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.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today

I saw an article online and it made me think of this old line. It was my father-in-law's favorite.

The article deals with NY state and municipalities and their payments to the state pension fund. Seems they are having problems coming up with the $$, so they're going to borrow the money for the payments - get this - from the pension fund. The money borrowed will have to be paid in 2013.

Wouldn't it be easier just to stick an IOU into the offering plate? Why not looking at cutting payouts - at least temporarily?

I guess it's good I don't live in New York. Full story at -> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/nyregion/12pension.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Baptism

This past Sunday, we celebrated baptism at our church with two people being baptized in our services and 5 or 6 more in other services. I really like the way we do it and decided to share some of the ideas I've seen at this church and others.

As a Christian, I believe that baptism is a sacred ceremony, an act of obedience. I don't believe it's a requirement to get into heaven, but it's certainly a good idea. I think that baptism is a sign of a previous act. You first accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and then you are baptized, just as Jesus was baptized.

At our church, the baptismal has room for people to stand behind it. As a person is baptised, family and special friends (typically 2-5 people) walk behind the baptistry and look down adoringly at the soon-to-be-wet person. The pastor introduces the person and mentions some people, typically in the congregation, who were significant in bringing this person to Christ. These people stand in support of the individual. Sometimes the pastor points these out to the individual. I am often reminded of the verse "Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses," the witnesses serve as a reminder to the individual.

Our pastor says "I now baptize you my brother (or sister) in Christ" as he dunks the person under the water. I've often joked that he holds former Methodists under the water just a little longer. One pastor, would always say "Buried with Christ in baptism, risen to walk in newness of life." I like this, but it's certainly not required.

I've head of some pastors who make a big deal out of "getting your baptism on the right side of your salvation." The idea is that a lot of people were baptized at a young age, before they really accepted Christ. The individual needs to be re-baptized as a sign of their true conversion. I understand this and agree with it, but I certainly don't make a big deal about it. If baptism is just a sign (and I believe it is) then it really doesn't make a difference. In fact, if someone was never baptized, it really wouldn't matter. I would have questions about someone who said they don't want to be baptized, but that's a separate subject. It's a sign of obedience.

What ceremony do you have around baptism?

Tim Tebow ad - what's all the fuss about?

Ok, I admit I was disappointed. I was expecting more. After all, I was told it was divisive. Instead, all I saw was a mother who worries about her son "Timmy". She called him her "miracle baby" and explained "he almost didn't get into this world." She says she can remember so many times when "she almost lost him" and says "it was so hard."

Then she goes on and says "well, he's all grown up now and I still worry about his health." My initial thought was that this was an ad for Flintstones Chewable Vitamins. Then she says that "with all our family's been through, you have to be tough" and she gets tackled by Tebow. Both pop back up. In the end-of-commercial music, she tells little Timmy that he's "not nearly as tough as I am."

So where's the divisiveness? Where's the anti-choice message? Where does Tebow offend people?

Looking for offensive divisive material, I looked at the website mentioned in the ad http://www.focusonthefamily.com. Once there, I clicked on the "Watch now" button to watch the story. Tim's mom and dad do a sit-down interview where they tell the story. Mrs. Tebow explains her point of view and her choices. You may disagree with them, but they are her choices and her beliefs. You may think (as one other video I watched explained) that a belief like her's is like a belief in Tinkerbell. But she doesn't force or even suggest that anyone else should follow her beliefs.

I know that I have seen the birth of three precious children. There were times during those pregnancies where I wondered if we would see that child, if we would make it through the current illness or the depression or the personal struggles we were going through. We never faced major struggles, but we knew some who did. I felt like I could empathize with Pam Tebow.

Towards the end of the video, the narrator asks the Tebows what they would tell someone facing an unwanted pregnancy. Mrs. Tebow tells them that they have options and choices and mentions pregnancy crisis center.

So here's my suggestion. If you're interested in the Tebow story, go view it online. I will warn you that you will hear a lot about how God influenced their lives. If that scares you or bothers you, don't watch the video.

I also have a special request to Christians that read this. Watch the video. Learn the style and techniques the Tebows use. It's not offensive and will reach many more people. And pray. Pray for the Tebows. They've already been under attack and I'm afraid it will grow worse. There are those out there that would love to jeer at Tim Tebow if he were to fall. He has an important job to do and he can't afford to be distracted.

No one should go broke....

I've been planning this post for a while, and then I just heard a comment on the radio from President Obama. He said that "no one should go broke, because they happen to get sick in this country." This is based on his pitch for health care. I thought, that the same thing applies in this situation.

My post focuses on a young couple, the Holts,  who were following the American dream. They bought a house and were raising their family. Unfortunately, their dream became a nightmare. Their children developed breathing problems to the point that their middle child was forced to take the heaviest dose of steroids a toddler could take. Mom developed migraines, dad - kidney problems. Almost five years after they bought the home, they found the source of the problems - methamphetamine. The previous occupant of the home had been dragged out of the attic by police and busted for making meth.

Meth fumes can permeate the drywall, carpet, insulation and air ducts and in this case, caused the Holts' illnesses. Cleanup of their home will cost about $30,000. The article where I found all of this information (here) detailed two other situations that were similar. Two other families' lives wrecked. To paraphrase the president - "No one should go broke in pursuit of the American dream."

Now the Holts clearly are not at fault in their situation (based on the story anyway), but who is at fault and who will pay for the cleanup? Clearly the previous occupant is at fault, but he's in jail and can't pay for the cleanup. It's not clear if they had a home inspection that should have shown the problem, but after five years, you would begin to wonder about limits of liability and statutes of limitations. They probably have a mortgage, they could walk away and leave the bank holding the meth house. But then why should the bank lose their investment? Home owner's insurance doesn't cover meth lab clean-up.

It's clear to me this is a problem and no one should go broke. The Holts have reached out to their community and the community is helping some, but new hospital visits and sporadic donations have limited their financial recovery. So, where do they go from here?

I'm afraid I don't have an answer, but I do know something that isn't the answer. I know this isn't a federal problem. The state has a mandate (through Medicaid) to provide medical assistance to the needy. The bank who holds the mortgage took some risk when they loaned the Holts money for the house, they should step up to some of the responsibility. But the majority of the burden will (and should) fall on the Holts, who through no fault of their own, made a very bad choice in homes.

As compassionate Christians, we should reach out to help people like the Holts. No one should go broke. But that doesn't mean the federal government should step in. The meth house clean-up or to health care.

Happy Groundhog Day

I started to do a blog post about how PETA wants to rid Groundhog Day of that weather forecasting rodent Punxsutawney Phil and replace him with a robot. But I decided most people already knew about that. If you don't, see the article here.

Instead, I'll tell you how we celebrated Groundhog Day in our family. As best I can remember it was 1991 and my youngest daughter would have just turned 5 a little over a month before. As she was in daycare, she was involved in creating projects all of the time. This year she brought home groundhog hats. (This may have started in 1990 and was repeated in 1991).

On a paper plate, someone had drawn a groundhog. He filled up most of the plate and his lower abdomen almost touched one side. Then, they carefully cut out around little Phil and pulled it out so that he stood up. A few holes punched in the sides, a string around your chin and Eureka! you have a groundhog hat.

I searched the internet for a picture or a lesson plan related to these hats and couldn't find out. This must have been an original creation. Anyway, we had to wear groundhog hats for dinner that night. Of course, I told my friends about it the next day at work and got a good round of laughs.

This year, I'm away on a business trip for Groundhog Day and I doubt I'll be wearing a groundhog hat. But I certainly will be thinking of one.

Dulles Station

I'm in DC this week for a business meeting. Our meetings are in an office complex called Dulles Station (see here). I ended up arriving a day early, so I had some time to find the office and look around a bit. What I saw was an urban community much like ones I've seen in Richmond, Bethesda, and to a lesser degree even Charleston and Greenville, SC. These communities pop up in most cities (I know Charlotte was headed towards one when I left) and combine office, retail and housing (typically apartments/condos).

So why am I blogging about it? It's the economic statement. No, this isn't a sign of a turn-around or the stimulus package. I'm trying to keep this a-political and besides, Dulles Station first opened in April 2007 (according to their sign). Instead, I'm making a comment about the long term economic impact. I believe this country is basically strong and will continue to be that way in spite of the actions of the previous president and the current one. Dulles Station has some big names in the area. Strayer University has a big office there (not sure how many offices they use, but it's a big building). And there are others in the general area: BAE systems (air defense), XO Communications (telecom), DLT Solutions (hardware reseller for Oracle) and GTSI (Government IT) were just some of the names I saw.

There's lots of small business in the area too. Several fast food restaurants as well as some nicer places. A near-by strip mall boasts two Chinese restaurants and a Sushi place (seems like redundant repetition). What strip mall wouldn't be complete without a dentist's office, an animal hospital, a rug/floor center and a Staples. And of course, the area has at least 3 or 4 Starbucks.

As mentioned, there are lots of apartments in the area. The ones at Dulles Station seem to cater to those who work in the community itself, but then there are several more apartments in the general vicinity. While I would have thought these were mainly for young singles, I did see a couple of kids that had made a nice snow fort (I wish I could have gotten a picture). And their are lots of schools in the area, one on a road named EDS Road (HP - the new "owner" of EDS has at least two facilities on that road).

As I mentioned earlier, I've seen these kinds of places before in other locations. It makes me feel good to see the growth. I'm sure some of it (in this area a lot of it) is related to government spending. Some of it is related to "green" spending (green as in $$) and some of it is likely related to companies trying to cash in on the stimulus money. But it means jobs and hopefully a brighter tomorrow.

Tax credit for new jobs

Ok, one of the president's points the other night was to create a tax credit for companies that create new jobs. They can't lay people off and then rehire them, they can't eliminate one high paying job and hire two lower paying people, they have to be real jobs that are created (based on what I've heard - still haven't read all the details).

This sounds good. Someone said that this was tried in the 1970's and it didn't work. I remember a lot of things were tried in the 1970's that didn't work. Not sure why. Someone also said that companies need more business before they hire people. That's true. This tax credit would encourage businesses to speculate and invest ahead of new business.

Here's my problem with this idea. What has the current administration done to companies that were offered a bail-out, then were successful? Well, for GM, it was nationalized and handed to the unions. For banks that were given TARP money (which should never have happened), they paid back the loans WITH INTEREST and now they are being threatened with new taxes. Executives who put their jobs on the line are being threatened with large fees (when most of their "income" is in the form of long term stock options - not cash).

So let's play this out. Say Mom & Pops, LLC hires 4 new people and gets a $20,000 tax credit. Their business does well and they keep expanding. In 2011, the administration sees that they are successful and hits them with a "windfall profits" tax. After all, they got a bail-out credit, didn't they? Isn't it time they paid back?

I'm sorry, this administration has shown that they are willing to back-date decisions, I'm not sure this tax credit is safe.

State of the Union and the Republican response

First, I have to admit I didn't watch the State of the Union or the Republican response. I haven't read either of them yet, I intend to read them both this weekend (while it's snowing outside). I heard about it on the radio some today and some on the news tonight.

I don't intend to comment on Pres. Obama's "dis" of the Supreme Court or Justice Alito's "Joe Wilson" moment. I don't intend to comment on anything the President said or Governor McDonnell's speech at all.

Instead I'll complain about the same thing I complained about last year. And the year before. Why must there be a "response"? It's written several days (or weeks) before the State of the Union, so it's not really a response. Instead it is just a way to complain about the president. This only serves to further polarize the general public,

My hat will be tipped for the first party that decides to raise the decorum by skipping the "response".

(For previous posts on this see here, here and here.)

The(se) United States of America

Recently, I read a book that asked the question is it 'THE' United States of America or "THESE" United States of America? On a lark, I asked the quetion on my Facebook page, with absolutely no introduction or explanation. An overwhelming majority of responders to my unscientific poll said "THE". One person picked up on the true meaning of the difference, while a couple debated semantics or grammar. (One person did question where the question was leading and guessed correctly in follow-up emails). One person waffled by saying it depends on who is saying it and one person simply said "these".

The statement hit me because I have been reading a lot about states' rights. Are we, as Americans, part of a larger nation - joined together over two centuries, or are we a collection of independent states, a loose confederation of individual geographies, brought together when it fits the current conversation? I've listened at Tea Parties as I tried to understand the movement (or group of movements). The movement reminds me of a feeling I had several years ago, a feeling that individual people count when it comes to the government, that we can make a difference.

As I mulled over this question, I looked at the Constitution. That document written by "We the people" is the foundation of our government and we should always refer to it when we have questions. That document clearly lays out what we should be doing. I discussed this with one person and reminded her that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 and the Constitution wasn't written until 1786, ten years later. Now from my memory during the 10 year interim, Americans were governed by the Articles of Confederation. While it provided some unity, "each state retain(ed) its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right."

After ten years, a group of people decided that the loose confederacy of states wasn't working. A new constitution was written to "provide for the common defence, (sic)  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." The goal was simply to form a more perfect Union.

In a discussion with a self-proclaimed Liberal yesterday, she mentioned the 10th amendment in the same discussion as the tea parties. This amendment basically says that anything not covered in the Constitution is left up to the states. So what is a federal issue and what is a states' issue?

Well, it's clear that national defense is a federal issue. Supposed that after the attacks on the twin towers on 911, SC had decided not to send troops. After all, our state wasn't attacked. (I'm ignoring the issue that some people think we shouldn't have attacked Afghanistan or Iraq - if that bothers you think of Pearl Harbor and 12/7/1941). The problem comes in the general Welfare. Does that mean that some of us in SC have to prop up those on the left coast who may have made some silly laws?

I have to say that I come down on the side of states' rights and that the best thing the federal government can do is to stay out of the way. The current healthcare debate is one example. But I also believe that there are times where the federal government HAS to step in to help all of us.

What is most reassuring to me, is the knowledge that our generation is not the first to face this debate. Over 200 years ago, a group of very smart men gathered together and realized that they could not answer all of the questions in a way that would satisfy all people for all times. Maybe the smartest thing they did was to NOT try to solve all of the problems, to admit they didn't know it all.

Haiti relief effort and Pat Robertson

 

Most of you have heard by now the radical thing said by TV evangelist Pat Robertson. In speaking about the earthquake, he said that the Haitians had, long ago, made a pact with the devil. I was curious what he was talking about, so I did a little research.

It turns out that this "legend" has been around for a long time. The Haitians revolted against the French in 1791 and, as the story goes, made a deal with the devil to get out from under French rule. Now while. Rev. Robertson is relatively old, I don't think he was around during those times, so it seems he's just passing along stories he's heard (isn't that gossip?) What's really sad is that the rest of his comments were overshadowed by this statement. After this incindeary statement, Roberson went on to say that "we need to pray for them (always a good idea) a great turning to God (good for everyone) and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come. (Wait - did he say something good?) But right now we are helping the suffering people (he's helping?) and the suffering is unimaginable."

That's right, Robertson's people started helping immediately after the quake.

I can't say I have ever watched an episode of the 700 Club (Robertson's show). I've probably watched parts of it, but I just couldn't handle his type of evangelism. I think he's wrong on a lot of accounts. Mainly, I think he needs to study Romans 14:19 and focus on edifying people instead of saying things that come out as hateful. I have no idea of the leaders in Haiti in 1791 signed a deal with the devil and frankly I don't care. Neither should Rev. Robertson.

Now, I have a question about the relief effort. There have been reports that there are people upset with how long it is taking to get supplies and relief into Haiti. Some have even gone so far as to draw analogies to Katrina, the Indian Tsunami in 2004. Why doesn't someone in power (special nod and wink to Pres. Obama) draft and publish a guideline of what a relief effort looks like along with a timeline. Sure, ever situation is unique, but if we know it takes 6-9 days to provide food to 10,000 people, then we can properly judge the response or lack of response.

Comments?

VITA/TCE Certified

Ok, my long term readers are probably thinking, hey, I've read this post before. True, last year about this same time I did post an article with this same title (see here). They may remember that I volunteered (that's the "V") to provide Income Tax Assistance to low-middle income people as well as Tax Care for the Elderly (see how I snuck the acronym in there?). I reported last year (here) that I did taxes for about 100 people.

Well, I'm back at it this year. I passed the basic exam one day earlier this year (simple coincidence) and have decided to step up a notch and took the intermediate exam. I passed that one too, so I will be allowed to do slightly more complicated exams this year. We start doing taxes on January 30 and continue until that magic day in April (which my family knows the reason for the magic). I will do taxes on Friday and Saturday afternoons (assuming I get the slots I requested).

This year there are a few changes. There's a new $400 ($800 for joint taxpayers) credit called Making Work Pay. It requires a new form, but it's relatively simple. (Special note to my son - you don't get it because you're my dependent.) And of course there's the first time home-buyers credit, but few of my expected clients are likely to qualify for that (likewise the follow-up home-buyers credit). I'm prepared just in case as I helped out one tax payer after the tax crush last year with their form 5405 and I'm expecting to help another in May of this year.

As usual, one of the most complicated forms is for Earned Income Credit. Sadly, the people who need the credit the most are the least likely to understand. I never even try to explain Advanced EIC. And I spent a lot of time this year trying to make sure I understand the tuition tax credits. Did you know there are FOUR different ways to claim tuition credits? And the law has changed (for the positive) on what you can claim. This credit helps those who are in school (or paying for someone in school). I think it's great because in theory, this will result in a future big income and support for me when I'm collecting Social inSecurity.

I did my own taxes on paper for a number of years. For most people, it's not that hard. You don't have to go to some store-front tax location (that will be gone after 4/15) and pay a few hundred dollars to get your taxes done. If they are that complicated, it's worth paying a REAL professional to have it done. If you need help, look for a VITA site near you (search on VITA on the IRS website). Avoid those Refund Anticipation Loans (see here for another reason to avoid them).

I'll report back here in April with a final comment.

I'm baa.aa.aa.aack

I couldn't stay away too long. I needed a break from every day blogging. I also stopped reading (as many) blogs.

Over the last year, I've changed my blog reading habits. I read less political blogs (it's better for my blood pressure) and more financial blogs (picked a few good tips too). I also read more "personal" blogs, just regular people commenting on life.

As I restart my blog, I've banned anonymous comments. Seems I was getting a lot of these, so it just made sense. If you're being kept from posting, please email me. You can click on "view my profile" (scroll down, on the right, under "about me") and get my email address. I'd love to hear from you.

Real blogging starts tomorrow!

Hi-8-us

I'm going to take a short hi-8-us (break) from posting on this and other blogs for a while. Thanks to all my readers.

No time for long post - Shampoo

No time for a long post today. I got stuck in the shower. I'm trying a new shampoo and wanted to follow the instructions very clearly.


Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Later. Rinse. Repeat. Lather. Rinse Repeat.


Man, that shampoo only lasted one day, I won't try that brand again...

I'll put your Menorah beside my Christmas tree

A couple days ago, I posted an article about how Christmas trees should be allowed in the public square, because Christmas isn't really a Christian holiday. I must not have said something right, I figured I'd get tons of comments from both sides (I did receive one - thanks Thomas). If you want to read that original post, see here.

I heard something on the radio about a town that doesn't want to put up a Christmas tree because they would have to put up a Menorah and symbols of other religions. Personally, I think this is a good idea.

Let's put up a Christmas tree beside a Menorah. We'll also put up a symbol of Islam and a cross (a really good symbol of Christianity). For Agnosticism maybe we cut make a statue of a question mark and for Atheism an exclamation mark. We can even put a pentagram for Wicca believers.

As I thought of this, I thought that surely someone had done something like this before. With the aid of my favorite search engine, I was able to find the history of one previous display like this (you can read about it in 1 Kings 18:21-39).

Post dated papers

Yesterday I had someone ask me to fill out some papers and post date them so that it would appear I signed the papers in January. Of course the reason was that there was "so much" paperwork - I guess it would take me from now until next year - and we could get that stuff out of the way easily now.

So, let me get this straight, you want me to fill out the papers, swearing that everything is correct, then lie about the date? And then, since you encouraged me in the lie, you expect me to trust everything you say and everything you sign?

Somewhere there are people saying "it's only the date, what's the big deal?" To which I would reply, "it's only the price, what's the big deal?"

Let me give a warning to anyone who asks me to sign paperwork - if you ask me to "fudge" the date, you won't get the contract.

Christmas trees in public square

Last week, I posted an entry about Christmas music. The premise of the entry was to identify which Christmas songs should only be recorded by a single artist. My example was Burl Ives and Holly Jolly Christmas. Any other recording just isn't up to par. I had a few comments with other suggestions, you're welcome to go back and add your ideas here.

Later in the week, I was listening to some Christmas music and heard a song by Barry Manilow. Now, as much as it embarrasses me to admit this, I like Barry Manilow. But the thought hit me that he's Jewish. Why would a Jewish man sing songs celebrating the birth of the Messiah? The birth of the Christ child?

So I decided to do a little investigation. What other Jewish people sing Christmas songs? Well, the Internet is our friend, I found out I wasn't the first to ask this question (alas, there's nothing new under the sun). I found that Neil Diamond (who sings "Sweet Caroline") is Jewish as well as Barbra Streisand and both have Christmas albums.

Turns out there are a lot of Christmas songs written by those who are Jewish including "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire", "Holly Jolly Christmas" (which I mentioned earlier) and "White Christmas" (reference).

I certainly have nothing against these people singing Christmas songs. In fact, a little more research told me that Ed Asner, who is a frequent speaker at ACLU meetings has played Santa Claus in the 2003 movie Elf (and if memory serves me right, also in the old Mary Tyler Moore series).

So with Christians, Jews and atheists alike, all celebrating & singing about Christmas, it appears that the holiday is no longer a Christian holiday. With that information, why do we prohibit Christmas trees in the public square? Why do we (in government) shy away from calling it a Christmas tree or the Christmas holiday?

So let's put up Christmas trees in the public square. After all, if it isn't a Christian holiday, the government shouldn't have any problems, right?

Ok, what's going on?

About four years ago (almost exactly), I posted an entry about Providence, the unseen hand of God. I don't really believe in coincidence, but as I wrote back then, it seems ostentatious to say God planned something. Providence seems like a good way to say it while not really saying it.

This week, Providence seems to be at work again. On two separate occasions, I had discussions with two different friends about two different religious matters. Then, I had three different religious discussions on three different blogs (again on different matters). I typically steer away from these things, but these three discussions just came out.

Then it hit me, Providence. There's something behind this. What's going on?

Count the cost - part 2

Yesterday I asked the question "when do you count the cost?" as it relates to you individually. More important is the question "when do you ignore the cost?" and do something. The example I gave was an emergency room visit.

Today I want to ask if the same logic applies to the U.S. as a country? Is there (or should there be) a time to do something without regard to the cost?

For example, we recently had the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor - a day which has lived in infamy since that day. We all (hopefully) know what happened and the result was the U.S. entry into WW II. The cost of that war was tremendous. But no one questioned the cost or has said that we shouldn't have gone to war. Just let the Japanese (and Germans) take what they wanted. Instead, we ignored the cost, figured we'd pay for it later.

The cost was paid in lives and in sacrifices of U.S. citizens. I've heard my parents talk about rationing, and the shortages. But no one questioned it.

I believe that 9/11 was another such time to ignore the cost. Whether you believe we took the right action or not, is not the discussion at this point. Should we have ignored the cost and gone after terrorism? We will pay for the decision for a long time. And we don't (yet) know what the total cost will be. But I believe it was the right decision.

How about the stimulus package from earlier this year? We were told we had to do something and it had to be done right then. There was no time to "count the cost". What else? Where else is it right for us as a country to ignore the cost and continue?

Count the cost

I started to name this post "How much is that doggy in the window," but decided that most people wouldn't get the point (that phrase is from a VERY old song - older than me).

One of my favorite Bible verses is Luke 14:28. Roughly it says you should "Count the Cost" before building a house. You need to know the cost of the house before you start, otherwise you'll run out of money partway through. Of course in today's world, you wouldn't run out, you'd just run down to the bank and take out a mortgage or you'd whip out your credit card.

It occurs to me that there are times when you don't count the cost. If you're in an accident, you don't shop around for the cheapest ambulance service, you call 911 and take the first one that gets there. After the bill comes, you figure out how to pay. If you have a heart attack, you don't ask the doctor ahead of time "How much is this going to cost?" or "do I have enough money in the bank?" If your roof is leaking, you may call around for the best price/service, but you will go ahead and get it fixed, regardless how much it costs (or at least you should).

Certainly you should have money saved up to cover these kinds of cost, but that's not the subject of this post (maybe a follow-up). My question is, what situations merit this type behavior? Maybe you need a new high-def TV, but not sure whether or not you can afford it. Ok, that's probably an extreme example, but suppose your car is failing. You need a car to get to work. And because of the kids, it has to be a safe car. Do you count the cost or just go out and buy a 2010 BMW. Those cars are safe and reliable.

So my question to you is, when do you count the cost and when do you just go out and do something? This could apply to items like cars, medical treatments, etc. and it could also apply to government.

It's beginning to sound a lot like Christmas

At our house, Christmas music started playing before Thanksgiving. The tree went up Thanksgiving day, was decorated and Christmas shopping is almost complete (no thanks to me). One thing I've noticed is that there is a limited number of Christmas songs, so you end up hearing the same ones over and over (and over).

It struck me the other day that there should be a law prohibiting anyone but Burl Ives recording "Have a Holly Jolly Christmas." No, I didn't hear another version (maybe the law already exists and I didn't know it), but as I listened and sang along, I decided that was the only version I wanted to hear. Somehow, I can't picture Taylor Swift singing that song.

Some songs - Jingle Bells for example, can be sung by anyone and sound good. But when anyone other than Bing Crosby (not to be confused with Bill Cosby) sings "White Christmas" it just doesn't come out right.

There are other songs which "belong" to a single artist - Elvis Presley's "Blue Christmas" is one that comes to mind (although the Porky Pig version is pretty good). What about you?

What songs would you limit to a single artist?

Moderation is for monks....

A few weeks ago, I received some comments on my blog for very old blog posts. I don't mind, but these were obviously spam. So I turned on moderation for old posts.

However, I didn't realize that I had to actively look for comments held in moderation. This morning I found I had 15 comments held, all but one were spam.

I look at this as a good news/bad news situation, I had 14 spam comments held and you, my loyal reader, won't have to bother with those. Unfortunately, one valid comment was held by my ignorance. My sincere apologies.

As it is, anyone (including anonymous readers) can comment on recent blog posts. If the post is over 14 days old, I will moderate. I will ONLY reject comments that seem to be spam - ads for medical sales or other sales. If you feel I have rejected your comment unfairly, either email me (my email address is in my profile) or comment on a more recent post.

I will not reject posts that simply disagree with me (that would get rid of most of my comments).

Thanks to all who comment.

P.S. Anyone know the rest of the quote in the subject line?

Another loss...

I've used this forum in the past to eulogize people close to me that have passed on. Today, I want to talk about another loss, this time our pet, Toby.

Toby was born on March 9, 1995 and turned 14 earlier this year. Based on my math, that made him over 100 in dog years. Back then, we went to visit his mother's owner's house and when the kids saw puppies, they had to have one. We picked one out and came back a few weeks later to take him home. On April 29, Toby moved to his new home - we had a pet.

Looking through some records, I found that Toby was 8.4 pounds on his first doctor visit a few weeks after we got him. I recall that he was so small we worried he would get stuck in a 4 inch drain pipe (I put a cover on the pipe to keep that from happening). He soon outgrew that risk all together.




Toby was a mix of breeds. Primarily Black Lab, he also had a lot of Border Collie in him and possibly some Chow. This made him a loving, fun dog. The Border Collie made his hair long as seen in these pictures. When we had him groomed the first time, his hair had gotten matted and it was past time. The only way they could groom him was to cut his hair in some places all the way to the skin. When we picked him up, they told us not to laugh at him, that it would embarrass him. I remember thinking "HE'S A DOG!".

But then he came out with his tail (literally) between his legs. He was indeed embarrassed. We praised him and told him how good he looked. After that, every time he was groomed, he walked around with his head held high, proud of his new look.


In 1998, Toby moved with the rest of us to Greenville, SC. He took the move well and made the deck his primary sleeping place. He would stand on the deck and survey HIS backyard.

Lately, Toby spent more time inside. When my grandson started crawling, he would crawl all over Toby. Toby just lay there, taking it all in. If it got too rough, Toby would simply get up and move outside.


In the last few years, Toby had developed arthritis. We treated this with some medicine from the vet. When he first began taking the medicine, he reacted very well. He seemed to even dance when we would roll up the pill in a slice of cheese. But unfortunately, the arthritis seemed to adapt to the medicine and he soon slowed down again and stopped dancing.

This past year, Toby had trouble standing up from a laying down position. He got around this by standing longer than he should. Of course, this made his legs hurt more. When we had him groomed, he lay in the floor for a couple days to recuperate.



In recent weeks, he had fallen 2 or 3 times and had trouble getting back up. He had lost a lot of muscle mass in his hips and body. The doctor said that this usually meant some form of cancer.

At his age, doing more diagnostics didn't make sense. If we found some cancer, it's unlikely he could stand the treatment.

Trips to the vet had become painful for Toby. Even getting up out of the floor was painful. After a lot of soul searching, I had to make a decision on what was easiest for him. So after 14+1/2 years, I decided it was time to end Toby's pain.

The hardest part of this was calling the kids and telling them. We had talked about it for a few weeks, so hopefully it wasn't a surprise. But I know it's hard on them to loose a pet that has been a part of the family for so long.


We will always remember Toby and the joy he brought us.

Tobias "Toby" Andrew Barnett
March 9, 1995 - December 2, 2009

The Blind Side - Movie Review

Sunday, after all the kids were gone and we had our empty nest to ourselves again, my wife and I did the logical thing - we went to a movie. With another couple. Yep, we finally had our house and our selves alone and we left and joined others.

The movie was my wife's choice - The Blind Side. My thought was that any movie with Sandra Bullock in it can't be all bad. As Warren (the male half of the other couple) put it - "She's hot!" And after a disappointing weekend of football, this movie promised a little good football. Sure it was going to be a "chick-flick", but hey, if the wife's happy, I'm happy.

Much to my surprise, I really liked The Blind Side. In the movie, Bullock's character adopts a boy from the streets and helps him out. We follow the young man through high school to college and the issues that go with him. Life wasn't simple. It wasn't handed to him on a silver platter or even on a KFC paper plate. But (no secret - Micheal Oher's in pro-football now) he makes it.

I won't give any spoilers here, but there were a lot of memorable lines. My favorite was when Bullock's character was asked about the gun she was carrying. Asked if it were a Saturday night special, she replied "Yep. And it works good the other days too." Man, she's a tough lady.

There were good "non-lines" too, places where the actions say more than words. As Bullock walks off the football field in a tight dress, all of the players (who had mothers her age), tilted their heads to watch her walk off the field. As Warren said, "she's hot!"

I had one more favorite line, I won't quote the line here - you'll have to see the movie to hear it. But it was a line every mother should tell her son as he heads off to college. She explained to her adopted son what her reaction would be if he got a girl pregnant.

There were a lot of loose ends in the movie. There were four minor parts that I felt like were brought in or taken out with little or no tie-in. Oher's brother was brought in one scene (and a few hazy flashbacks), but was never mentioned again. Another boy who Oher went to school with was never seen after school started. And late in the movie a boy was killed that had no previous tie-in (unless he was the boy that Oher started school with - if so, I missed it). And finally, Oher's real mother - no mention of her after her big scene. But life is full of loose ends, like the guy I went to school with - last I looked, he was still in trouble with the law.

All in all, a good movie. I give it a B+ (it didn't "wow" me enough for an A). Very little profanity, no sex scenes and very little violence. I checked IMDb and it's rated PG13, I'm surprised it wasn't PG. I strongly recommend the movie.

Complete Savings

Last night my wife discovered a charge on her account that shouldn't have been there. After a call to the 800# on the line item, I discovered it was a company named Complete Savings. Apparently, she had purchased something online (a few months ago) and somehow signed up for a Complete Savings membership. We're not sure how this happened, but let's assume this part is true.

"Maria", at Complete Savings, asked some basic information - last name and zip code - and then verified that information. She then verified the email address as some limited form of ID protection. At no time did she ask a credit card number or any other "sensitive" information. She explained the benefits to membership and offered me some solutions to the charge. She could cancel my (our) membership or I could log on to the website and explore the benefits more. I opted for canceling.

"Maria" explained that I still had 30 days to explore the website and that no future charges would occur. She was very polite about it. I said (not asked) that she could also reverse the charge. She said she could do that, and unfortunately it would cancel my membership immediately. I told her that was fine and she explained it would take 3-5 business days to see the credit on my account.

All in all, this was a reasonably pleasant exchange. How my wife's information got to this company, I don't know, but we plan to email the company we did purchase from to follow up. Before "Maria" answered the phone, there was a series of prompts that asked for Social Security number or charge card number, but I refused to enter it and just hit "0" for an operator. After a not-too-long wait, I got a real person who spoke at least decent English.

The worst part of the process was dealing with my bank. I wanted them to block the charge and they explained that they would have to block the card completely. This seems contrary to what I've heard that Visa Debit will do for you and I'll have to investigate some more.

Moral of the story is that you should follow up on things like this and quickly address the problem. It took less than 30 minutes total to resolve this problem.