"Fair Use" Enables Creation, the Essential Ingredient to Economic Growth

Picasso said, "Mediocre artists borrow, great artists steal." There is a lot of truth to what Picasso says and he should know, right?

Drill down to the core of any creation and you will undoubtedly find "copyright infringement". It's how life rolls. None of us are gods as much as we would like to believe that we are.

Therefore, Fair Use, a doctrine in U. S. copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders when the benefit to society outweighs the cost to the copyright owner, is fair, as it legalizes the process of creation, something essential to the existence of the human being.

So, having said that, how does this law work? The particular use of a copyrighted work is permissible dependent upon four factors, the last factor weighted heavily:

1. The character and purpose of the use.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work.
3. The amount of the work that is used.
4. The effect of the use on the market for the copyrighted work.

As the debates regarding copyright law in the digital age escalate, it's important to keep in mind that the Fair Use economy represents one-sixth of U.S. GDP or more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States. Not only that, nearly one out of every eight American jobs is in an industry that benefits from "fair use".

The aforementioned information, in and of itself, especially considering the state of our economy, is enough proof that the benefit of "fair use" to society far outweighs the cost to copyright holders. The "fair use"doctrine should be expanded to incorporate the inevitable rapid changes that will continue on in the digital age, in order to avoid the cost of unnecessary litigation, while at the same time, supply the fertile ground needed for economic growth to occur across the broad spectrum of various sectors that make up our economy.

“Much of the unprecedented economic growth of the past ten years can actually be credited to the doctrine of fair use, as the Internet itself depends on the ability to use content in a limited and nonlicensed manner. To stay on the edge of innovation and productivity, we must keep fair use as one of the cornerstones for creativity, innovation and, as today’s study indicates, an engine for growth for our country”

I would think John McCain agrees ...Jackson Browne, not so much. I don't know that John McCain's use of Browne's song, "Running on Empty" benefited society all that much, but considering it was only a small portion of the song rather than a large one, McCain's chances are good that "fair use" will more than likely be found. However, the question is, did McCain's use of that small portion help the marketing of Browne's content or did it reduce of the market for Browne's content?

Just as Steve Perry didn't want to see 'the Soprano family being whacked to 'Don't Stop Believin', it's possible Jackson Browne did not want to see John McCain running his campaign to the tune of "Running on Empty".

However, Jackson must realize that John McCain, despite his politics (I'm assuming Browne is a Democrat), may have introduced his song to a brand new generation who would have never heard of him, otherwise. Who knows? Maybe that clip will inspire a youngster to musical greatness.

Read more...

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow...

One of the hardest things to accept, and perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this crisis, is that what so many of us worked so hard to obtain, over years, decades and in some cases, a half-century, disappeared in a mater of days.

What's the point? Why did I "waste" my time? Why should I continue, "wasting" my time, if what I worked so hard for can evaporate before my very eyes?

And to make things worse, it's all due to the greedy decisions of a few "tax-payer-blood drenched" psychopaths seated on their waste-collecting, solid-gold thrones, embedded in their castles sculpted from the bones of hard-working, tax-paying, red-blooded (is there any other kind?) Americans.

John Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and inventor of the first mutual index fund in 1975, which introduced investing to the middle class is one of the good guys. He has predicted this all along. He refers to the daily moves of the stock market as "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The basic lesson in all of this is that our financial system is based on nothing more than an illusion. However, the key line in the MacBeth's passage that John Bogle took that quote is "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow". Increasingly we have come to expect more and more and to pay for it later and later. This way of thinking has grown to epidemic proportions and unfortunately, the time has come to pay Peter Piper. Unfortunately, this crisis does not discriminate between the so-called "guilty" and "innocent" nor does it discriminate between those who have time to build up their retirement and those who are set to retire now.

MacBeth to messenger:
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

In the long run, this financial "crisis" may be a gift to American culture as it might provide those of us, or most of us - who bought into and consequently became addicted to consumerism - a way out, where they will not be alone. They will have the company of millions of other Americans breaking free of a culture saturated with consumer goods.

Read more...

It's Our Money, Stupid!

Paulson, Bush, Wall Street...
Why are we so stupid? Myself included. Why do we get all excited over stimulus checks written for only an infinitesimally small fraction of our own money, the same money taken from us to fund the agenda of a few greedy warmongers?

Why do we act like tax cuts, designed to rip us off, only to benefit those of us who already have enough money to wallpaper the the entire state of Texas, is a good thing? Oh sure, we might get a few dollars at tax time, a mere fraction of what it cost us to line the pockets of those Texan wallpaperers.

We are so easily distracted by the shiny penny in front of us that we completely fail to see the guy who threw it there, is now picking our pocket clean.

Will the current economic fiasco teach us a lesson? If history is any indicator, the answer is, not a chance.

More than once, Willie Sutton, dressed as a prison guard, carried two ladders clear across the yard in order to rob some "poor" unsuspecting soul, blind. When caught in the spot light, he yelled out, "It’s ok!" and continued on with his mission without missing a beat.

Two ladders?!?

Read more...

Dangerous Rhetoric May Provide Answers to the Wrong People.

John McCain poses the rhetorical question, "Who is the real Barack Obama?". Rhetorical, because Sarah Palin eagerly provides the answer...he is a terrorist! What else could Sarah Palin mean when she accuses Obama of "palling around with terrorists".

Enough's been said about Obama's supposed Muslim affinity that even "Joe six-pack" can visualize the graphic image the republicans are trying to paint. Being black isn't enough to scare the voters away any more. However, an African-American, Muslim terrorist should be enough to send all the red-blooded, patriotic, apple-pie and mom loving Americans running to fetch their six-shooter. Doggoneit!

This type of emotionally manipulative rhetoric - Sarah Palin's first and only language -

"For me, the heels are on, the gloves are off." -- Sarah Palin telling a group of Republican donors in Naples, Fla.

is dangerous at a time when society is caught up in a maelstrom of political, economic, social and technological change. People feel angry, desperate and abandoned. Confused and anxious, they search out simplistic explanations and are actively searching for someone to blame...the evildoer, who is responsible for causing their pain. Nine times out of ten, a scapegoat is targeted instead, and nine times out of ten, that scapegoat is of a different race religion, sexuality etc.

While this type of rhetoric will not cause anyone to make an attempt on Obama's life, it certainly could provide the final justification. After years of listening to "evildoers", "axis of evil", "you're either with us or against us" and "we can either fight the terrorists here or over there", is there anything worse than a terrorist? Is there anything worse than a Muslim? Is there anything worse than a black man running for President of the United States?

At a rally Monday in Albuquerque, when McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" one supporter yelled back, "Terrorist!" Across the country in Florida that day, Palin's criticism of Obama and Ayers drew resounding boos and prompted one person, according to the Washington Post, to shout out, "Kill him!"

Who is the real John McCain? I've asked myself that many times. No, not because I think he is a terrorist, far from it...however, John McCain, the "Maverick" the man we knew at the beginning of the decade disappeared completely. The John McCain running for President, although he looks the same and sounds the same, is not the same.

Read more...

Can We Edit Out the Catch-22s From Policy?

What if we, the people were to create a small independent committee who's only job is to edit all policy for catch-22s that render so much of civil administration ineffective for the sole purpose of making sure the immense imbalance between the elite and the people remain in tact? We can call it the Catch-22 Policy Patrol. The committee members will be reformed neocons who are experts in paradoxical, circular reasoning that can make the most absurd "logic" appear rational.

A Real Life Example

Trudy Lieberman, director of the Health and Medical Reporting Program at the Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY wrote a series in the Columbia Journalism Review about the candidate's health plans and how they might affect ordinary people across the nation.

In part II, Lieberman covered the story of a relatively healthy 62-year old father and his sickly 43-year old son. The father works two jobs as the county’s head jailer, and as a grill cook at McDonalds, earning approximately $30,000 per year. His health insurance pays 70% of a bill. He pays the remaining 30%, in addition to paying copays and premiums. He cannot afford to add his 44-year old wife.

His son is a diabetic, who has trouble breathing, talking, walking...he has no job, no money and no insurance. He can't afford medical care, the insulin and the test strips he needs to control his blood sugars. In fact, he can't even afford the transportation it would take to get medical care. Luckily, Abbott Laboratories was willing to give him free strips as long as he applied for Medicaid and was rejected.

"Getting to a doctor regularly, though, is problematic. “I don’t have any money to take him,” says his father. “I’m just broke.” What spare cash he once had, he used to send his youngest daughter to college. Still, he was planning to use eighty dollars from the $570 paycheck he would get the next day to buy test strips for his son to tide him over until Abbott’s supply arrived."

Where is the Catch-22?

Well, Arkansas has a program where you could become eligible for Medicaid (Medicaid for the medically needy program) by spending down. The way it works is after a person accumulates a certain amount in medical bills, he or she may be able to qualify for this program. The catch is he or she must have the money upfront to pay the medical bills in order to accumulate them. If a he or she can't afford transportation, how in the world can he afford to pay doctor bills?

In addition, if you can navigate through all the "catch-22's" involved in qualifying for SSDI, he or she must wait an additional two years for Medicare. At that rate, why not sponsor hunting programs, and hire sharp shooters to thin the "herd" of Medicaid recipients once a year?

Aside from the numerous catch-22s incorporated into our system of health care, and anything and every program designed to help the less fortunate, we are learning that paradoxical laws written with confusing rhetoric designed to trap its victims in no win situations, does not only apply to the poor, but to we, the "average" people as well, which is becoming more apparent every day.

Read more...

McCain Wants to Rearrange the Deck Chairs on the Titanic to Save It.

While visions of sugar plums were dancing about in everyone's head, in the dark of night, December 21, 2000, Senator Phil "We have become a nation of whiners" Gramm, a.k.a., McCain's econ brain, and congress, passed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), a.k.a., the Enron Loophole (McCain defended in May 2008). This act completely deregulated the $62 trillion credit derivatives market, not only at the federal level but at the state level as well. Gramm's bill provided the key that unlocked the Pandora's box of greed, stupidity, and chaos that would serve to "collapse" the American economy.

The Federal Reserve was chartered - Federal Reserve Act of 1913 -- December 23, 1913 in the wee hours of the morning. The week before Christmas, a popular time of year to sneak corrupt legislation in, really needs it's own regulatory act.

$62 trillion is the estimated worth of the credit derivatives market. It is this so-called "worth" that is at the crux of this financial meltdown, because the value has never been tested by economic reality. It's solely based on promises made on money that wasn't there to begin with.

This dark financial market -- a market, to put it simply, that involves private contracts, where one side bets it will go up and the counter party bets it will go down, the counter party charging a hefty fee for placing the "bet" -- has become the predominant method of transacting business in our economy, yet it exists completely outside of the law and realm of regulation, thanks to an ongoing crusade since the 1980s to "free" the market from the feds.

Yes, these hedgefund managers, and the like, work hard and take risks for their annual $3 billion salaries -- OK, only a few make that much...the rest only make $500 million -- but then again, so do sophisticated cat burglers and people involved in organized crime.

More money is invested in this market and its derivative products than in regulated stocks and bonds, combined. Credit default swaps, the "star" complex financial instrument, are nothing more than insurance policies taken out on the bets made inside the credit derivative market serving to insure billions and billions of dollars. This is what the banks used to protect the value of the billions of bets they made on people paying mortgages they could not afford to pay. The banks and insurance companies, made these "bets" through off-book structured-investment vehicles which the federal government permits.

So, why would anyone bet that people will make their mortgage payments, who can't document their assets because they don't exist, and who clearly cannot afford to make their mortgage payments? Well, one of the reasons is that they assumed that housing prices would continue to rise and the other reasons can be summed up in two words, greed and stupidity.

Then, these "geniuses" added the "value" of these bets to their books. The problem was/is that no one knew what the real value was or is because the "value" could not withstand accounting procedures because there was/is no real monetary or material worth. There was/is no system of accounting required, no capital reserve, no central registry of transactions...the value was/is manufactured out of thin air.

The credit agencies who are paid by the people who own these financial instruments rate them AAA, further adding to this deception we call our economy.

Who's going to "fix" this problem?

Well, if you think, if you think rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will save it, than vote for McCain of if you think hiring faster people to chase after the horses after they've escaped from the barn, rather than installing a door to prevent their escape, is the better option, than by all means, vote for McCain.

That's according to Law professor Michael Greenberger, at University of Maryland School of Law, and the director of the University's Center for Health and Homeland Security. Greenberger worked with Robert Rubin, former secretary of the treasury during the Clinton Administration. He is now one of Obama's two top economic advisers. Greenburger said Rubin clearly sees the source of the current market meltdown, and that is the deregulation of the credit derivatives market, something he failed to see when working for Clinton, unfortunately.

Changing the organization chart - "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" - as John McCain wants to do will do nothing more than make the bailing out process easier for the Federal Reserve, thus more expensive for us regular taxpayers.

Obama wants to make these complex financial products transparent. He wants to know where they are, who has them, what the real value is, adequate capital reserve, margin requirements, and auditing procedures to make sure these things can withstand economic reality.

Completely outside of the law...completely unregulated...the credit derivatives market is the biggest game of smoke and mirrors in the history of the American economy.

Read more...

Extend the Federal Clean Energy Tax Credits

The Long-term Extension and Modification of Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit bill will expire December 31, 2009, if the Senate does not vote to extend it further. It has been voted on or attempted to pass eight times. McCain failed to show up to vote all eight times, including one time when the bill failed by one vote and McCain was in Washington DC and could have easily participated. Obama voted to extend the bill three times.

Why is this a big deal?

Aside from obvious reasons, the biggest concentrated solar project, on paper, in the world is ready to go, outside of Phoenix Arizona. This massive undertaking will employ as many as 2,000 people and use as much steel as it took to build the Golden Gate Bridge.

We have one more shot at passing a long-term extension of the critical federal clean energy tax credits. Please call or email your Senators today to urge them to vote YES on S. 3335, which includes an 8 year extension of the commercial and residential solar tax credit, and doubles the residential cap to $4,000.

Read more...

Republican Strategy: Speak Untruth to Fools

The Republicans understand the truth doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is appealing to the masses or as Frank Dane says,

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything."

CBC News broadcast raises questions about Trig Palin's birth, suggesting that Sarah Palin may in fact be the grandmother.



Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is under investigation for the firing of a former Alaska public safety commissioner, Walt Monhegan.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. -- Aristotle

Read more...

Vetting the Antichrist.

No, I'm not saying Sarah Palin is the Antichrist. However, speculating on who the Antichrist is, is important work, since the evil one should be rearing his or her ugly head soon. So, I thought I'd post "Vetting the Antichrist" on the first Friday of every month to discuss potential candidates. Thus far, I've suggested George W. Bush and Erik "D. for Darkness" Prince, owner of Blackwater Worldwide.

Sarah Palin is my next choice, given how the shade, diabolical red flatters her so, not to mention, the negligible "vetting" process that took place before selecting her as John McCain's running mate.

The last time I "vetted" the Antichrist, I asked a couple of questions: What is the extent of this person's power and influence or potential magnitude of his evil doings? How conspicuous is the evil doing? Based on these questions, I've come up with some guidelines. Please tell me if I'm misguided as I am no expert on the principal antagonist of Christ.

• The Antichrist can be male or female, any age, race, ethnicity or religion, and can "claim" any sexuality ( because of society's bias, an openly gay Antichrist is highly unlikely).
  
• The Antichrist can belong to any political party and/or originate from anywhere in the world.
• The Antichrist must be charismatic, must have vast influence and refrain from being conspicuously evil (his evil will manifest when he's sure he has conquered the world)
  

Assuming Mr. Obama failed to meet Antichrist criteria, and is not the prince of darkness, let's see if the prince may be a princess.

What do we know about Sarah Palin other than "diabolical red" becomes her?

Well, Ms. Palin is a 44-year old married, Republican female with five children and a soon to be a grandmother. She is very articulate and extremely magnetic (80% approval rating as Governor). She has the world as her stage, thus, the potential to influence billions of people. What else do we know about her?

According to Tom Hamburger, one of the authors of One Party Country:The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century , and on staff at the LA Times, she relied on the earmark system that she now opposes. As mayor of the small city of Wasilla, Alaska, population approximately 9700, Ms. Palin hired a Washington lobbyist to secure earmarks. As a candidate for governor, she backed the notorious "Bridge to nowhere", later changing her mind, claiming it as wasteful, and then using the funds for other projects, instead.

In a biting speech that epitomized style over substance, Sarah Palin, an Assembly of God church member, said the "difference between her and a pit bull was lipstick." She targeted that inner pit bull toward Obama, mocking his prior position as "community organizer" because after all, a community organizer helps low-income people, in poor urban communities stand up for their rights. Translation: That's not a real job! Those people are worthless!

She has also been described as having a fragile ego, allegedly dismissing people from jobs they've held for a substantial period of time, for offending her.

Is she the Antichrist? From what we know so far, on a scale from one to ten, ten indicating the "Beast" Ms. Palin rates a three.

Beast Ratings:
George W. Bush ******
Erik D. Prince ********
Sarah Palin ***

Read more...

McCain Healthcare Plan Underinsure Overinsured Americans

At a time when more and more Americans are having trouble paying for health insurance, and insurance coverage has deteriorated over the past six years, with moderate-income families showing the most severe declines in coverage, according to the Commonwealth Fund,
McCain's plan is to underinsure Americans and get rid of employer based insurance coverage altogether.

"As result, more families are experiencing medical bill problems or cost-related delays in getting needed care. In 2007, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults, or an estimated 116 million people, struggled to pay medical bills, went without needed care because of cost, were uninsured for a time, or were underinsured (i.e., were insured but not adequately protected from high medical expenses)."

McCain’s healthcare plan embraces market forces, and promotes individual purchase of insurance. He bases it on the premise that more competition in the market will keep costs down so individuals can buy their own policy. Keep in mind that insurers will not offer the same deal to an individual that it offers to an institution whose purchasing power is much greater.

Now, the young and healthy might be able to find a better deal on the “street”, however employers will be left financing the sick, the old and the bad risks, in other words, the all too expensive uninsurables, which will speed up the demise of employer provided coverage.

How does McCain's plan work? It doesn't...not for us, anyway, however, it will work just fine for the insurance companies. In a nutshell:

Firstly, workers will be required to pay taxes on the value of the health insurance their employer currently pays. The employer, of course, can deduct the costs for providing that coverage. Eliminating the tax exclusion for employees will generate approximately $3.6 trillion over a ten year period, which, in turn will pay for the refundable tax credits issued to individuals to buy healthcare in the private market.

$2500/ individual
$5,000/family

That's great, but when you consider employers pay approximately $5,000 per individual and $12,500 per family for each policy, currently, it's hard to imagine how Americans are going to pay for healthcare with the meager amount allotted by the McCain plan. Those insurance costs are based on what companies pay now, and the cost is already much lower than it will be for the individual. How is the average guy going to get comprehensive medical insurance?

Despite what the numbers show, according to McCain and some health economists, Americans are overinsured. MeCain’s plan will force us into buying high deductible insurance products covering very little, rather than the comprehensive insurance we are accustomed. Our lack of coverage will ensure that we will not take advantage of health insurance like a school kid, might, let's say, an unlimited hall pass.

In addition, the tax credits will only lessen in value because healthcare costs increase much more rapidly than the general inflation rate, that healthcare costs will likely be indexed. Ten-years from now, the credits will be useless.

Than there is the issue of insuring the uninsurable…those individuals who are considered bad risks or who have pre-existing conditions. Under McCain’s Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP), or state high risk health insurance pools, where each state would create its own high-risk pool for those people, with the same entry and exclusion rules that exist now (34 states currently have high risk pools). GAP does not eliminate medical underwriting (a practice considered unethical prior to the 1960s), therefore the people who need insurance the most will continue to be weeded out and the uninsurable will remain uninsurable.

How is it OK to determine health insurance eligibility by evaluating the “health” of the patient?
What is the point of private insurance if it doesn’t insure people who need it most? The young and healthy may benefit, that is, until they get too old, too sick or too whatever to insure.

Read more...

What Does McCain Truly Believe?

Experience and new information evolve our system of beliefs and values...it's called maturity. However, it's normally a gradual process. For example, when Joe Biden was asked "Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?" in November of 2003 and then again on Meet the Press in 2007, he changed his stance from opposition in 1995 to accepting the inevitability of gay marriage in the near future and the realization that his former belief was discriminatory.

"I don't think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there's a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.

Joe Biden understands that a system of beliefs emerges gradually and that America's maturation process must go through growth pains before it arrive as also stated back in November of 2003...

"...getting there will be an incredibly difficult thing for America to grapple with. It's going to be something we have to go through as part of the maturation process of the nation."

John McCain, on the other hand, has flip-flopped his belief system from a moderate, almost "liberal" Republican to a neo-conservative in a very short period of time. What's the explanation?

For instance, in October of 2000, Democratic President Bill Clinton vetoed a $400 billion tax cut as too deep and irresponsible saying it would jeopardize our surplus. Less than one year later, prior to 9/11, in the spring of 2001, John McCain and Lincoln Chafee were the only two Republican Senators to vote against a $1.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut, requested by the Bush Administration. Now, John McCain says he supports it. Why? Back in 2004 Joshua Green wrote the following:

In fact, the best Democrat may be someone who's no Democrat at all: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). As a war hero who's hawkish on foreign policy, he more than matches Bush on the military front. As a reform-minded foe of corporate welfare, Big Tobacco, and the Republican right, he is peerless. McCain is Bush's most vociferous critic, voted against the president's tax cut, forced his hand on campaign finance reform, and federalized airport security in the face of White House opposition. He has co-sponsored numerous bills with Democrats--many of them in the presidential-aspirant class--requiring backgraound checks at gun shows (Lieberman), a patients' bill of rights (Edwards), better fuel-efficiency standards in cars and SUVs (Kerry), and expanded national service programs (Bayh). He is even drafting a bill with Lieberman to reduce greenhouse gasses and mitigate global warming. As Ronald Brownstein remarked recently in the Los Angeles Times, "[McCain] has become the most hyphenated name in Washington." -- Joshua Green

What about his rock solid stance on torture? As this Time article reports, McCain did not flip flop as much as he backed off in order to avoid more confrontation with the White House. Is that what he is doing? Is he toning down his maverick image to win the White House? Or has he sold out? Or did he have suffer some sort of mini stroke?

John McCain may very well be taking a page from the "Compassionate Conservative" manual on how to get elected. Tell the neocons what they want to hear and then, once in office, do exactly the opposite. Whatever the case, we can't afford to wait and take a chance. We need to know exactly where John McCain stands before we cast our vote.

Read more...

Biden and Obama, Charisma, Inc.

Finally, a clear picture emerges. No bias here...OK, maybe, just a little, considering Joe Biden, was my first choice for President.

Barack Obama's choice of running mate reveals something very important about his character, that he is not afraid of being challenged. In his owns words, "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policy- making." Undoubtedly, Joe Biden will voice his opinion loud and clear.

Charisma -- je ne sais quoi - "I know that I do not know" -- although hard to define, is the ability to convey two opposite qualities or contradictory impulses -- strength and vulnerability, grandeur and humility etc. -- at the same time according to Joseph Roach, author of the book, It and Professor of Theater and English at Yale University.

From the few times that I've been in the presence of Joe Biden, he comes across larger than life. He relates easily to people, with tremendous charisma and a commanding presence. However, as most of us know, he doesn't mince words when he is fired up about something. He has this uncanny ability to be brutally honest and direct, but at the same time seems to intuitively sense the needs of others, conveying a sincere interest in their welfare.

Charisma, in and of itself is neither good nor bad. In fact, encountering charisma should trigger our suspicions as it can often camouflage sociopathic tendencies... think Ted Bundy. Thankfully, Ted Bundy is a freak of nature, but that doesn't mean we should not be very careful, especially when we do not know much about the person's history. This is the reason, Obama raises red flags in some people's minds, including my own. What do we know about him? Not much.

On the other hand, Joe Biden has been around "forever".
We know he's not perfect...far from it. Between his admitted plagiarism back in 1987, and his "support" of the bankruptcy bill, I posted about previously,

...Joe Biden resides in one of the only states ... every single credit card issuer incorporates in the state of Delaware, making it almost impossible to totally ignore their greedy demands...
As we all know, decisions are not always as clear cut as they appear. One must give priority to certain factors over others, weighing the pros and cons of each one and then incorporate what they've discovered to make a final decision that will hopefully support their overall agenda or goal...
He knew voting against the bill would make no difference to the outcome; he was pretty sure he would enter the 2008 Presidential race; he knew that foreign affairs is a critical issue to our future; and he knew his expertise in this area is far superior to all of the other candidates. Voting against the bill may have accomplished nothing more than to kill his political career at a time when his knowledge and leadership is invaluable to America.

we know the guy has flaws.

Nevertheless, Joe Biden's path has not been an easy one. At the age of 29-years old, in 1972, one month after winning his first Senate election -- the youngest man ever elected to the Senate -- his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two young sons hospitalized. Biden never abandoned his responsibility to his country nor his family. He made the decision to commute by train from Wilmington DE to Washington DC and has continued to do so for the last 35-years. He drives an economical car (I saw it) and just a few years ago, he was listed at the bottom of a list ranking personal wealth amongst current senators. The Republicans will have a hard time pinning an elitist label on Biden.

There is no doubt that Joe Biden truly complements Barack Obama in more ways than one. He has the credentials in foreign affairs and national security that Obama lacks as he has served three times as the head of the Senate's Foreign Relations committee. He In addition, his son Beau Biden will start an army tour of duty in Iraq, October 3.

Most importantly, we know Joe Biden tries to learn from his mistakes, is open minded enough to incorporate new knowledge and information, and tries very hard to make decisions, right or wrong, based on solid principles and a love for his country rather than a love of wealth, power, status etc. As far as politicians go, Joe Biden tops the list regarding integrity.

Read more...

Obama or McCain? Forcing a False Perspective.

Partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation is unavoidable whether you are a journalist, blogger, anchor, teacher, bartender, doctor, lawyer, etc., because, above all else, we are human and human beings, by nature, are incredibly biased. That said, as one commenter pointed out in response to my last post comparing John McCain and President Bush, I overlooked an important fact. I failed to mention Economist Mark Zandi, author of Financial Shock, who is now advising John McCain and, unlike Phil Graham, Mark Zandi seems to know what he's talking about.

So, now that McCain has severed ties with Phil Graham, one of the creators of the current financial crisis, my main reason for crossing him off my list, and since I found out Barak Obama believes in capital punishment for child rape, a result of defective thinking, judgment, etc., in my estimation, blurring my view of both candidates. My lack of confidence in both candidates may factor into my tendency to show a bias toward Obama, against McCain -- # of anti McCain posts far out# anti Obama posts -- because vilifying one over the other makes it much easier to choose. However, just as optical illusion can be employed in photography, film making and architecture to force a certain perspective on the viewer, by creating a villain, we can force a false perspective on ourselves in order to avoid the discomfort of ambiguity.

Although, I believe my last post is "truthful" in a general sense, McCain does not seem to covet the stubborn mindset of President Bush, very important to the point I was trying to make when comparing the two. If McCain surrounds himself with credible economists, and does the best he can to educate himself, it could very well compensate for his ignorance in that area. Paradoxically, McCain's lack of conviction regarding the economy may prove beneficial in the long run as he may be more flexible and better able to digest the degree of bias an expert might have.

Overall, Obama is my choice right now, however, with a little more clarity...

Read more...

John McCain is to the Economy as George W. was/is to Foreign Policy.

There's a refreshing lack of pretense about a man who doesn't know how many homes he owns ...it brings back memories of the 2000 election, when, then, Gov. George W. Bush, generated the "warmth" of the "regular" man, ignorant of the blue-blooded protocol and knowledge that seemed to radiate abundantly from his "eggheaded" opponent Al Gore.

That is, it's "refreshing" when your only expectation of that man is meeting him at the local pub to chug down a few brewskis and discuss the latest on your favorite team.

However, when the man in question is running for the most powerful office in the world, ignorance, and even worse, deliberate ignorance, can only serve to debilitate, drain, exhaust and impoverish our already weakened state.

John McCain's ignorance about information, almost as obvious as your given name, sheds additional light on John McCain's discomfort with anything related to finance or economics. Just as George W.'s deliberate ignorance of anything "international" - in combination with a multitude of other factors - has resulted in tragic consequences, John McCain's obvious disquietude about anything economic/financial could prove disastrous.

Read more...

Please Deprive Us Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain, reportedly not in the "code of silence" as previously thought, thus prepared for Rev. Rick Warren's questions, when appearing on his forum Saturday night, should have come up with better answers.

In particular, when Mr. McCain was asked how he defines "rich". He was reluctant to answer at first, saying instead, that some of the richest people he knows "are the most unhappy."

What's he trying to say? The less "rich" we are the better off we are. Is he trying to sugarcoat what's to come? Sounds somewhat ominous to me...

"It should come as no surprise that John McCain believes the cutoff for the rich begins at $5 million. It may explain why his tax plan gives a $600,000 tax cut to the richest 0.1 percent of earners but completely leaves out 101 million hardworking American families," Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Apparently, Mr. McCain does not understand that hard WORKING American families are not only far from "rich", that they are doing without essentials such as childcare, health insurance, nutritious food, transportation etc. telling us we're better off without these essential items? Does struggling to thrive or survive build character? Does struggling to thrive or survive make people realize what's really important? Sure it does! But what does that have to do with the price of milk, oil and the like?

Could it be that Mr. McCain's response to what he considers "rich" -- 'Some of the richest people he knows are the most unhappy' -- could be translated as it only seems like we're the fortunate ones.. So, while more than half the population is learning what's really "important", the microcosm of wealth -- the richest 0.1 percent of earners -- he and his family associate with, will "suffer" the deprivation of this "valuable" lesson of priority and the building of character. Is that what he's trying to say? Well, if that's the case, please deprive the rest of us, as well!

When such a large percentage of the population go without what's already been established as necessary to thrive, it becomes easier and easier to imagine the transformation of the United States from the highest form of civilization into something more in line with a much lower form.

This is more like it.:

On the other hand, he said, someone with $150,000 in annual income can be considered middle-class or even poor, depending on where they live, and should receive a tax cut.-- Barak Obama

Let's face it. McCain just doesn't understand economics enough to elect him President of the largest economy on earth. This is not a third world country...yet.

Read more...

What About the Children? Obama? McCain?

Check out Louisiana.

OK, let's forget for a moment that allowing capital punishment for child rape is unconstitutional and "a disproportionately severe punishment for a crime where the victim is not killed", as the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision yesterday. Let's forget that the testimony of children has been found to be unreliable as children are easily persuaded by others and have not yet developed a strong enough sense of who they are to stand up for themselves or others who may be wrongly accused. Let's forget that state sanctioned execution is premeditated murder, pure and simple. Let's focus on the child.

Child rape is an egregious crime against innocence and no doubt, scars the child for life. The road to recovery for that child will be extremely challenging and a burden no one should have to carry into adulthood. Statistics show that the person most likely to commit this crime may be the child's parent, sibling, or another significant individual in the child's life. Now, not only is this child traumatized by someone violating the very essence of who he or she is, they will carry the oppressive "guilt" of feeling "responsible" for the death of another human being, if what those in favor of capital punishment for child rape develops a national consensus.
Not every child will feel guilty, however, it is well known that children oftentimes blame themselves for the behavior of adults or situations or events, they, in reality, have no control.

Nothing is more important than getting this type of crime reported and the crime of child rape is already underreported. If it is ruled that capital punishment is an option for people convicted of child rape, the reporting of child rape could all but disappear except in rare circumstances, putting children at a much higher risk of the perpetrator striking over and over again, possibly to the point of killing that child. Can you imagine how a child, just raped by someone he or she knows, and possibly loves, would feel knowing that that person could be put to death if he or she told someone? In addition, the adult responsible for the child may choose not to go to the authorities especially if the other adult responsible is a spouse, brother, sister, grandparent etc.

If everything aforementioned is true and it is, why do both presidential candidates disagree with the Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists? Do they really give a damn about the welfare of children or the Constitution? If anything both candidates, especially Obama, should be trying to curb the use of capital punishment as it has been proven over and over again not to deter crime, is more expensive and unfair, as it seems only to apply to people who can't afford justice, people of color being the main recipient. As Justice Kennedy pointed out the final analysis must be determined by the Supreme Court, "applying evolving standards of decency".

Republican John McCain called the ruling "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.” Democrat Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

Just when I was starting to feel good about supporting Obama...

Read more...

Gas Tax Holiday is the Proverbial Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Unlike President John F. Kennedy, who asked we, the people, 47 years ago, not to ask what our country can do for us, rather, what we can do for our country, politicians today ask and expect very little of the American people and with good reason...they risk losing the American people's vote.

We're quick to blame the politicians for not being honest; yet it is our job to keep them honest. What choice do they have but to pander, as John McCain is doing with this "Gas Tax Holiday" (GTH) b$llsh$t", when they know the majority of American people do not want to be asked to sacrifice anything nor take the time to think about what they're told?

Len Burman, former senior analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, 1989 to 1997 and currently Director of the Tax Policy Center, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute and finally author of "The Labyrinth of Capital Gains Tax Policy: A Guide for the Perplexed calculated, estimating that the average American family drives a car that gets 25 mpg, will drive that car 4,000 miles over the course of the summer, using 160 gallons of gas and then he multiplied the 160 gallons by .18 cents. He concluded the average American family would save a whopping $29 over the summer if the GTH goes into effect...$29!

Mr. Burman believes the amount saved would be much less considering the GTH may encourage people to drive more, thus increasing the demand for gas and causing supply to tighten. Supplies are already tighter in summer because people drive more. It's not Rocket Science, it's Econ 101...the cheaper the gas, the higher the demand, the tighter the supply, will cause prices to go up, not down. Not to mention, the GTH rewards those driving the gas guzzling SUVs, Hummers etc. because they would save the most.

Why doesn’t cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It’s Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers. -- Paul Krugman

And what about the nation's long-term energy goal? Doesn't the GTH further escalate the already problematic over consumption of limited resources? The 18.4 cent-per-gallon gas tax is the main source of revenue that pays for roads, bridges, and public transit. Suspending the gas tax would siphon off $10 billion from public transit and road and bridge repair, part of the solution to preventing the unnecessary depletion of our resources.

What good does teaching your child how to read in the womb; paying Ivy League prices so your child can attend prestigious pre-schools; insisting your child compete athletically at about the same level University students used to compete in previous generations, etc do when we have pushed the limits of the resources our civilization depend on simply because we over-consume? The rising standards-of-living across the globe - China and India - will only, to put it mildly, add fuel to the fire.

While John McCain continues George W. Bush's subversive tactics and Hilary Clinton follows right along, Barack Obama believes Americans are ready to sacrifice and smart enough to understand that if we continue on the same path that we've followed for the last eight years, the downfall of our nation may result. He trusts that Americans can figure out that the GTH is nothing but a politician's attempt to fleece the American public.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -- JFK

Read more...

Could John McCain Be Worse Than George Bush?

There is no doubt that John McCain is a man of integrity and has gained wisdom from what he has observed and encountered as a prisoner of war, however; in some ways, John McCain's "super-human" qualities...qualities that the average American does not have often times, may "over qualify" him to be President, if that's possible.

Yes, courage and integrity make for a great leader and God only knows we need one right now, but is John McCain that man? Can he really empathize with the average person? Can he put himself in the shoes of someone who may not be as strong as he is?

After writing the aforementioned words a few days ago, the facts have raised serious doubts about the "integrity" or "wisdom" I said John McCain gained from what he has observed and encountered as a prisoner of war, because the more I find out about John McCain the scarier it gets! Apparently his ignorance about the economy and my ignorance about him is only the tip of the iceberg.

From the Daily Kos:

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.

March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

More recently John McCain has not yet signed the "Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007", which would establish a program of educational assistance for members of the Armed Forces who serve in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001. Altogether, 52 senators, including nine Republicans have signed the bill, however; the bill needs 60 co-sponsors to make it filibuster proof.

So, after all that, I can answer the questions I posed a few days back:

Yes, courage and integrity make for a great leader and God only knows we need one right now, but is John McCain that man?

No, absolutely not.

Can he really empathize with the average person?

Obviously not.

Can he put himself in the shoes of someone who may not be as "strong" as he is?

No.

I should have known that anyone who would associate themselves with the greedy, brainless people who have ruined our economy is severely lacking in the wisdom, integrity and intelligence so desperately needed in our next leader.

Read more...

Asked About the Deficit, McCain Cites Reagan’s Example

From the NY Times Blog:

"When Senator John McCain was asked here this afternoon how he plans to balance the budget, he said that he hoped to do so by stimulating economic growth – and approvingly cited the example of President Ronald Reagan.

There was one thing he did not mention during his response: the deficit nearly tripled during the Reagan presidency, partly due to tax cuts and increases in military spending.

The exchange occurred at a town-hall-style meeting held in a tent outside Bridgewater Associates, an investment firm. A member of the audience stood up and asked Mr. McCain, who has called for balanced budgets, how he plans to do it.

“Basically, which is it?” the man asked Mr. McCain. “Straight talk: Do you want to raise taxes, cut entitlement spending, cut defense spending, or have a deficit?”

Mr. McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy – and cited President Reagan.

“I don’t believe in a static economy,’’ Mr. McCain said. “I believe that when there’s stimulus for growth, when there’s opportunity, when people keep more of their money — and the government is the least efficient way to spend your money — that economies improve.’’

“When Ronald Reagan came to office,’’ he said, noting that few in the audience were old enough to remember, “we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I’ve got those numbers right. That was when Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980. And so what did we do? We didn’t raise taxes, and we didn’t cut entitlements. What we did was we cut taxes and we put in governmental reductions in regulations, stimulus to the economy, and by the way, Jack Kennedy also did that as well – and so my answer to it is a growing economy. And I think you best grow the economy by the most efficient use of the tax dollar.’’

Mr. McCain – who has said that he wants to balance the budget while making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cutting additional taxes, and keeping troops in Iraq – said: “I believe we can grow this economy, and reduce this deficit.’’

He said that he expected expense in Iraq to decline as the Iraqis shoulder more of the burden, and he also hinted at some cuts in federal programs.

He noted his opposition to the expensive Medicare prescription drug benefit, which he voted against. “Now you are paying for my prescription drugs,’’ he said. “Why should that be? Why should that be? Why should that be?”

But he said he thinks the problems can be solved. “Is it going to be tough? Yes. It’s going to be very, very tough.’’

Earlier, when he was asked if he plans to resign from the Senate this summer to make it easier for a Republican to win the election to succeed him, Mr. McCain said: “No, I will not. I have every confidence that there are a number of Republicans who would be elected. I do not envision a scenario of resigning my seat.’’

But then, on reflection, he seemed to open the door to the idea at least a bit. “But I would go back and think about it, and think about the scenario that you just described,’’ he said. “Right now my intentions are to remain in the United States Senate. ‘’

Read more...

Irony of McCain's Choice of Historical Hero Teddy Roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt (T.R.), like the John McCain of the past, presented himself with a reforming righteousness and unwavering moral authority. T.R. preached democracy as a fundamental moral undertaking and insisted that it was contingent on the "good" character of its citizens to sustain itself. He also emphasized the importance of "square deal" politics to the American public.

John McCain followed Roosevelt’s example until recently. He twice voted against President Bush's tax breaks for the rich, supports the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law that many conservatives hate, and in general, seemed to transcend the "greediness" of conservative politics. In his struggle to satisfy the base, he is beginning to switch gears as he evokes Ronald Reagan's name over Theodore Roosevelt's and especially, McCain's Phil Graham connection.

Considering John McCain's "weakness" is economics, it makes sense that this is where he vacillates, however; his current turnaround contrasts squarely with T. R's "square deal" and "fair play" ideas. T.R.'s desire to take on big business, and his growing weariness of the special power and money that flowed to Americans of great wealth in the beginning of the 20th Century, or as T.R. put it, "unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics” directly opposes Ronald Reagan's desire to deregulate and trickle-down great wealth.

John McCain's level of "integrity" must be measured on a scale specifically made for the political world. Like all politicians, McCain must get elected into office before he can be of service to America and unfortunately, sometimes that requires pandering to a group of people you may not ordinarily agree with, yet who are crucial to your success. I previously blogged about Joe Biden being located in the state that is home to the credit card industry and the dilemma that presented, although I believe John McCain's association with Phil Graham goes way beyond trying to get elected, and more a matter of ignorance, nevertheless, his continued mentoring with Graham could be disastrous for America if McCain is elected President.

Joshua David Hawley , author of Theodore Roosevelt, Preacher of Righteousness describes the political atmosphere prior to T.R.'s run for presidency which could be compared to the political atmosphere John McCain is running in. Mr. Hawley said, as early as 1879 the collapse of the moral consensus of the 19th century, meaning organized Christianity and the series of beliefs that went along with that had produced a moral interregnum in the country and that combined with a shifting economic system and the country’s changing demographic patterns, unsettled the country to such a degree, not only economically but morally and socially as well and T.R.'s presidency was a reaction to uncertain time.

John McCain must decide whether he's going to continue to pursue the Ronald Reagan path of "government is the problem" or jump back on the T.R. track of, let's use government to help structure the market so that it will prop up and work for democracy.

Square Deal

"Let the watchwords of all our people be the old familiar watchwords of honesty, decency, fair-dealing, and commonsense."... "We must treat each man on his worth and merits as a man. We must see that each is given a square deal, because he is entitled to no more and should receive no less.""The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us." -- T. R., New York State Fair, Syracuse, September 7, 1903

"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." -- T. R., Speech to veterans, Springfield, IL, July 4, 1903

"We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal." -- T. R., Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913

"The principles for which we stand are the principles of fair play and a square deal for every man and every woman in the United States, a square deal politically, a square deal ... social and industrial " -- T. R., in 1913 in New York City

Read more...