I was broke, now I'm not

Well, I haven't actually been broke in a long time. But that's the name of a book and study series that has been occupying my time lately.

Joe Sangl wrote the book. He has a blog and he's focused on helping people who are like he was (broke) and want to be like he is (not broke). Joe is crazy. He remembers when he had $1.43 in his checking account and was glad it was a POSITIVE number. He also realized that he was stupid for living that way. I mean, he was an engineer, on the fast track to make the C-suite of a major company, making good money. How could he be broke? Simple, by spending more than he made.

Only our federal government can keep spending more than they make (and I wonder about them sometimes). Each of us has to come to what Joe calls an "I Have Had Enough" moment, a moment where we decide we won't take it anymore.

The book and workbook series is going well. I'm co-leading a group of about 20 adults. We watch a video and then discuss what we read and saw and how we will react. The workbook guides you through Sangl's process.

More exciting is the Financial Counseling Coaching that we're doing. We meet one-on-one with an individual or couple (actually two-on-one as we've been doing it as a team for now) and help them with their specific needs. We help them setup a budget and identify problems. Hopefully, in the future, we'll be able to follow-up on the budget (we've only been doing it about 4 weeks).

I'm excited about the idea of helping people with their finances. I'm looking forward to someone telling me "I was broke, now I'm not."

End of the Iraq war

You've probably heard, the last combat troops are officially leaving Iraq. There will still be troops there in an advisory role (read that - dangerous position), and the combat troops will be close - just in case - but the war is officially over.

I thought about this last night and then was reminded when I saw a post on another blog. We owe the people that have served there a debt of gratitude. In a time when the nation was more divided than ever, they served without question. The ones that I have spoken to never asked if we should be there, or why we were there, they just served.

A special thank you to Adam who was there for 8 months, to David - who sat out this war - but was there for the first Iraqi war, to his son David - who is on a ship somewhere in the ocean, to Jim who served as an aide to an Iraqi general, to the teacher's husband, who was an engineer who took time from his life here to go, and to Jimmy, a marine who helped clean up IEDs.

Next week, I will fly to Dallas for a conference. I plan to personally approach anyone in uniform and thank them for there service. It's the least I can do. If you know someone that has served, please thank them. You're welcome to comment and add their name here.

Game Change - Overview

Ok, I've shared my notes from the book, it's time to wrap it all up. First, thanks to all of those who stuck it through. I've shared emails with a few people about the book and have been promised a deep discussion with the person who loaned me the book. I'm looking forward to it.

I'm not sure the book changed my mind on anything. I think it clarified a lot of things and has influenced my thinking a great deal. But no major changes. I'll also have to say that the book wasn't a great work of art. It was informational and interesting, but I had to slug my way through it. I will say, it was worth it.

About the candidates - McCain really seemed like his heart wasn't in it. He would have accepted if someone appointed him president, and he would have made a good commander-in-chief. But he bent with the wind too much on other subjects. Without the right people around him, he wouldn't have helped us through the financial crisis. And I'm not sure he knew who the right people were.

Palin has always impressed me as a bright lady, who wasn't ready for the job of VP. But then I'm not sure any person is ready for that job (or the job of president). Her selection seemed so haphazard that she never had time to prepare. Like a student cramming for an exam, she failed to grasp everything. It wasn't her fault, but she certainly could have said no. Everyone is pushing her to 2012 and she'll certainly be more ready. I have serious concerns however, about her lack of persistence with her job as governor. To me, it seems she left that job to make money. That's ok, but it has consequences.

Edwards - I can't see how anyone can trust him. He repeatedly lied and his main goal was to get into the White House (as President or VP). He could care less how he did it. I will restate something I've said many times, anyone who donated money to his campaign should ask for a refund (Warren Buffett said it first).

H. Clinton - she really seemed like she thought deserved the nomination. However, once the decision was made, she tucked it in and worked for her party. I have respect for her attitude and her methods.

B. Clinton - the book did nothing to make me trust him anymore. I've always felt he would lie, cheat and steal at any chance. In fairness, the book didn't make me trust him any less.

M. Obama - The book didn't say a lot about her. She seems a stand-up-for-your-man kind of lady. The only thing I think I learned about her was that she still doesn't see how her "proud of my country" comment hurt a lot of people.

B. Obama - Overall, my opinion didn't change much. There were a couple of mentions of him playing the race card and I've always felt he was beyond that - that he wants to move beyond the distractions. I'll tuck away this new information and use it in my future thoughts about him.

I've always felt that President Obama was a very bright man, who found some strong people to put in place around him. He's a fast learner and knows where he wants to go. He either knows, or finds out how to get there.

The election in general. I'm more convinced that no Republican could have won the race and that no Democrat could have lost. It seemed like the perfect storm. First, McCain was the strongest Rep and he was very weak. Second, Obama was very strong and the country was ready for change. Change away from Bush. It seemed like he had been in office for 20 years, with a short recess for Clinton. Call it malaise, call it anything you like, the country was ready for something different, anything. His primary battle with Clinton seemed to bolster his style, and his chances.

More than that, I'll go to a Hillary Clinton quote - "God wants him to win." Many on both sides will have problems with that statement, but I'll stand by it. The question is, why did He want it? Sometimes, God gives us what we need, sometimes gives us what we want in order to show us what we really need. I'm firmly convinced that President Clinton was put in office to give Americans an idea what would happen when we traded our morals for good economic times. I'm convinced that Bush was put into office to have a strong person there for 9/11. Why is Obama in office? Only time will tell.

President Obama's views on the 9/11 mosque * Updated *

It seems President Obama has finally come out with his views on the mosque that is being built at the center of the 9/11 attacks. According to this article, the president said "Muslims have the right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country." I would certainly agree with this comment.

* Update * The President has "clarified" his statements and says he won't comment on the wisdom of building the mosque. He was only commenting on religious rights. However, the President has a habit of escalating matters such as this to the national level, when they should never be addressed to begin with. Since he's raised the issue, he should either back off his comments completely or comment on the wisdom of the decision. He's done so in the past and I suspect he will in the future. My personal comments to the President remain the same. * Update *

However, I would also say that just because someone has the right to do something, that doesn't make it right to do it. I think building the mosque at the base of what had been the twin towers is a slap in the face to everyone who lost a family member there, and to many of us who watched those towers fall. As an American, I have the right to feel that way. I also have the right to go to New York and picket the place (if it is ever built) and the right to tell others my opinion here on my blog.

But I am more concerned about a shift I see in our president. During the election, there was a lot of discussion about his faith. I covered it several times in my blog, most notably here, here and here. Candidate-Obama declared his faith in Christ and I supported that declaration. However, he has recently admitted he doesn't go to church and he is continuously making gestures to Muslim leaders. I can't recall the details, but I know he also recently skipped the traditional prayer breakfast.

Mr. President, I doubt seriously you read my blog, but I need to say this anyway, remember that God tells us to "not (forsake) the assembling of ourselves together." (Hebrews 10:25) In other words, go to church. Not a Muslim church, a Christian church. One that preaches the word of God. "Hold fast the profession of (y)our faith without wavering." (Hebrews 10:23).

Mr. President, I am concerned about your faith. I mentioned many of those concerns in the previous blog posts. I've seen no change. Like many other Americans, I'm concerned about this country. But I'm also concerned for you. Use this opportunity to renew your faith. Speak to the Muslim community, but don't ignore your own.

Game Change - Chapters 21-Epilogue

FINAL set of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers the last part of the book - after the primaries. After this post, I will make one or two final posts to wrap up my ideas

As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

Chapter 21 - Obama's reaction to the September financial meltdown. He was calling the Fed Chief and Treasury Secretary. McCain's reaction changed with the wind. It appears to me that Obama was already in transition.

A view of TARP pages 381 & 382 - very necessary. How much TARP was needed - not clear.

Pg 385. McCain cancels Letterman. It was Letterman's reaction and the actions of some of his guests that has convinced me that Letterman is not an entertainer, he's a politician. As such, I'll watch him when I agree with him, turn him off when I don't.

Obama's "above my paygrade" comment about a fetus' human rights was ridiculed (p390) This is the one time (well not the only time) I agreed with him. However, he received a pay increase a few months later and changed his tune (or never meant it in the first place).

Hillary's comment (pg 393) "God wants (Obama) to win." - A very telling point.

Chapter 22 - Pg 396 Palin was concerned about her image in Alaska., even though it was solidly Republican.

Katie Couric interview with Palin - she didn't see it to go that badly, but when it came out she blamed oters, said she shouldn't have done the interview. Palin said "if I'd known everything I know now, I would not have done this." (pg 401)

Lieberman (Jewish) prays with Palin (Christian) "providing (her) with Talmudic wisdom" (pg 403) Interesting combination.

Debate prep and the election campaign was hard n Palin. She was away from her family. All this impacted her. When her campaign staff focused on what she did well, she excelled. When they took her down the usual campaign roads, she did miserably.

Palin goes on attack (pg 408). "She was emerging as a big-time control freak." (Pg 409).

Page 413 - Biden said "mark my words, it will be not six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy." I was always amazed that this fot flack from the left and the right.The book implies that it hurt Obama because it reminded people of his inexperience. I thought it showed Biden's confidence.

Pg 415 - "The truth is, the McCain people did fail Palin."

Chapter 23 - (Page 421) The McCain battler gets ugly. Very ugly. McCain tried to rein it in.

Colin Powell saw "McCain's selection of Palin... as polarizing." How? If she was as ineffective as the book says, how could she be effective at polarizing?

"How fully Obama understood the alchemy or tides of history, the tides of history, the collision of man and moment.. was impossible to know." (Pg 426 - IMPORTANT POINT!)

Epilogue - Hillary as Secretary of State. "Hillary felt the pull of patriotism and the call of duty. She believed that when the president asked a person to serve, there was an imperative to say yes." The first time I encountered this feeling was in the documentary "Fog of War" - a story about Robert McNamara (see here for my post on that story).

Game Change - Chapters 18-20

More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers part of part 3 of the book - after the primaries.

As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

Chapter 18 - "McCain and Obama had much in common. Both ... argued that Washington was broken... and ascribed its (problems) to hyperpartisanship..." (pg 323 - seems even more broken and more partisanship now than it did in 2008)

"There was one minor hitch... McCain and Obama didn't like each other." I would go further and state that they don't understand each other Michele's "proud of my country" comment was a slap in the face of many veterans and patriots. But she never understood (and still doesn't understand) why.

Obama u-turns on campaign finance. No one should be surprised. He said "you can always change your mind" (see chapter 2 comments).

"The lengthy Democratic nomination fight meant that the Obama forces had operations in nearly every state." In contrast "in mid-June (McCain's campaign) was still a mess." (Pg 328 - a big bonus for Candidate Obama. Their response to the situation - McCain built a wall between him and the press, Obama tore down the wall. As a result, the press saw them differently).

Did Obama play the race card? Pg 332 says he did. Did McCain? pg 331 says he "warned his team to steer clear of anything that might open him up to that charge." Pg. 333 Obama sees McCain as playing the race card. Can black & white compete without one thinking the other has brought race into the challenge? This chapter is almost convincing me that Obama is not past the racial issues.

Chapter 19 " Process mattered to Obama." (Pg 338 - How did this play in his decision to go for the surge in Afghanistan? How about his handling of the Shirley Sherrod issue?)

Pg 339 Michelle Obama remembers Hillary's comments about RFK. To me, she seems very sensitive.

More of Edwards' lies. To his wife and to everyone. I agree with Warren Buffett. People who contributed to his campaign should ask for a refund.

The DNC - everything fell into place. H. Clinton, B. Clinton, the delegates. Then Obama delivered the speech he need to deliver. Nothing could go wrong.

Chater 20 - McCain, Lieberman and Graham "the trio was dubbed the Three Amigos." (pg354 - sounds more like old college buddies, always looking back and what used to be.)

"McCain's VP selection - pro-choice pick would cost him votes among Republicans and gain him few, if any independents." (pg 358)

I get  general feeling of rushto vet Palin (pg 360) "They weren't searching for problems, they were looking for a last second solution." (pg 362) McCain's attitude? "High risk, high reward." (pg 363)

"The attacks on Palin were as frantic as the vetting process." (pg 367)
The clothes (pg 369)
Her tutoring process (pg 370). She seems a fast learner, with a lot to learn. Will we see more of her on 2012?

Pg 373 McCain picked up a lot of white female vote with Palin. Bill Clinton said "Good old boys, they can relate to her."

Game Change - Chapters 15-17

More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, this post covers part 2 of the book - the Republican frontrunners. See previous posts for the Democratic story

As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

I thought it was interesting that the authors took 14 chapters to discuss the Democratic primaries and only 3 to discuss the Republican primaries. Could it be bias on the authors' part? Or just that the Democratic primary was more interesting? In this case, I think it's the latter.


Chapter 15 - McCain "really just didn't give a ####. The details made his head hurt." (pg 274) "The McCain's were a military family and if John wanted to serve, Cindy wasn't going to stand in his way. Four uses defined her ethic: 'I support my husband.'" (pg 276)

John's relationship with his wife surprised, sometimes it was very bad: "McCain let out the stream of sharp epithets, both middle fingers raised and extended, barking in his wife's face." Why all the profanity? I noted this before (see here) with the Democrats. I know if I spoke to my wife the way McCain did, she would NOT appreciate it. Sometimes, he was very protective and loving with his wife.

Rumors of Cindy's McCain's affair. Sh denied it and no proof was offered. Rumors of an illegitimate child that McCain later adopted. Is this what we subject our politicians to? Unfounded rumors?

McCain was for the Iraq surge in 2006, when the surge wasn't cool. I guess I forgot how big a part the Iraq war played in the election. Also, there was a lot of discussion of McCain's war hero status. Did it really carry that much weight? The authors thought so and at least one liberal blogger I follow agreed.

McCain's speeches were frequently disjointed due to last minute changes and they were poorly attended (during primaries). Not only was McCain not excited, the crowds and his campaign workers weren't either.

The authors mentioned the Immigration Bill of 2007. With this subject being hot (again or still?) I should do some research on it.

Chapter 16 - Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, 3x married, had a public affair with wife#3 while still married to wife#2 (see here for my comments on that subject). He was about as liberal as he could be. Why was he running as a Republican?

Charlie Crist (Florida) was view as being in Rudy's pocket and John's pocket depending on the day of the week. Mitt Romney flip-flopped on abortion, gun control and gays.

"That two candidates as flawed as Giuliani and Romney were the best poised to step in and capitalize on McCain's implosion was start testament to the weakness of the rest of the Republican field" (pg 295) - Could any Republican win? Could any Democrat lose?

"McCain would listen to everyone, take their advice, then bounce that advice off the next person in the loop." (Pg 296) My recollection was that happened once during the debates on taxes. His lack of devotion to any cause cost him a lot of support. Iraq may have been the sole exception - he was devoted to winning in Iraq.

Chapter 17 - Vicki Iseman affair alleged with McCain. See earlier comments about unfounded allegations against politicians.

Even after winning the nomination, crowds were weak at McCain events.

"McCain had failed to drive a message." (pg 318) - This sentence speaks a lot.

Is there a statute of limitations on racism?

Seems one Shirley Sherrod, former USDA official made some "mistakes" in a speech. In her speech, she outlined where she didn't work as hard for one person as she could have and her motivation was racism. What's different about this story is that Sherrod is black and the person she didn't work hard for was white.

In a hurry to prove there's no "reverse" racism here, the White House has apparently asked for, and received her resignation. Full story here.

Tea baggers will have a field day with this, saying it proves there is rampant racism in the White House. The NAACP has already spoken out against Sherrod's actions, saying essentially that racism is racism, regardless which color is targeting the other color.

I have two comments. First, Ms. Sherrod said she learned from the issue. She learned "that it wasn't just a black and white issue. It was about those who have and those who do not." (Source)

Umm. Seems Ms. Sherrod has traded racism for class-ism.  How would she treat someone who "has" who was needing her help? Would she work hard for them, or do just enough to make it look like she was working?

Second is that this issue happened 24 years ago. She re-tells the story and tells how she learned from it. I'm very glad for her and hope many people can live from her story. My question is, when does the statute of limitations on racism run out?

To answer that question, Ms. Sherrod might ask Trent Lott. You see, then Senator Lott reminded us that Strom Thurmond ran for president once and commented he would have been good for the country. A lot of people were upset because Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform.

But like Ms. Sherrod, Thurmond learned to move beyond racism over the years, supporting the Voting Rights Act and making the birthday of Martin Luther King a holiday. (see my post here). So should Trent Lott have been punished for something that happened 50+ years earlier? Or did he perhaps realize that Thurmond had learned a lesson and maybe have been a good president after all?

Maybe it's time to listen to our president and realize that talking about racism is simply a distraction.

Game Change - Chapters 12-14

More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). This completes Part 1 of the book.

As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

Chapter 12 - "The Gores (Al & Tipper) still looked askance at the Clinton marriage..." Comment what do they think of it now that their marriage has ended? There but for the grace of God, go I.

When women's groups didn't come to Hillary and Chelsea's defense, when MSNB's David Shuster said Chelsea was being "pimped out", Hillary said "where (are) the women's groups? ... If they get away with this... they deserve what they get." Comment - What about the women's groups vs. Bill's philandering and treating women as disposable? Seems they were quiet then. Hillary comes across in several chapters as bitter and vindictive.

"Bill (Clinton) received a call from George W. Bush. The current and former presidents spoke more often than almost anyone knew; from time to time, when 43 was bored he would call 42 to chew the fat." Comment - reminds me of stories about Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan. If 43 & 42 got along as well as this implies - why can't their followers?

Chapter 13 - Obama vs. Wright. This chapter interested me the most as I'd followed this encounter closely. I think it helps define Obama's character, his view on racial issues and his religion.


Obama's  "initial attraction to (Wright) ... sprang from it's commitment to the social gospel." (pg236) Comment - is that what Christianity is about? A better way to serve people? What happened to the idea of a better way to serve Him?

"Obama liked the mixture of working class and buppie congreants in the church" (pg 236) yet "in 1998 and 2001 the Obamans had rarely attended services" (pg 235). Comment - Obama put a lot of faith in something he knew little about. As a Christian, I should study Christ, and make sure whoever I follow, follows Him.

Regarding Obama's speech on Racism, he said "This is tough. ... But I'm running for president, and this is what you do when you run for president. I want this to be a teaching moment." Comment - I think this defines why Obama wanted to be president and why he thought he should. He has something to teach us. In 20 years, if he looks back at today, what will he think of this attitude?

I remember when I was 22, I threatened to sue a lawyer. I look back and realize how immature I was. That's the way I see the current president, as an immature young man, who thinks he has something to teach us.

I took no notes on Chapter 14. It was more of the politics of the end of the primary process and continued to show Clinton as bitter and Obama as wanting it to be over. Now on to Part 2, about the Republicans.

Game Change - Chapters 9-11

More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). My blogging is about to catch up with my reading, I need to read more!!

As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

Chapter 9 - Oprah "anointed" Obama (p159) Didn't she claim to be neutral and offer equal time to all candidates? Did she "anoint" McCain? I don't fault her for choosing a candidate. Everyone is entitled. But she shouldn't choose a candidate, then claim to be neutral.

Edwards kept fighting even after the Enquirer published the second article about his affair. I agree with what Warren Buffet said - people who gave him money should demand a refund.

Chapter 10 - This book explains several times what H. Clinton is wearing. But rarely (or never) what the men are wearing. Is there a double standard? It also uses words used by the conservatives - e.g. "anointed" and "coronation" - but frowned on by liberals. Could it be the conservatives were right? (sorry if I sound cynical)

Chapter 11 - Hillary's message - "The politics of common purpose" (pg194) Thought - Hillary was al about reaching across the aisle, Obama was about change. But he expected to unify?

"Nothing agitated the Clintons more than the prospect of being outspent in a campaign; the fear of it drove them to such extremes as the renting out of the Lincoln Bedroom" (pg 194 - I knew there were allegations of this, but was it true? Is this legal?)

"Invocations of Obama's youthful cocaine use - to suggest that the Clintons were playing the race card." (pg 198 - Obama's aides claimed it was racist without his knowledge. He tried to defuse it. This matches my understanding of Obama's points on racism. See my previous comments, here, here, here and here.)

"The candidate (Obama) had presented an image - caustic, sarcastic and thin-skinned (pg 206 - his aides were afraid of what might happen if things got nasty)

Bill Clinton ate at Lizard's Thicket in Columbia. I've eaten there several times, good Southern food.

Page 209 brings back memories of Willie Horton and calls it racist. I remember the issue well and I remember the ads. I never saw them as racist - I saw them as anti-Dukakis.

Game Change - Chapters 6-8

More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards). My blogging is about to catch up with my reading, I need to read more!!

As mentioned before, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

Chapter 6 -  "This country really is hungry for something fresh and new" (quote from Obama - Was this really true? Was change the goal for most Americans? To get something non-Bush, non-Clinton?)

My comment - Candidate Obama didn't like the way things were going 1/2 to Iowa, so he decided to kick some butt.

Chapter 7 - Edwards' Ego. (I have often worked hard to prepare for the next job. Obama/Edwads/Clinton did too - is this bad? [as I read this comment, I wonder what I really meant})

Elizabeth Edwards had a baby at age 49 & 50

Chapter 6 - "Part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems like health care or climate change or energy. And what we don't need is another eight years of bickering" (Obama - pg 146)

Commentary: This reflects much of what I believe about Obama - that he really wants to accomplish things and that he really wants to work with ALL people of all parties. But he wants to work on things that HE thinks are important. Over-taxation and over-governmentalization are not problems in his book. The war on terrorism would go away, if he could just talk to people.

"We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority" (Obama pg 151 - The country is not "together" any more than previously , in fact it's more fragmented)

Commentary: Bill Clinton is seen as some political guru. The authors of this book seem to treat him with a lot of political respect.

Despite Obama's statements that he would fight clean, his aides fought dirty.

Game Change - Chapters 3-5

More of my notes from the book "Game Change." It's the story of the 2008 election, so far, I'm only into the chapters on the 3 Democratic front runners (Obama, Clinton and Edwards).

As mentioned yesterday, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

Chapter 3 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet". Her is Hillary Clinton. I suppose the title chapter is a take-off on the wings beneath her wings. From what I've read in this chapter and others, the left leaning Dems had a lot of problems with Hillary's vote on Iraq. Leading into the primaries, she was trying to find a way to back-peddle on the vote. Explain her actions. Whatever words you want to call it. I've written before about flip-flopping, I don't see it as bad if it fits. I don't see this as a major change for her.

Lots of discussion in this chapter about her bi-partisanship -- but not really. Seems she was appearing bi-partisan and still trying to ram her Democratic agenda through. I get the feeling she can be pragmatic when it fits. The bi-partisanship and Iraq vote cost her a lot of liberal votes.

Chapter 4 - "Getting to Yes" - the title matches the name of a book on negotiations. Good book. My only note from this chapter is a quote from Obama when he saw some of the problems with Rev. Wright starting up. "I think the world would look at us differently the day I got elected, because it would be a confirmation of what America is about, the constant perfecting of who we are. I think I can help repair the damage that's been done."

I need to look back, but it was never clear to me what damage Obama saw. This seems to relate to what the right leaning people have called his "apology tour" after his election.

Chapter 5 - "The Invincibles" - Popular idea in this timeframe was that the Clintons were invincible. Hillary hired a "team of rivals" to run her campaign. I'd heard someone talk about Bush's team all being in sync (this was described as a bad thing). In this case, the team of rivals were so conflicted, they didn't help her.

Clinton saw Obama as jumping in line (pg 85). She saw it as a personal betrayal when her supporters went over to him. Obama saw Hillary as being unable to "bring the country together" (pg 87 - he hasn't done much better)

Clintons saw a "fawning press coverage of Obama" (pg 90). The Republicans saw this also.

More coverage to come

Game Change

A friend loaned me the book "Game Change" by John Heilmann and Mark Halperin. Thse two reporters had a lot of behind the scenes looks at the 2008 election and the book describes those scenes.

The book is NOT about the policies of the people involved in the election. I doubt seriously that it will change anyone's mind about the candidates. It may give you some insight into why they do things they way they do. And it may give some insight into their character.

I have not finished reading the book. The first 14 chapters are about the Obamas, the Clintons and the Edwardses. The next three are about McCain/Palin. It's not clear who the last six are about, but I'm thinking it's about President Obama. After all, he did win.

So starting today, I'll publish some of my notes and comments. Some may not be in full sentence/paragraph form. Where appropriate, I'll put quotes from the book. I would really appreciate your comments as I'm still trying to make up my mind if I like the book.

One thing I've noticed about the book and the characters involved, is their language. There is a lot of profanity. I guess that shouldn't surprise me, given the language our VP has used on micro-phone, but it still disturbs me. I'm by no means perfect, but I hope my language has never been that bad.

Chapter 1 - Hillary Clinton thought about running for presidency in 2004, but decided to stay loyal to her promise to serve her Senate term. Chelsea did not want her to run and this had a big influence on her. She was not very respectful of a lot of other Democrats. She was also somewhat resentful of playing "second fiddle" to former President Bill Clinton.

Chapter 2 - Obama sees President Bush's "empathy deficit." On 1/22/06, he committed not to run for president. "You can always change your mind" (pg 30). (Compare this to Clinton's attitude). He had a low respect for senate life - seemed bored by the whole process.

More comments from the book later, now it's time for your comments

What price for a different store?

I'm getting ready to make a fairly significant size purchase. I looked online and found a price at Wal-Mart (the store that every one loves to hate). I looked at a real brick-and-mortar store, one with a good reputation and the same item costs about 10% more.

There's no question in my mind that the real store will do a better job of service. I can take the item back, ask for help, ask for suggestions, etc and they would spend time with me. But how much is that worth?

Does the truth make a difference?

I'm reading a political book recommended by a friend. The book describes several candidates for president as they worked their way up to the 2008 election. I was thinking that one (or more) of the candidates lied about so many things and would say anything to get elected.

Then it hit me, that most (all?) candidates lie and will say anything to get elected. So, my question is, does the truth make a difference? If all candidates lie, which lies do we believe? Or do we just discount it all?

I'm interested in your opinion.

A New Day for Consumers?

That's what the NY Times headline says in this article. And I'm sure we'll hear that from a lot of politicians, how they have saved the consumer from so much grief from the big-bad banks. You see, congress has passed a new law (well, details are still being ironed out between the House and Senate) legislating how banks can act on your behalf. But I find interesting the details of the new law.

The NY Times lays out several areas of "change" in the new bill. It shows how a new Consumer Bureau has been created with the Federal Reserve that "would write and enforce rules for most banks, mortgage lenders, credit-card and private student loan companies." Well, I'm glad a new agency was created so that more government money can be spent (hopefully the sarcasm in that comment comes through - the Federal Reserve has been doing this for years).

But the new law goes further, in allowing the consumer to get his/her credit score for FREE! Yes, the guys singing the free credit report song have been upheld by the government. Well sorta. You see, you always could get your credit report for free (3 per year). And the only way you can get your score with this new law is if you apply for credit and were harmed by your score. The NY Times points out that "nothing is stopping you from asking for the score, even if you like the rate or result of your application." Actually, that's always been true. The last time I applied for a loan (car loan circa 2004) I asked to see my credit report and score. I sat down with the loan agent and went through it line by line. (I told them I wouldn't buy the car unless they did).

Mortgages will be changed (or not) by the new law. Mortgage companies will now have to verify your actual income. The article accurately points out that "most lenders have learned that lesson by now or have ceased to exist. Prepayment penalties will now be illegal on certain types of loans. Seems to me that with a little education, consumers would have eliminated these previously. Simple rule - don't accept loans with prepayment penalties. Isn't HUD supposed to do some education like this?

There are a few more items in the bill being worked on, but when you get down to the details, they really don't do much either. This is a lot like the much-bally-hooed CARD act of 2009 (see my comments here) that "changed" the way credit cards were managed. When you look at the details of that law, you'll find it was much softer that the changes the Federal Reserve had ALREADY ENACTED. It just gave more time to the credit card companies.

You'll hear a lot about this new bill in the coming weeks and months. I suspect you'll hear a lot about it during the upcoming election cycle. But remember, we would all be better if congress stayed out of it, and made the appropriate EXISTING agencies do their job.

Your comments are welcome.

The High Cost of Higher Education - part 2

One of my readers mentioned that her employer requires a 4 year degree for a job as a network or server administrator. But, as she explained, this isn't even taught in a 4 year program, and it is covered in a 2 year program.

This brings up my second point. Before I started this series of posts, I came to the conclusion that there's a difference between a college education and a degree. I spoke to someone who mentioned that she had heard someone say that a college degree today is like a high school degree was a few years ago. Many jobs just aren't available to those that don't have a college degree. Employers want you to have that piece of paper.

So based on these discussions, one of the reasons you might need a four year degree is simply for the piece of paper. If this is your reason for going to college, wouldn't it make sense to get that piece of paper for as low a cost as possible?

I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason for getting a four year degree is the piece of paper. There is significant benefit to the college experience. Living in a dorm and learning to balance the freedoms life gives has some value. Only the individual can assess that value.

There is also value in education. I went back to school many years after I got my bachelor's degree and have not received a single dime more income as a result. I received a lot of value for the education, but not sure that the valuable is measurable.

In summary, I've identified three different reasons for college: 1) Simply for the paper - to impress would-be employers, 2) for the life experience, and 3) for education. I'll look into more issues on the cost of higher education in the next couple of posts.

The High Cost of Higher Education

"Carmen Gardiner, 25, a 2007 graduate of Louisiana State University, is weighed down by her private student loans. Her debt is now about $80,000... Gardiner's undergraduate degree is in psychology. She lives with her husband, who is still in college, and earns $13 an hour at a call center in Atlanta." (USA Today)

Carmen's income level comes out to about $26k/year. If she took 100% of her pay after social security and assuming a small tax, it would take almost four years for her to pay off her student loan. In reality, she probably can never pay it off at her income level or at best it will take a substantial portion of her income for several years. What went wrong? Wasn't getting a college degree good?

Today's job market demands higher education, but education costs keep going higher. What's a person to do? Take out $80,000 (or more) in student loans and get a job that pays $13/hour or skip college and go right into one of those under $10/hour jobs? Is it time for a student bail-out?

Over the next few days, I will explore some of the issues related to higher education. Your input is welcome and may help guide the posts that I make.

Oil spill - Obama's Katrina or Obama's 9/11?

Unless you've lived in a cave the last several weeks, you've heard all about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. You know that BP is in charge and that President Obama's mad.

Reports on how much oil is spilling depends on who you ask. I'm thinking about going down to Louisiana and making up a number myself so I can get on the news. But this article puts the spill at between 1 and 2 million barrels or 42 to 84 million gallons of oil.

Reports also keep reminding us that this oil spill is the worst in US History. However, what they don't tell you is that it is the 4th or 10th worst spill in world history (depending on whether you believe it's 1 million barrels or 2 million barrels). The source for that number is here.

I'm not trying to minimize the effects of the spill. It's a mess and it's still going. It will have to be cleaned up and the environmental and economic impact are going to be tremendous. But the question I want to address is - is this event Obama's Katrina or 9/11?

First let's remember that Katrina was a natural disaster and 9/11 was a terrorist act. The comparison to Katrina is more about the president's response. The only way I can understand the comparison to 9/11 is to look at America's response - anger.

Unlike some of my counterparts, I don't fault President Obama for his early-on lack of attention to the issue. This doesn't seem like a problem the federal government is equipped - or should be equipped - to handle. It is a matter for private business. Certainly BP needs to go to court for any criminal and civil statutes that apply. I'm hoping that congress doesn't get silly and try to pass some retroactive laws to punish BP after-the-fact.

I also don't see the comparison to 9/11 being anger. Anger doesn't help us solve the problem and removes a lot of objectivity to the problem. I for one hope that all Americans, especially the president, will cool their anger, resist kicking someone's derriere and work towards a common solution. Once the spill is stopped and the cleanup can be sized, then it's time to take a look at the legalities.

There's been a lot of talk about the penalties that BP should face on this matter. But before we look at that, let's look at who gets penalized. Since BP is a publicly traded company, you can go to this site and see who owns stock. (as a disclaimer - this only covers shares in the American Depository, I'm not sure how to find foreign shares).

A quick glance of majority holders shows that Bank of America and Wells Fargo are near the top. These are two popular targets for other reasons, but it also means that every person with an account at either of these banks has some stake in BP's success or failure. Same goes for anyone who has an IRA/401K with T. Rowe Price, Morgan Stanley, Vanguard, Fidelity and some other well known mutual funds.

But wait, there's one name on the list that surprised me. It seems that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation owns a little over 7 MILLION shares. I thought they were into green energy? I guess they have all the loyalty of former VP Gore when it comes to doing what they say.

So punishing BP is going to punish a lot of people you & I know. Yes, they need to clean up the mess and to some degree, they need to compensate people whose jobs are impacted. But jobs come and jobs go, the people who are missing out on work have an obligation to look for new jobs. Several of my co-workers have lost jobs in the last few years, and it wasn't due to an oil spill.

Some are using this as an excuse to stop drilling. I'm not changing my perception. We need to drill. We need to look at solar, wind and any other kind of energy we can get. But it shouldn't be a federal responsibility. Private companies should (and are) look for alternatives. While we continue to use the energy we know about and have been given.

Lastly, we as Americans, need to watch this carefully. I'm firmly convinced that if BP was an American company, this administration would have already taken steps to nationalize it or give it to the unions (ala GM). Our country has been the preferred safe haven for foreign investments because (traditionally) we don't do that. Companies stand or fall on their own merits. The current administration has meddled too much for my comfort and I suspect foreign investors are watching carefully.

Baptism - Part 2

Yesterday, I restarted posting to my blog. It's been a long hiatus and I wasn't sure if I wanted to start back or not. But, I did and when I posted yesterday, I read my last posting. It was about baptism.

Well, I certainly didn't think about today's events when I re-started my blog. But, maybe there was something going on in my subconscious or maybe Someone was planning something.

Regardless, today was another baptism, but not at my church. Today, my son-in-law was baptized at a nearby state park in the lake. I've seen lake baptisms before and I think they are neat. Nothing wrong with a nice clean pool, but a lake works too.

As I said before, I believe baptism is a symbol, a sign of some previous action. Today's was neat because we had most of the family around to watch and to support Michael. The pastor pointed out that this doesn't mean he has it all together, but that he's working on it.

I like the way this was done today.