What does Michael Moore have in Common with the Tea Party?

Over the weekend, I watched Michael Moore's documentary "Capitalism: A Love Affair". It was the first Moore film I've ever watched and you're probably saying "Why is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative like Randy even watching such a film?" Well it wasn't as bad (or as good) as I'd been told about his films and it was interesting to hear his opinions first hand, rather than through someone else's filter.

As expected, the film was very anti-Bush, but also took some shots at several Clinton and current presidential appointees. One had to listen carefully to catch them, but they were there. Senators Dodd and Frank (both with a "D" after their name) were shown in a bad light, so both parties were skewered. There were several anti-Obama ads played that talked about Socialism. To me, the tie-in was weak, but the attempt was to show that Obama is not a socialist.

There were some random, seemingly unconnected portions of the movie, it focused on GM shutdowns, foreclosures, a group called the Low Income Families Fighting Together (see here) and a sit-down strike at Republic Windows and Doors (see here). Moore also had a segment on the low pay for pilots. To me, the main (only?) tie in these stories was that unions were shown in a positive light in each case, standing up for the little man against the big-bad company.

There was a segment on dead-peasant policies. To be honest, this puzzled me. Dead-peasant policies exist when a company, (Wal-Mart was highlighted) takes out a life insurance policy on their workers with the company as a beneficiary. Then if the employee dies, the company makes money. I'm trying to figure out why I should care. Assuming of course, the company doesn't do something to hasten the final event. In my case, I'd like the challenge to show the company that they would lose money on the insurance, I'd outlive their interest.

This makes me wonder about the business model of the life insurance company. Surely they have the actuarial numbers to show that over a large number of people, Wal-Mart can't make money in this game. Otherwise, the insurance companies are charging too little for this policy.


There was praise for FDR and his attempt to pass a 2nd Bill of Rights. The film said that Germany, Italy and Japan have these in their constitution. Frankly for me, that doesn't speak well. I for one, am not interested in emulating any of those countries. (As a side note, the film ends with Moore making the dramatic statement that he's not leaving the US, I'm guessing he's heard the people suggest he move to whatever country he thinks is better).

The movie ended saying that Capitalism is evil and should be replaced by democracy. It showed some companies that are run purely democratically. One was a small engineering firm, the other a bakery. It would be interesting to read more about these companies (sorry, I didn't get their name), to see how they got started, how did they manage their funds. How do they pay their CEO and how do they recruit given their democratic approach. I don't recall the companies names, so that research won't get done by me.

One of the questions I kept asking was about protection of property. Suppose I own a house and decide to sell it to you. After you've been in it for a few years, you find you can't make the payment. Shouldn't I have the right to foreclose? If you can't pay me what you owe me, can't I at least get my property back? Moore's film kept showing reasons that the big banks shouldn't be allowed to foreclose (and some were legitimate), but what happens to the bank's property rights? Do we stomp all over those? That question was never answered.

Oh and lest I close without answering the title question - what DO Michael Moore and the Tea Party have in common? Both are solidly opposed to TARP and think the whole fiasco was created by the Treasury Secretary and Wall Street. I wonder, will Moore show up at the next Tea Party Rally?

Every super hero needs an antagonist

The movie Unbreakable came out in 2000 and featured Bruce Willis as a superhero (who didn't know that's what he was) and Samuel L. Jackson as his antagonist. Batman needs the Riddler. Underdog needs Simon Bar Sinister.

This thought came to me about normal people too. Normal people need someone to hate. I was talking to someone recently who saw another person as a villain. When I pointed out some features of the villain that weren't so bad, I was greeted with contradictions and then a quiet stare. I changed the subject.

For the last eight year, President Bush has been the villain of choice for a lot of people. I believe he intentionally took that role, to be a lightning rod for those people. He knew some of his ideas were unpopular, there were several that I didn't like. But rather than pointing the finger, he decided to shield some of those around him.

The question is, now that Bush is gone, who will be the villain? We have a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives. The individuals who see Bush as the uber-antagonist won't see the same in the new president. Will it be Rush Limbaugh (who I can only tolerate in short segments, about once a month)? Some other right wing conspiracist?

Today, I have decided that I'm no super-hero. I don't need an arch-enemy (I'm probably my own). I choose to look at the world with open eyes and not to see the villainy of those who oppose my ideas. Instead, I will oppose their ideas and support their ideas when I agree.

For such a time as this - Bush?

I'm hoping some of the people who don't support Bush will read this and comment.

If you haven't heard Wayne Watson's song "For Such a Time as This", you should go right now and listen to it and see the words on YouTube (here). It's taken from the Old Testament book of Esther.

If you're not familiar with the book, you should go to a Jewish Purim play (hopefully Messianic Jews). They put the book on as a play. The one I attended was fun, involving the audience throughout. The premise of the book is that the Jews are living as slaves in Persia (modern Iran). During this time, Esther (who happens to be a "closet" Jew) is made Queen. Then Haman, a really bad dude, crafts a plan to kill all the Jews. It was at this time, that her uncle said "who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this."

The song is interesting to me personally, because I've seen in my life where God placed someone "for such a time as this." That person helped me through a particularly difficult time, but I found later that I helped that person also.

But back to my theme, I believe that President Bush believes he was made president "for such a time as this."

At this point, I won't deliberate whether I agree with him or not, I just want to stipulate what I think HE believes. I believe that everything about what Pres. Bush has done since September 2001 has been based on that. He believes that he is operating on a power, not given by the American people, but given by God.

I have to confess, in some ways, this bothers me. For him to put so much faith, and to control the nation by that faith, well, it's just a little scary. I can't find anything constitutionally wrong with this idea. But what if his power isn't from God? Well, I've decided that in that case, I'd let God take care of it. He's better equipped than me.

So, I'd ask you to read Pres. Bush's mind a little or at least evaluate what he's done the last 8 years and see if you agree. Does Bush believe that he was placed in the presidency "for such a time as this?"

Why did Barack Obama win & John McCain lose?

I know you're tired of hearing about the election. But I wanted to summarize some of the information I've heard/read about the election results and offer some opinion.

On election day, I listened to Dave Ramsey. For those of you who don't know, he runs a radio program about financial management. He is big on getting out of debt and talks to people daily who are over their heads, looking at bankruptcy or just sick and tired of being sick and tired. He's on the local Christian radio station, and he speaks from a Christian perspective, but he speaks to people of all faiths and people of no faith.

Ramsey's program on Tuesday was devoted to asking people who they voted for and why. If someone said they thought their candidate was better, he wanted to know what issues made them better. In doing so, he discouraged any arguments based on age or race. From my unscientific viewpoint, the calls were pretty much balanced between the two candidates with a sprinkling of calls for third party candidates.

There were three messages that I heard repeated several times: 1) Obama represents a change from the policies of Bush, 2) Obama is better able to handle the economy and 3) McCain will move the country pro-life, Obama pro-abortion.

The interesting thing about the last comment is that it didn't come out strongly during the months before the election. If McCain's strongest asset was his pro-life view, he evidently didn't have widespread support. More people are either pro-abortion, ambivalent or weak on the abortion stance.

Regarding the first argument (change & McCain = Bush), it's obvious that Obama got his message across. However, I would argue that this isn't a real issue. The people calling in to the program couldn't specify what they wanted changed or how McCain was a continuation of Bush.

The economy is the issue that seemed to carry the most weight. There were a few callers who believed that Obama's policies were socialist. There were more who liked his economic ideas. This reminds me of a time when the American people cared more about the economy than anything else. The result was the most morally corrupt president in our 200+ years. The result was a booming economy and a free-wheeling spirit. As a result of that free-wheeling, we've had at least two economic collapses and terrorist attacks (see this list).

Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on US soil. On 9/12/2001, almost everyone believed we would have continued attacks. The attacks overseas have reduced greatly. Why didn't voters think about this and cast their vote accordingly? A year ago, Iraq was a big issue. Today I heard that soldiers are coming home TWO MONTHS earlier than even Bush predicted. It's clear that we will be out of Iraq soon regardless what the next president does. Given these two facts, I think a continuation of Bush's policies wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

Election day

It's finally here. After one of the longest, ugliest, most prolonged battles I've ever seen, today is the day we cast our votes. Many have already voted and I think that's good. I voted absentee once when I lived in NC, I can't remember why. SC doesn't have early voting, so to vote early here you have to sign an affidavit saying you can't be there on election day. Any reason is acceptable, but I just feel funny when I know I can be here.

So, in about 6 hours, I'll walk about 1/4 mile to my voting place. It's nice being that close, and I'll save the parking spaces for those who have to go further. Surprisingly, my son has asked me to wake him up when I go so that he can go with me. It's his first election and until last night I wasn't sure he was going to vote. His reasons seemed actually to make sense, but I won't fight his battles here.

Sometime tonight (in theory), we will know who the next president/vice president will be. Unless something really unusual happens, we will either have the first African-American President-Elect or the first female Vice President-Elect. It's a historic election. We've had African-American candidates before (Alan Keyes to name one) and we've had a female VP candidate (Geraldine Ferraro). But this is the first time we've had them on both major parties' ticket.

Regardless who wins, the election process, as ugly as it has been, serves to inform us. We know more about both candidates than ever before. We have the potential to take the issues that concern us the most and evaluate the candidates' responses. What will the next President face? We may not know, but we should be able to estimate how they will react.

But at the end of the day, or the end of the voting, one thing will still be true. Actually, several things will still be true. 1) President Bush will still be president. 2) God is still in control.

When you think about that last one, what else really matters?

* Update - I just finished voting. From the time I got in line until the time I walked out, under 1 hour total. Our state limits you to 3 minutes in the voting booth and does electronic touch-screen voting. I took my time, reviewed each selection before I made it, reviewed it again after I made it, then went through the final review twice to be sure. Not sure how long I was in the booth, but it was under the 3 minutes easily. 1/2 mile of walking up & back, I won't have to exercise for another month now.

How do you define support?

In today's world, support is defined by money. When we look at presidential candidates, one metric is how much money the candidate is raising. This was constantly monitored during the primaries and will be monitored even more closely between now and November. Candidates are raising money through all types of methods, including the Internet.

My fundamental question though, is: it really "support" if everyone sends $1?

On the Internet today, you can raise money easily. There are tools like PayPal and ChipIn that allow people to safely donate to the cause du jour. I don't mean to imply that these tools are bad or that some of the collections are bad. I think it's a good way to do fund raising. But, the question is, should we measure a politician's success by his (or her) ability to raise money this way?

I saw a recent article about a candidate for the Kansas legislature who is using PayPal to raise money for his candidacy. Sean Tevis has gone from a measly $1525 in his war chest before he started his Internet campaign to over $95,000 in just two weeks. And over 1/2 of these donations were under $8.34 each. But are these 5700+ people really supporting him or are they just laughing at the comic strip on his website?

Four years ago, Howard Dean was a fund-raising machine. He even looked at fund-raising as a sporting event, playing games with Bush supporters. When Bush had a big fund-raising dinner with $1000-a-plate (and more) dinners, Dean challenged his supporters to raise even more via the Internet, a few dollars at a time. (see article here).

But of course, Dean's campaign folded during the primaries and he never even made it to the 2004 election. (Kerry won the nomination, Bush the election)

You can even go back to 1970 and see the same kind of fund raising. Of course the Internet didn't exist in 1970, so George McGovern used an early form of spam called "direct mail" to do fund raising. It was a novel approach at the time and the response he received was higher than expected. "2 percent would have been a strong response," McGovern achieved 4%. Today's standard is 1/2 percent (reference here). The fund raising paid off, he won the Democratic nomination in 1972. However, he lost in a landslide election to Richard Nixon.

Now you can look at McGovern and Dean and identify other reasons these candidates didn't finish with the results reflected in their fund-raising. I have no idea of Sean Tevis' chances. But the question remains, does financial support through these fund raising techniques reflect real support?

I think the answer is obvious. But in order to prove it, I'd like everyone on the Internet to send me $1 for more research. If I raise $1million, I'm sure it will prove I have a lot of support.

It's the economy stupid (Platform building #4)

I couldn't resist that headline. For those with a weak memory, that was the mantra of those who swept Clinton-1 into office after Bush-1 led the nation in Iraq-1. When the troops all returned, the economy stumbled. Bush-1 seemed to ignore the issue and lo, the mantra.

Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.

As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.

So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.

First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.

There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.

The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.

How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.

As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.

I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.

There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.

Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.

Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.

Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.

Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.

That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.

My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president

When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.

However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.

Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.

So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.

Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.

So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.

Impeachment

Yesterday when I should have been working, I instead procrastinated and went off on some odd tangents. I wanted to list the presidential candidates (17 of them) and then I saw Dennis Kucinich and beacuse of his funny sounding name ended up looking at news about him. He's proposed an impeachment of VP Cheney. So what does impeachment really mean?

Most of this I knew already and most of my readers will know most of it, but I decided to put it together in one place.

Generally, impeachment is thought of as kicking someone out of office. This is wrong. Impeachment is the process where an official is brought to trial. The impeachment trial can result in conviction or aquittal, conviction means kicking someone out of office.

The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives (what a fine bunch). Typically, the resolution is sent to the judiciary committee. It may also wind through a couple other committees. A simple majority of those present and voting is enough to proceed.

At this point, control passes to the Senate (another fine bunch). They sit in judgement over the accused. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote. Here's the interesting part. If the president is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. In other cases, the VP presides.

So (in theory), the VP could preside over his own case.

In looking at some of the history of impeachment, it looks like James Madison had a good bit to do with that part of the Constitution. Thanks to him, impeachment can only occur due to "treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence is not impeachable. Jefferson's manual offers some information on impeachment as well (food for another procrastination).

There have been 17 cases of impeachment at the federal level, 13 of these for judges and justices. Of the judges, 7 were removed from office and 2 resigned. One senator was impeached, but he was removed from office by Senate rules before the impeachment proceedings. In 1876, the Secretary of War (now called Secretary of defense) was impeached, he resigned and then was aquitted.

Only twice has a sitting president been impeached. Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was impeached, but aquitted and Bill Clinton was impeached, but aquitted. Clinton was impeached on two counts: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Two other counts were attempted, but did not make it to aquital: a second count of perjury and abuse of power. (Next time I procrastinate, I'll research those four charges)

Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon was not impeached. Impeachment proceedings were in process and would likely have resulted in impeachment, but Nixon resigned instead.

There have been 63 resolutions presented for impeachment including resolutions to impeach George Washington, John Tyler, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi has implied that impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney are not going to happen. It appears to this researcher that she just doesn't want her tenure bogged down in the proceedings. Since any vote is likely to be split down party lines, I would agree with her. Of course, I'm not sure there's much progress being made anyway, so I can't see much damage either way.

Write in Jenna Bush for president

According to an MSNBC report, Jenna Bush won't be seeking the presidency. Uhh.. someone should check their constitution (with apologies to Al Haig). You have to be 35 to be president. Young Jenna is only 25 according to the same report. She'll have to wait out the next 3 elections.


MSNBC also says her fiancee doesn't aspire to the presidency. He's not much older, this site says he's 29. He'll have to wait out this election and the next.

I think this qualifies as stupid journalism (with apologies to my son-in-law)

Oh, as for changing their mind? Remember that in 1992, Hillary Clinton said she wasn't a "stand by your man" woman. Somewhere along the way, I guess she changed. Jenna and her husband-to-be are entitled to change their minds too