sham finishing 2nd by 31 lengths to Secretariat in the '73 Belmont kind of distant second. Firehouse is now sadly crossed off the lunchtime go-to list. Who will be next?

2008-09-25T12:40:00.000-07:00

THE $700B BAILOUT DILEMMA - AN INSIDERS VIEW

The focus of our nation this past few weeks is on the near-collapse of our financial industry. With all the uncertainty and seeming fragility of our financial system, the feds have decided that salvation can come only in and through a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. Where did this come from? How did we get here? And most importatnly right now - why $700B?

I have a unique view of this issue because I worked on two sides of the mortgage business from whence the larger part of this crisis came. From 2002-2006 I worked as an independent loan agent making home loans to consumers. From 2006-2007 I worked as a wholesale Account Executive for a mortgage subsidiary of (gulp) Lehman Brothers. As a loan agent I enjoyed the fruits of unprecedented growth in the housing sector along with the easy lending standards. We all did. And many homeowners benefited as well. The media and many politicians like to make it sound as if every non-prime loan has foreclosed or is currently in default. Not so. Cerainly the larger percentage of those in default/foreclosure had non-prime loans, no argument there. But if you want to blame greedy subprime lenders for this mess then you must also blame congress and the Clinton administration. Aha! Yet another stab at the liberal left you say! But no, tis not so when you know the history of subprime and how it was partially born out of legislative action, way back in 1993...

The following was cut and pasted from the Wikipedia entry for the Community Reinvestment Act which was revised in 1995:

In early 1993 President Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.

So, the Clinton administration wanted greater home ownership rates in urban communities and minority groups. There was no way this would happen through conventional lending standards as most of the targeted citizens would not qualify under conventional lending guidelines. Enter the subprime loan.

Relation to 2008 financial crisis

In an article for the New York Post, economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the CRA encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry despite warnings of default. Banks were allowed to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." He notes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial, whose commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003, as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit."
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the current mortgage crisis argued that "Washington is as deeply implicated in this meltdown as anyone on Wall Street" because politicians "promoted housing and easy credit". The editorial lists the CRA as as one of the subsidies and policies, and stated that it "compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them".
In a piece for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, partially attributed the current "economic downturn" to the Community Reinvestment Act, charging it with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."

Now you know the governments' involvement and, dare I say, encouragement of subprime proliferation. The Clinton Administration wanted increased home ownership and indeed this was accomplished - with subprime loans. Clinton & Co started it and unfortunately Bush & Co didn't stop it.

Fast forward a decade later. CDO's & CMO's (collateralized debt obligations; collateralized mortgage obligations) became all the rage on Wall St and beyond. Why? Because you could earn a yield 1%-2% above government and in some cases corporate bonds, but with nearly identical risk of default. This was achieved by "securitizing" mortgages and slicing them up into sellable pieces on the street. In the early and mid 2000's the default rate on mortgages was still quite low, making the overall yield very attractive. Given the positive risk/yield factor, CDO's were the new hot commodity among private equity firms, hedge funds, pension funds, etc etc. Subprime lenders in particular, could make 2 to 5 points on each loan, sometimes as high as 7. That's how hungry Wall St had become for mortgage-backed securities (MBS). In other words, Wall St turned the valve open to full blast and flooded the mortgage market with liquidity. But if you're a bank, what do you do with available liquidity when your standards are too high to find borrowers for all of it? That's easy, lower the standards! Wall St and the investors who bought CDO's effectively green-lighted banks to lower lending standards because they wanted more MBS and the only way to get more was to open up lending to the folks who otherwise wouldn't qualify. You following all this?? 100% loans for folks with 580 scores. Reduced documentation, stated documentation, NO documentation; even loans for people with TIN numbers!! Basically if you had a pulse you probably could have qualified. I know because I saw all of it and participated in some of it.

WHAT HAPPENED??

Never trust a chain-smoker to guard the powder kegs. If a person has bad credit and no savings, it is usually indicative of an overall lifestyle that presents an unduly risk to a lender. Banks and mortgage lenders gave loans to otherwise unqualified borrowers. The attitude at the time was that sometimes it will work out and sometimes it won't; but the sum of it all was still on the plus side. I was happy to offer those people a non-prime loan that would otherwise have no chance at purchasing a home. Some of those people still own their homes and were able to convert to more favorable loan terms as their credit improved - a successful example of the subprime idea. But a large part (probably the larger part) of those that received subprime financing, lived up to their non-prime billing and whether self-inflicted or not, reached a point they could (or would) no longer pay. When the payments dried up, the yields on the MBS declined and the risk factor incresaed. As the yields declined to at or below that of corporate and government debt, investors began a "flight to quality" putting their money back into good ol' boring bonds. When that occurred, flow of capital slowed to a trickle and the valve was effectively shut off. No more money for non-prime borrowers. Probably a good move. But one problem lingered - builders had built to accommodate the growing population of qualified buyers. The building blitz was in full swing. Now their potential buyer base had shrunk by 50% or more and they were stuck with inventory they couldn't find buyers for. Similarly, the resale market for homes was already flooded and now their potential buyer pool had been squeezed. Too much housing supply, not enough (qualified) buyer demand, and.... Economics 101: prices fall, fast.

Prices fall, values drop, and when a home is no longer an asset, what's the point of paying the high payment? Rent! If you owe more than its worth, you're only renting it anyway! At least this is the mentality of many homeowners that found themselves in the squeeze. In addition, many people with adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) were coming near the end of their initial fixed period and would not be able to refinance due to their home being worth less than the amount financed. Falling values + adjusting rates = mass foreclosures.

Mass foreclosures leads to declining neighborhood values which means Joe 700 credit with a fixed loan still gets hurt because his house is worth less after three John 580 credits just defaulted in his neighborhood. Joe can't take that job in Kalamazoo because he can't sell his house for the same or more than he owes, thanks to his defaulted neighbors. Joe is stuck. Down the street, Jack has good credit, makes good money, but took out an ARM thinking it was a good idea. Jack is hosed too because he won't be able to refinance or sell out. What will Jack do? He makes the current payment just fine but it won't be fine when it adjusts up $500 each month. Jack pays for a few months but decides its just not worth it. Jack had good credit, now he has a foreclosure thanks to all the John 580's in the neighborhood that foreclosed earlier. What seems to only effect lower-credit borrowers now effects good credit, good income citizens.

SO WHAT NOW??

Subprime is gone away and the whole CRA idea with it. Housing capital can't be looked at like government program money - it is not disposable and has consequences if not repaid. So now we face a bailout of epic proportions. It is proposed that the Treasury will purchase bad CDO's from banks and hold them as assets with a potential return when the market begins to stabilize. Risky move. Because the mortgages were cut into securities and sold off, its unknown what security belongs to which mortgage. Therefore, you'll never quite know the value (or lack thereof) of what you hold. Two things need to happen for this to be a success: 1) Banks must work with homeowners to keep them from foreclosing. Collecting 70% of a payment is better than 100% of none. This will prevent foreclosures and help stave off further value declines. 2) Overall housing market must stabilize and begin to gain value. When this will happen is anyone's guess.

The other idea is to purchase equity stakes in the banks themselves. This is what was done in the UK. That is an equally risky move because the government would be using your $700B of tax dollars to buy up bank shares. STOCKS with your tax dollars!! How is your 401K doing these days?? That's borderline crazy and it blurs the lines between government and private industry. If you own a business then good luck, you're on your own in these perilous times. Uncle Sam's help stops at the corner of Broad and Wall.

And that, my friends, is an insiders view of this mess. I sometimes reflect with regret that I was a small part of it all. I will say that I honestly tried to do the best I could for borrowers and, if I was guilty of something according to my peers, I charged too little. I never wrote up a negative amortization Option ARM for anyone, I always saw them as "voodoo lending". Whenever possible I made fixed loans. Did I make subprime loans? Yes. The programs were there, the borrowers qualified, and they wanted a piece of the American dream - to own their own home. Should I have said no to that? Wall St didn't see it, banks didn't see it, loan agents, borrowers - none of us saw what could happen. Even the guru himself, Alan Greenspan, at the helm during all of it, didn't see it coming. And if the nations most revered economist who himself warned against "irrational exuberance" didn't see it, how could we?

2008-09-24T18:47:00.000-07:00

MSNBC: BEACON OF SOUND JOURNALISM (or not)

I haven't watched MSNBC for any length of time for probably several years. But it just so happened that my clicker fell upon MSNBC when President Bush began speaking about the $700B plan (more on that later), so I stopped there to watch. After the President's remarks I stayed tuned and was subsequently appalled again and again at what MSNBC readily calls "journalism". After watching Rachel Maddow and part of Keith Olberman's Countdown, I was shocked at how MSNBC would completely sell itself out and blatantly endorse Obama for President. Sure, Fox leans right and certainly has a tendancy to favor the red agenda, but they don't come right out and endorse anyone like MSNBC did tonight. Here are a few observations on their would-be "unbiased" reports:

After President Bush's address, MSNBC's guest commentator on Rachel Maddow's show was none other than Senator Chris Dodd (D). Dodd was critical of the President's support of Paulson's proposal and also made at least three references to the fact that John McCain hadn't "reached out" to him whereas Obama had. That must mean that Chris Dodd is an important man and wields some influence on this epic issue. If that's the case, then isn't it interesting how Dodd feels he's the cogressional Point Man on this project because he oversees the Senate Banking Committee but doesn't take any responsibility for the current crisis, instead he lashes out at regulators for years of being "asleep at the wheel"? Ummm... If you're on the Senate Banking Committee doesn't that make you a financial regulator of sorts? Regulators manage capital markets, Senators protect constituencies. Where were you during all of this, Mr Dodd?? Either you were also asleep at the wheel or you weren't smart enough to see that all the easy credit would lead to financial disaster. The problem stems from Wall St banks; you are chair of the Banking Committee; so which one is it? Lazy or stupid??

Next guest was a republican rep from Florida that openly opposed the plan. See? Repubs in congress disagree with Bush on this! Great balanced representation.

Maddow also slyly accused the McCain campaign of racism because of their ads raising questions about Obama's ties to several less-than-upstanding characters - all of them happen to be black. MSNBC shot back with McCain's ties to the Keating Five. So McCain was in questionable relations with corrupt white guys and Obama with corrupt black guys. Okay, and the point to all of that? I'd score it a draw and a complete waste of air time.

Olberman cited three Washington Post polls that all (surprise!) favored Obama. Of course, the Washington Post most certainly has it's finger on the pulse of America. I mean, after all, it is the Washington Post. I liked you on ESPN Keith, wish you would have stayed there.

Olberman criticized McCain's decision to suspend the Friday debate and head to Washington to do what?... HIS JOB!! Heaven forbid Obama should do his, he's got a Presidency to win and can't be bothered by pithy problems of the greater populace as it may disrupt his quest for the fulfillment of his imminent exaltation. They are Senators elected to office by people, and people have a problem that needs to be dealt with by their elected officials - including Senators - which means YOU Mr. Obama.

It appears Countdown with Keith Olberman has become the dedicated campaign show for the Obama presidency. An hour of McCain smearing, so much fun to watch. The "countdown" is only to 8 but I can't stand any more, have to turn the channel.

2008-09-15T22:08:00.000-07:00

TOEING THE LINE

It seems that my dissension didn't go over too well and I had quite a lot of push back in my initial disapproval over the Palin pick amongst the ranks of fellow party pachyderms. I will say that I found it hilarious just how willing so many repubs immediately gushed about her when if you would have asked them about her the day before they wouldn't have known who she was. I can readily admit that while I fancy myself as fairly well informed, I'd never heard her name before in the broader press. The pundits pretended to have had her in their back pocket all along; they just kept her out of the spotlight unitl... wait... NOW!! Yeah, that's the ticket. Literally. I certainly don't remember O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Rush, Ingrham or any other uber-repub mentioning her prior to that very day...

But enough of that, we all now have to make a difficult choice between the ex-POW long-time Washington guy who is anti-long-time Washington guys (umm, wait a minute..) and the inexperienced lipstick hockey mom; OR the new King of Change who is the crown prince of inspiration itself, and his anonymous graying sidekick. A tough decision for sure.

I for one vote with my moral compass and that first. This has nothing whatsoever to do with political parties. If the democratic party were to suddenly become the conservative beacon of hope then that's where I'd vote. I am a conservative first and a republican only by default of it being the more conservative party. Therefore, while I do find the whole Palin circus and it's uncritical and unquestioned support from the right laughable, I must follow suit and tow the line since this ticket - however lacking - is my best bet to preserve conservative values.

Do I think Palin was the "right" pick? Depends on the goal. If you are a pilot, who do you want as your wing man - the guy that makes you look like a great pilot up there or the guy that can fly as well as you? Palin is not the best wing man, that would have been Romney or Ridge and you know as well as I that is the truth. The Palin pick was a strategic move to appeal to the Hillarites, soccer & hockey moms, ultra conservatives, and pit bulls everywhere. Will she do a fine job as a VP? One thing is for sure, she can't do much worse than our current veep. It should be the hope of all republicans that McCain doesn't succumb to anything while in office. You may recall that Theodore Roosevelt was elected to be Vice President to William McKinley who was later assassinated. Teddy Roosevelt - Vice President!! And while Palin is certainly likable, tough and full of conviction; Theodore Roosevelt she is not nor will she ever be. So if you vote for the McCain / Palin ticket as I will, just pray McCain will be seeing the same doctors as Dick Cheney.

2008-08-29T08:21:00.000-07:00

AND THE NOMINEE FOR VICE-PRESIDENT ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET IS.... WHO????

So my stint as an odds maker completely backfired. Not only did I do a bad job handicapping this one but Sarah Palin was not even on the radar screen. I won't spend any time trying to figure out where I went wrong; instead I'm trying to figure out what in the world Mr. McCain is thinking? An unknown for VP?? Just how did McCain & Co. arrive at this decision? Let's break it down:

1. The female vote factor. Now this is the part that really ticks me off. It's blatantly obvious what the rationale is here. Hillary left a whole slew of disgruntled women in the wake of her defeat and now the McCain camp can get 'em with a woman VP!! Yeah yeah, that's it! Fabulous idea! Boy it's great, Obama will never see it coming! Wink-wink, nod-nod. The brilliant minds of the McCain camp with a genius idea. When did they make the decision? Last night over cocktails? This is a VP position, not a parlor trick!

2. The tow-the-line factor. Being a Washington outsider and first term governor, Palin is likely not to question the direction of the camp. The maverick that he is, it doesn't seem characteristic of McCain to surround himself with yes-men. Then again, his history does show that he's had a preference for yes-women... I'll leave that one where it is.

3. Perhaps McCain is intentionally committing campaign suicide. Maybe he wants out but doesn't want to bow out voluntarily. Have the hours, miles, and his age caught up with him? Maybe picking a no-name for VP is his way of taking a dive while still appearing to put up a fight.

Well, you have my speculations so I guess we'll just have to wait and see. One thing is for sure, this is the most baffling VP pick I've seen in my lifetime. What are conservatives to do but reluctantly vote the ticket regardless? McCain & Co. are betting that this pick will draw moderates - especially women moderates - to his ticket. To the contrary, I see it as such a lukewarm choice that it will either confuse or turn off moderates to the point that they'll choose instead to get behind the exciting Obama train and ensure it rolls all the way to the White House.

2008-08-28T17:28:00.000-07:00

VEGAS ODDS - REPUBLICAN VEEPSTAKES

Since I am a Las Vegas native, I must indulge in the opportunity to set some very rudimentary Vegas odds on the republican Veepstakes happening tomorrow. Here's what I've come up with, let's see if I have a career in odds-making should all other career choices fail me:

Joe Lieberman
Odds: 20/1
The Connecticut Senator is a favorite of McCain's and bosom buddies in the maverick camp. Both buck the party-line trend and are often derided by their respective parties. Problem is Lieberman leans from left to right and McCain from right to left. Too much middle ground is not necessarily a good thing.

Tim Pawlenty
Odds: 10/1
CNN.com reports that the Minnesota Governor was on his way to a fundraiser but abruptly turned back for home on the eve of selection, hmmm... While not well known to the general public, those close to the McCain camp cite Pawlenty as being on the VP short list.

Mitt Romney
Odds: 5/1
My personal favorite but I can't let that influence the lines here. The former Massachusetts Governor and Republican Presidential candidate was McCain's chief rival in the primaries and had some very nasty exchanges with the former POW turned politico. It certainly got ugly and it seemed, especially in the Reagan Library smackdown, that these two have nothing more in common than the "Republican" affiliation. But it seems campaign squabbles are easily forgiven and Romney has become one of McCain's most influential backers. The Clash of the (republican) Titans has since become friends 'till the end. Enough pontification, I prefer a more tabloid approach to the odds-making: This just in - Romney was spotted today with unusually stepped-up security. An indication of things to happen tomorrow? Tune in next time...

Tommy Ridge
Odds: 7/2
Former Pennsylvania Governor and first-ever Homeland Security Chief is the true odds-on favorite to win selection (with the exception of my dark horse below). Ridge is fairly well known from his political and cabinet background as well as his close friendship with McCain. If he is picked it will be a personal choice and not necessarily the optimal political move. However, Ridge is not embraced in conservative circles with his pro-abortion slant, and that could be the death knell to McCain's presidential aspirations. Will McCain risk ostracizing the conservative community and gamble on Ridge? One thing is for sure, he's no stranger to unpopular decisions.

Wilford Brimley
Odds: 2/1
CNN.com reports "Upon arriving in Dayton, Ohio, Thursday evening, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate was asked on the airport tarmac who he has selected for the No. 2 job. 'Wilford Brimley,' McCain deadpanned." Deadpanned?? Who says McCain is kidding? After all, Brimley is the very conservative type that Obama disparaged (gun & bible toting rural folk.) Wilford is a proud voice for senior citizen conservatives in America with his various medical supply infomercials that feature him in John Wayne-esque western settings, horse and all. And hey, he does know a thing or two about co-starring; like with Hollywood legends such as Don Ameche in Cocoon and even C-listers like Jean Claude Van Damme. Talk about versatile! Sounds like a lock to me.

Wow, what a field! Now, every bettor wants the odds maker's take, so here's mine: the long odds men have little to no Cinderella shot here and the Ridge and Romney bets are too mind-numbingly difficult to handicap. Think I'll go with the easy money on Brimley...

2008-08-17T18:50:00.000-07:00

THOUGHTS ON BARACK

Barack seems like a nice, affable fellow; and he wouldn't be a bad guy to have conversation with. But I don't want him as my president. And the reasons I don't want him as president have nothing to do with a middle name and paternal religious preferences. Obama is not a terrorist in politician's clothing. He's not going to fund and promote fundamentalist Islam. And he is not the anti-Christ. No, he's just a liberal with an agenda that will ultimately re-establish American isolationism, increase government intervention on a grand scale, impose higher taxation, further the homosexual movement by expanding their privileges, strip down the military as Clinton did, and appear so vaguely religious as to promote a religious-less American society. Obama won't derail the nation with one swift stroke of what neo-conservatives believe is his true Islamic and anti-Christ agenda. There is no such agenda with him. Instead, his contributions to the decline of our society will be systematic, little by little with legislation and action that in his own heart and mind reflects what will be best for America. People like to think that Obama would weaken our national defense and send a worldwide invitation to terrorists across the globe. I worry more about the imminent domestic deconstruction that will surely take place. We won't lose because they beat us down; we lose because under his watch our nation will beat itself down - with or without the help of terrorists. In short, the effects of his presidency will reflect the sentiment in The Hollow Men by T.S. Eliot:

This is how the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper

With Obama at the helm, a wimpering nation we will indeed be.

2008-08-16T21:40:00.001-07:00

YET ANOTHER RIDICULOUS CHAIN EMAIL

Unfortunately staunch conservatives can, and often do, bring leftist criticism upon themselves with emails like this one I received today:

Letter from one 'Angry Woman' I don't know who wrote it and she should have signed it. Some powerful words. This woman should run for president. Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a f ield in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was 'desecrated' when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. <>I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide . I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don't care !! If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add: 'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem' -- Ronald Reagan I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this. 'If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' Also by.. Ronald Reagan One last thought for the day: In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the Anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America , he said: 'A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in.. And how many want out.' The last thing, by the way, that we should do is to elect a muslim as President of the United States, someone who claims to love America yet, WILL NOT salute the flag, WILL NOT pledge allegience to our flag, and sat in a church listening to a 'pastor' that HATES America! Are you Freakin' kidding me? Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: 1. Jesus Christ 2. The American G. I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM.
AMEN! ( I'm passing this on Lady. God Bless You and God Bless America !

Are you serious??! This is more laughable than it is inciting. People like this woman really believe they are the conservative stalwarts of our nation and think this type of rhetoric is a righteous rallying cry. If you are truly an American and a patriot, are you required to say the pledge? Must you worship the Christian God? The Soviets were required to say their pledge and not worship God. We derided the Soviets for their forced nationalism and religious bans, yet people like this woman think everyone should say the pledge and worship Jesus Christ in America. How is that not the Soviet model? Patriotism lies deep within and has nothing whatsoever to do with saying pledges and worshipping the "right" God. And yes, I am a Mormon saying these things. I believe in the First Amendment and I believe in individual agency. Communist Russia allowed neither. Take those two things away and we can model the Soviet regime by force to achieve a 100% pledge-saying, God-fearing population! Sounds blissful, doesn't it?

The email centers around an attitude of indifference toward other cultures, religions, etc. This lady is really ticked off and has thrown all caution to the wind. But ask yourself: do you really want the United States to adopt an “I don’t care” attitude? Trust me on this – the moment we do you’ll see far worse than you saw on 9/11. Caring is the only way change comes about. They don’t care, which is exactly why we must. If we don’t care, who in the world will? We expect them to care and it’s a nice thought. Just like we expect American citizens to care about one another. But alas, murders happen inside our borders. Atrocities happen. Crime happens. It’s probably happened to you. I wish our own people would care just a bit more. The unfortunate truth is that there will always be unreasonable or irrational people in this world. Did not Cain, one of the first humans on this planet, act irrationally and resist all attempts by others - even by God himself - to help him adopt an attitude of reason?

I do not like Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadi's. I have no problem with Muslims - even Muslims in America - that worship in Mosques - in America. But then I know a little something about that since it was, after all, many "patriotic" Americans that participated in the persecution of the early Mormon church. Just like the Muslims and their mosques, Americans of the mid-1800's didn't like the Mormons and their temples. Looks like the whole "Mormon crisis" turned out okay after all though.

One day while on my mission a car with three young men pulled over to talk with us. They seemed interested in what we had to say and asked several questions. I offered the driver a copy of the Book of Mormon and he gratefully accepted it. They drove off and my companion and I continued our contacting with extra enthusiasm, thinking perhaps we made a difference with someone today. About 20 minutes later as we rounded the corner we saw the Book of Mormon that we had given them lying in the street, tattered but still intact. When I retrieved the book and examined the damage to it, I was so overwhelmed with sadness that I could not feel offense. How could these people have so little care for something so precious to us? It was a seminal moment that shed light on our human condition. While I was deeply offended, I didn’t crave for retribution or to trample on those things precious to them. It occurred to me that they were either devoid of right thinking or were just plain bad-intentioned. But all I can control is me, and I should hope that I don't fall into either category at any time. If we, as the greatest nation on earth don’t care, then who will? These young men didn't care, which is exactly why I must.

2008-08-04T20:18:00.000-07:00

ELECTION BLUES

Am I alone here or is this the least-interesting election since... I don't know, in my lifetime? As far as I can tell Mr. Obama is already President... oh but that's right, its not even November yet, so McCain is still out there somewhere. Could someone let him know he is still in the race please? Sure hope he shows up sometime soon, I'd love to hear what he's pitching these days. But I digress, its not really McCain's fault, just another case of media leftism and ratings pandering at its finest. I haven't seen much more than a few scraps of fishwrap written about McCain since Huckabee dropped out. When that happened the press reaction was basically "we have our Republican nominee. Now, back to the Clinton/Obama scramble..." Since then its been all Obama all the time. Is this guy really THAT interesting? Oh yeah, I forgot; he stands for change. Sorry, my bad.
Bottom line is we have a Repub in McCain that doesn't inspire like Reagan or polarize like Bush; he's just a bit too neutral, or lukewarm, to draw the kind of unwavering support he'll need to win. Isaiah says "thou art lukewarm and I will spew thee out of my mouth." Lukewarm has never won much of anything. In Obama, liberals see the possible realization of the years of unrealized leftist dreams. To the weeble-wobbles who are driven in the wind and tossed about, Obama is the perfect fit - little experience in politics, short legislative voting record = no dirt! Clean as a whistle. No regard is given to lack of political experience as a drawback; on the contrary, many Obama supporters cite that as a plus. What people don't consider is that with his lack of experience it will take a few years to navigate the pathways to political success both in the White House and on Capitol Hill. By that time his first term (and only, God willing) will be half over. Not to mention that Mr. O has been in politics so short a time that he lacks the political relationships to affect cyclical majority, logrolling, and any other legislative strategy needed to get bills passed in congress. Grant and Eisenhower came off the battlefield and into the oval office with no real political experience whatsoever. Still, I would say the battlefield is a much more reliable proving ground than is 2 years in the Senate (ex. Colin Powell). Mark my words - if this guy gets elected, all the frou-frou change rhetoric goes out the window from day one. Imagine if you're a multi-term senator or representative and this new cat takes the helm of the nation and demands sweeping change. You don't think these folks have egos?? Watch and see all his "change" end up in the pigeon hole.
But there is this other guy, his name is John McCain, I think he's still running. He's got the relationships, the experience, and the character. Perhaps you'll hear about him soon.

2008-08-01T17:37:00.000-07:00

INAGURAL POST

Welcome friends, acquaintances, and just plain strangers to Think Small! I've been squatting on this blog page since early 2006 and thought it was time I put it to good use. Special thanks to Martijn for relinquishing the "think small" blogspot to me, I finally made it worthwhile!

I look forward to using this blog as an outlet for thoughts, opinions, ideas, commentary or anything in general. Now I can publish them to the greater webosphere - where likely no one will find it! But if you're reading this I thank YOU for stopping by!