Two Observations on Thursday

As I scanned the news today, two stories stuck out to me. The following are some observations about each.

Story I:

China just recently announced that instead of attempting to compete in the world's gasoline powered automobile industry, it would skip this field and invest in becoming the world's leader in electric and hybrid powered cars. This is a brilliant manuver the likes of which Chairman Mao himself would love. (He's revolving in glee in his glass casket in the Forbidden City right now!) First, instead of wasting its capital on a dying industry that most Western countries are willing to support regardless of the consequences, China is saving its cash and letting GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc. strangle themselves. Secondly, by investing in the electric and hybrid powered car market, China is jumping the industrial gun on the next wave of comsumer demand. It is a little known secret that gas prices and environmentalism are quickly rendering the gas powered automobiles defunct. By investing now, before demand for alternatively-fueled cars materializes, China will have positioned itself to captolize. Third, such positioning not only creates jobs but will decrease China's reliance on fossil fuel, thus placing itself outside of the influence of Russia and the Middle East (the sources of the world's fuel).

See the following link for the full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/global/02electric.html?hp

Story II:

As everyone and their mother knows, this week marks the meeting of the G20. To date, the meeting has accomplished a great deal. It has seen the world's largest 20 economies pledge $1.1 trillion in aid to developing nations as well as promise to increase their yearly gifts to the World Bank. Furthermore, in a radical change from tradition, this year's G20 has even gone as far as to see France and Germany get along! C'est increable, non? That said, the media's coverage of the G20 has been astounding for the following fact: one of the chief stories out of London is not how the G20 nations have united in action at an unprecedented level or how this marks Barack Obama's first step onto the world stage. No, that would not be hip enough. Instead, the media has been spending its resources on identifying the fact that Michelle Obama wore J Crew on the morning she arrived in London and that her fashion sense and grace have been stunning the British countryside in a very Jackie O type of way. While I will be the first to admit that Mrs. Obama's sense of style is one of the better things to happen to the White House recently , the fact that the media focuses solely on her fashion, poise, and ability to socialize has knocked 40 years off the feminist movement. I say this because Michelle Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with legal experience at some of the nation's finest law firms. She is, by herself, an intellectual powerhouse capable of (some would argue) doing her husband's job (minus the political experience of course). Why is it that this side of Michelle Obama gets pushed aside and ignored in favor of the media's desire to turn her into a silent, African-American version of Jackie 0.? That doesn't seem right to me.

Check this link out (especially the article entitled, "Is first lady our queen?"). http://today.msnbc.msn.com/

Reflections on Global Warming

According to the United Nations, the average terrestrial glacier has lost 38 feet of its thickness. Similarly, according to National Geographic, every glacier in Montana’s Glacier National Park will have either fully melted or fully receded into Canada by 2020. These facts irrefutably confirm that global warming is alive and well. While many Americans might not care about the disappearance of slow moving ice, it saddens me. Having just spent the past week in Colorado, I am reminded of Teddy Roosevelt’s thoughts about the American West: it is in the West that young Americans learn what it means to live the strenuous life. It is there that they can view the last vestiges of American’s wilderness and draw from them the correlative strength that only comes from living in untamed, challenged environs. Glaciers used to be a large part of the West. Every year like clockwork they would run through the Rockies bringing the West water and life. Now, it seems that our consumer-based craze for all things fossil fuel has beaten them back forever. We have become so concerned with production that we have irrevocable altered our environment. Who knows what the results may be? I can tell you this though: the effects of global warming will not stop with the loss of our country’s beautiful and unique glaciers. Consider these other, very real, and very quickly approaching possibilities.

1. El Niño will visit the West Coast every year bringing with it massive amounts of rainfall that will completely destroy California’s ecological balance, increase mudslides, and potentially trigger vast new rounds of earthquakes.
2. America’s favorite trees (e.g. Ash, Maple, Pine, etc.) will slowly die off as the low temperatures necessary to kill off the pests who prey on them disappear.
3. Grizzly bears, wolves, and other animals who rely on the change of seasons will no longer visit our northern lands because it is too warm. And let's not forget the plight of the polar bears too.
4. As global temperatures rise and the ice caps melt, Nevada and Pennsylvania will suddenly become beach states.
5. Finally, things will become so hot in the American southwest that firefighters will no longer be able to maintain its unnatural non-burning. Given that humans were not intended to live there in the first place (not enough water, too much natural tinder, etc.), when temperatures become so high that vegetation dries at a faster rate than normal, fires will proliferate at uncontrollable rates. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the Southwest appears to be emerging from its 20 year abnormally-abundant rainy season which geologists call a climatological outlier.

The House Bonus Tax Bill

The House of Representatives just passed a bill that taxes bonuses on employees money making over $250,000 of companies that received TARP money. This move will prove to be counter-productive for the following reasons:

- The move will essentially forces firms like Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan to pay back the TARP money quickly because most of their significant employees make over $1 million. And, because banks still do not have access to capital, their ability to lend company will be diminished. With less lending, you have less economic activity. 

- For firms that are unable to pay back the TARP, the majority of their top talent will move to firms that do not have this tax. $250,000 on Wall Street is barely entry level so talent at almost every level will move quickly. In addition to losing talent, the prestige factor or TARP firms will drop quickly and in businesses like investment banking and trading, prestige is a crucial portion of their business strategy. 

- The net result of this bill will be to reduce bank lending and/or permanently ruin companies that the government has already investment billions of dollars. Politicians in Washington have once again shown themselves to be a significant threat to the economy. 

Barrack Obama should be a hero and veto this bill. 

- John P

AIG: Kill Me Now (In the Metaphorical Sense)

Yesterday we learned that AIG handed out/plans to hand out $165 million in bonuses to its financial products branch, the branch of its company responsible for the acquisition and trade of the toxic assets that plunged our economy into turmoil. As of today we learned that AIG plans to ask the recipients of its bonuses to give back half of the money they are due. (What a sweet, sweet gesture. How generous.) Edward Liddy, AIG’s CEO who at the request of the US government came out of retirement in exchange for a $1 per year salary, claims that the bonuses are necessary (1) to retain AIG’s best and brightest and (2) because AIG contracted to give them out long before the recession hit.

This situation bothers me to no end. First, how in the world can AIG justify giving bonuses to the men and women responsible for blowing a hole in the side of our sinking-ship economy? And, to make matters worse, how can AIG justify using taxpayer money? Second, if it’s as Barney Frank (NY Congressman) says – the government owns 80% of all AIG stock – how could Timothy Geithner & Co. have let this go down? Weren’t they in a position not only as the executives responsible for monitoring the federal stimulus packages but also as the acting owners of AIG to intervene? Finally, where was Ben Bernanke, our fearless Federal Reserve Chairman? If Liddy is right and Geithner knew about the bonuses the entire time, wouldn’t it have made sense to say something to someone? Either warn the President or warn the public so when the news hit stocks would not plummet again?

What is going on in Washington? The government is handing taxpayer money to crooks – companies who so negligently handled money in the past that they single-handedly drove the world’s greatest economy into a meltdown. Wouldn’t common sense dictate that we watch these people? Are our Congressmen and women so inept, so desperate to get voted out of office, or so in love with Barrack Obama that when they passed the various stimulus packages they just closed there eyes and let the President/special interest groups dictate the terms of the packages?

I am no Washington insider and I am certainly no economist, but it seems to me like everyone thinks that if we throw enough money at something, it will go where it needs to go and fix the economy. False. We are where we are because of greed and laziness. Until we reprogram the moral compasses of financiers and bankers and implement actual Congressional regulation that disregards special interests and pork we won’t get anywhere.

The "E" Word

Let’s talk about evolution. Since the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Christians have waged war upon what they consider the unholy spawn of Satan. Claiming that the Bible absolutely states that God created the earth in six days, Christians have generally proclaimed that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs existed, were awesome, and then disappeared in a matter of decades in which man partook, and that volumes of plate tectonics theory, zoological evidence, and archaeological finds documenting micro- and macro-evolution are tenuous at best, and at worst the result of a liberal conspiracy to kill God.

Most Christians assume that evolution and faith are waging a cosmic battle for legitimacy – that they cannot co-exist. I disagree. While I will not bother discussing all the evidence that impartial scientific studies have generated proving the existence of evolution or proclaim how a brief visit to the zoo confirms most of Darwin’s thoughts, I here present one theory that blends Genesis with Origin of Species that permits God to have used evolution to create our world. Take or leave it, just please don’t shoot me.

Dr. John Walton, an Old Testament professor at Wheaton College (Il.), and a few of his Ivy League colleagues who just happen to be experts in Ancient Near Eastern ontology literature came up with the theory of Temple Ontology a few years ago. It argues that modern Western Christians must read the Genesis creation story in light of the socio-literary context of the Ancient Near East. The rationale behind this is that the Old Testament Israelites, specifically the ancient generation for whom Moses penned the first five books of the Bible, functioned as a part of the Ancient Near East. (Abraham was a Sumerian. His sons and grandson interacted with proto-Hittites and proto-Babylonians. Their descendants lived for years as Egypt’s slaves.) This means that the ancient Israelites were cut from the same cloth as the peoples who surrounded them. In other words, while Israel’s religious beliefs may have differed from their neighbors’, all Ancient Near Easterners, Israelites included, probably shared the same literally stylisms, artistic expressions, knowledge of nature, and views of the afterlife. It is in this context, Temple Ontology Theory argues, that we must read the first chapters of Genesis.

According to Walton and his theory the Ancient Near East (Israel included) believed that things did not officially exist until they were “named” or “created.” For Ancient Near Easterners this meant that something did not exist until it was either given a purpose or its purpose became evident. This process of receiving/discovering purpose was called “creating” in ancient Hebrew. Here’s an example: Israelites did not think that the wilderness existed. They could see it, touch it, and – heaven help us – taste it if they wanted to, but to them it simply did not exist (i.e. it was not created) because it served no purpose whatsoever.

This example sets up my point about evolution and Genesis. According to Genesis, God “created the heavens and the earth” and day and night on the first day. On the second He formed the continents and brought forth plants. On the third day God created the sun, moon, and the stars. On the fifth day He created fish and birds. And finally on the sixth day God created animals and mankind. If we apply Walton’s theory to this timeline it fits perfectly within evolution and its sister theory, plate tectonic theory. Essentially, Walton argues that as the world’s development progressed over billions of years from the primordial days of Pangaea to the world as we know it (the continents formed and plant and animal life emerged in the seas and later spread to the land), each time something in His creation developed or evolved to the point at which it finally became what God intended it to be, He named it (i.e. He “created” it or gave it significance). Such a reading implies that as evolution ran its course God waited for the species to culminate. When they did (despite their existence for millions of years prior to that point), they officially came into being. When this happened God “created” them.

To summarize, evolution fits Genesis 1 perfectly in that after the continents became firm and capable of supporting life, life crawled out of the seas and took hold on the land. Once there it changed and developed until it became what God wanted it to be in its final form. When viewed in this light it is possible to see how either each day could be considered an era or epoch in billions of years of terrestrial history without offended anyone’s view of Genesis 1 or that God picked 7 special days over the course of billions of years of terrestrial history to create/act.

Economic Activity, Shakespeare, and Britney

Congress recently authorized a $787 billion stimulus package. The package, amongst other things, dedicates $116.2 billion to individual tax cuts, $87.1 billion to fund State portions of Medicare, $69.8 billion to forgiving the alternative minimum tax, $53.6 billion to funding teacher salaries and job training, $35.8 billion to unemployment benefits, $27.5 billion to transportation-based infrastructure projects, and $20.9 billion to increased food assistance. All of these causes are worthy and might actually provide us with the money, aid, and opportunities they need to get back onto our feet. Even though I do not blame Congress for passing the $787 billion stimulus package – given Obama’s victory, the social mandate granted Congress by the recent round of overwhelming Democratic victories, and the fact that without sudden and massive action every Congressman in America would lose his or her job at the next election if Congress did not act – I do not like its implications.

To date, Congress has authorized more bailout and stimulus packages than FDR created aid agencies during the New Deal. Each of these packages has leveraged our future to the hilt. While Democrats are not quick to mention this, Americans have a dark future ahead when it comes to debt. Before the economic crisis each of us and our children were responsible covering $30,000 of the national debt at some point in the future (most likely to China, yay!). It now hurts even more to think that we will be paying back every cent borrowed from ourselves this year at some indefinite point down the road. If such borrowing helped, it might be justified. However, I question its efficacy in the face of continual bank failures and irresponsibility (that’s right we’re about to grant AIG another “loan”) and the practices that the bailout and stimulus packages attempt to inspire.

Take these facts into account. The current crisis began because greed blinded the housing market and just like Gloucester, it tried to throw itself off the proverbial Cliffs of Dover and drown in an English Channel of bottomless, never-ending profits. Unfortunately, unlike Gloucester, no one was there to stop it. It recklessly plunged in head first and found that the waters were not a place of sanctuary. Instead, they offered only pain, suffering, and the heart of the American economy on a platter. The point? We’re in this mess because we’re greedy.

Next, isn’t it grand that 8% of the mortgage-bound population is causing the other 92% of the mortgage-bound population to suffer so greatly? That’s right. Of all the mortgages in America, only 8% are poisonous. This means that 92% of Americans with mortgages, those folks who work hard and pay on time, not only have to cover for the other 8% but now might lose their own homes because their brokers are desperate and are calling in debts. Whatever happened to the promise of individually pursuing happiness? When did I start needing to cover for the errant and blindingly dumb mistakes of others? I know that may sound harsh and I apologize, but I’m pretty sure that I hit the nail on the head.

Finally, allow me to provide an example of the brilliance of the government’s recent response to the economic crisis. According to a really, really smart accountant that I know, there is a bailout program that offers first time home buyers assistance with their downpayments so that they can buy homes. Instead of giving them money to do this or to secure a low interest rate, the government is offering them this money and forcing them to pay it back within 15 years. So what exactly does this encourage? Let me tell you. It will go something like this:

Homebuyer (Husband): Hey honey, I heard that Barack Obama is giving out money to buy a new home. You’ve always wanted a house with a yard and a huge lawn in the suburbs! Let’s do it!

Homebuyer (Wife): Is he really? What a great man! I knew Barack would pay for our home! That’s why I voted for him! Do you think we could move into a neighborhood where everyone makes 100% more than we do? I’ve heard Greenwich is gorgeous this time of year!

Homebuyer (Husband): Of course! Because if something happens and we can’t pay our mortgage even after the subsidy-thingy, Barack will pay for that too!

Homebuyer (Wife): Booyah! Let’s stop by the Honda store and get a Prius too while we’re on the way! Do you have the new Britney Spears album? I love her! Womanizer, womanizer…

Sorry about the satire but it seems to me as if America, Congress, and the Executive Branch are either (a) ignoring or (b) missing the implications of their actions. While throwing money at the economic crisis might feel good and generate massive “public” support, it will ultimately saddle us with more debt that we can handle. This short-sightedness rankles me because it ignores the fact that we put ourselves into this position. Unregulated banking and business transactions (imposed by Clinton by the way) undercut the stability of our markets and Americans intent on aggrandizing their collective wealth closed their eyes, turned off their brains, and permitted this to happen. If we took more individual responsibility for our personal finances, avoided buying things we could not afford, and invested wisely, maybe we wouldn’t be in meltdown mode right now.

Unfortunately, it is human nature to naively and foolishly disengage from reality. Americans no longer take pride in participating in the political or economic process that is America. Instead, we sit idly by worried only about feeling good, looking good, and our next material acquisition. If we reengaged with the world around us and shrugged off our intellectual lethargy we might have stopped ourselves from going King Midas. Oh well. Maybe next time.

"Taken," Starring Liam Neeson (Don't Take your Mother to This One)

“Taken” is a movie about a former CIA operative (a “preventer”) who ransacks Paris in order to find his daughter, a 17-year-old American girl abducted into the sex trade by Eastern Europeans. Directed by Pierre Morel and starring Liam Neeson, “Taken” blends Bourne-esque intrigue and European settings with the very, very, very efficient violence of well-trained and highly vengeful father. Nieson surprised me in this role. Not only does he convincingly play a humbled man trying his best to reconnect with his daughter after years of lonely field work, but he adeptly pulls off the role of a former CIA man, backing it with flair, wit, and the American indifference we expect of anyone senselessly killing whoever hurt his daughter.

Do not go into this movie expecting loads of character development or stunning dialogue because like all recent George Lucas films you will get neither. However, if you are a fan of action, violent catharsis (Neeson literally kills everyone to was involved in the plot to kidnap his daughter), and an American who destroys as much of Paris as he can, then this movie is for you. Overall, I must admit that I like it. It is entertaining and believable. I found myself rooting for Nieson’s character the entire time.

How I Met Your Mother (TV)

How I Met Your Mother is a show that has been around for several seasons but hasn't receive as much attention as it deserves. It is very funny while still injecting serious themes that help make the show both entertaining and meaningful (but not THAT meaningful, it's still TV).

The show's main character Ted (Josh Radnor) is searching for a wife because his best friend Marshall (Jason Segel) just proposed to his long-time wife Lilly(Alyson Hannigan). The search is made interesting by his friends Barney's (Neil Harris) unique dating philosophy and approach to life.

In some way this show compares to Friends but with a younger cast and a narrower theme. And, unlike Friends, there are scenes (though not the norm) that are almost brilliant and the non-brilliant content is is generally very enjoyable. See a good scene below:

Why So Wastefull?

Economists for decades have warned against the dangers of big government but the closed-minded liberal establishment still fails to see the futility of increasing the size of government as a means for economic growth. The reason? They do not want to see the truth. Liberals depend on government spending to feed their constituents who in tern support them politically.

Take labor unions. Protectionism is without question one of the worst things for any economy yet the Democratic party for years has pushed for higher trade tariffs and fight free trade agreements. They do this because in elections, unions uniformly vote, fund raise and campaign for Democrats.

Politicians, like private economics actors, seek their self-interest. The Republicans are no exception to this. However, the Republicans economic policies ignore special interest because they have no hope of gaining labor union and other groups support. Instead, they support bills that increase the common good for the U.S. economy (with the exception of many Bush spending bills, Bush was a liberal).

I fully admit to be a Republican but that does not discredit my argument. The Democrat's economic policy are narrow and wasteful while the Republicans economic agenda is designed to benefit the country as a whole.

Need proof? Read the current Senate or House version of the "economic stimulus" bill and decide how much of it will actually fix the economy.

Springsteen at the Superbowl

I feel like a spurned lover.

Last night Bruce Springsteen played the Superbowl halftime show. He played "10th Avenue Freeze Out," "Born to Run," "Working on a Dream," and "Glory Days." While filled with the Boss's signature energy and stage magic (including an awkward slide into the stage camera), the performance might have represented the end of era for Bruce Springsteen: the era of independent, Man-fighting rock n' roll righteousness. To see him on television axing for a nation that only knows three of his songs broke my heart. The Superbowl has come to represent all things popular, yuppie, and middle/upper class. Why, oh why, would the voice of rock n' roll purity, the man who gave soul to the working class in the 1970s and true coolness in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, play a venue that will encourage 14 year-old girls to download his ringtone today? It seems as if instead of remembering his core fans (the men and women of America's hardknock cities and towns; think Cleveland, Newark, Detroit, etc.), he has opted to give his music filled with words for those born in "deadman's town[s]" to folks who will think that losing their 401K or their Jaguar equate to life kicking them in the junk.

Some might say that by agreeing to perform in the Superbowl in America's hour of need he has reached out to an America hurting the way it was when his "Born to Run" and "Born in the USA" albums debuted. Maybe these folks will say that by playing at the Superbowl, Springsteen garnered a pulpit for himself that reached the maximum number of his core fans. If that is true, then answer me this: why have Springsteen's ticket prices ($139 a pop) risen to the point where they now exclude those folks who made him great?

I apologize if my words are out of line. But I speak as a Cleveland native who grew up hearing from friends, family, and the ever-present radio that true freedom lies in living life with the abandon that Springsteen's music represents. Hopefully the Boss's night hooking up with pop culture is just a one night stand. Hopefully he will press on and continue to produce music that speaks to the soulful wanderer in all of us - the teenager deep down inside who wants to grab his motorcycle and leather jacket and ride through the chilly summer air.