Along the Grey Path

The Border Wall is in the Geographical Details

2018-12-31T23:10:00.002-07:00

The makeup of the “wall” is irrelevant. Whether it’s made of concrete or steel slats doesn’t matter. So, I’ll just call it a wall like Mr. Trump prefers.

I’m not going to get into the environmental issues here, they’re well covered elsewhere.

Let’s look at the geographical issues surrounding the wall:

California, Arizona, and New Mexico

Most of the border, including and west of El Paso Texas, already has a wall / fence / barriers. (existing border wall). The border around McAllen and Brownville Texas, on the Gulf of Mexico, also already has a wall / fence / barriers.

Areas that do not have a wall / fence / barrier in California, Arizona, and New Mexico are generally impassable due to the terrain. In other places the construction of a wall is cost prohibitive so the border is guarded electronically or by human assets.

Texas

The Texas border between the United States and Mexico is the Rio Grande River; a wide, fast flowing river that originates in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and is fed by other rivers along the way.

What's the point of a wall when there's already a river?

Where can the Wall be Constructed?

We cannot ignore the role of construction necessities and international politics in the construction of the wall.

We seem to assume that the wall will be built directly on the border line. This is nonsense. The Texas border is the centerline of the Rio Grande river. We certainly cannot build a wall in the middle of a river.

The sovereign nation of The Republic of Mexico will not allow the United States to construct a wall in Mexico; not even one inch. We can't go to war with Mexico for the wall. Therefore, the wall must be entirely built within United States territory.

Nor will Mexico allow American contractors to enter their country for the purpose of building the wall. So, the wall must be built within the United States and at some distance from the border; I would guess, where the site is ideal, at least twenty to fifty feet.

Along the Rio Grande, the restrictions get even more severe. If the wall is constructed to last it must be outside of river’s flood plain, perhaps miles. If not designed to last, the wall will be shown to be just a political stunt.

The Wall Will Cede American Territory

Every President swears to protect American territory. The wall will, however, cede millions of acres of American land to Mexico.

Wherever we build a wall, the real border becomes the wall rather than the political border. The Berlin Wall moved the border between West and East Germany up to the edge of the wall. All of the land south of the wall becomes in reality Mexican territory.

In Texas, its much worse. We would cede the Rio Grande river along with miles of land extending into Texas to Mexico.

The reality of the wall would be giving American territory to Mexico.

Border Guards Could Control the Land Between the Wall and the Political Border

It’s true that the land between the wall and the political border could be protected by border guards (whether human or electronic). But, isn’t this an admission that we don’t need the wall and it will just be a waste of money?

Whenever we take a closer look at Trump’s border wall, it becomes clear that it is / was nothing more than a stunt to grab attention when he announced his candidacy for president of the United States. His base liked it, so he continues to demand it . . . though he doesn’t even understand what it is.

The wall cannot be constructed and will accomplish nothing. Call your Congress members and Senators.

Can Darrel Issa Use Benghazi to Again Override the Voters?

2013-05-12T13:17:00.001-06:00

As Darrel Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, seeks to turn the Benghazi attack into Obama’s Watergate, it would be useful to take a look at Darrel Issa’s history.

In 2003, Issa led the recall effort against California Governor Gray Davis, contributing at least $1.7 million of his own money to advertising and collecting signatures.

Why? First, because he could. Second, because he just didn’t like Gray Davis. There was no illegal conduct on the part of Davis nor any scandal at all.

Issa especially did not like Davis using standard Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove like campaign tactics. In the 2002 gubernatorial election Gray Davis had no credible primary opponent, so Davis started his general campaign early, taking out ads against his likely challenger Richard Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles. When Riordan lost in the Republican primary to Bill Simon, Issa was furious.

Davis beat Simon in the general election and Issa took revenge. He funded the campaign to recall Davis initiated by anti‑tax activist Ted Costa. Costa had no scandal to rely on, just the standard taxes are evil philosophy. Issa saw an opportunity, ignored any sense of ethics, and took down an honorable governor just because he could.

No statewide official had been ever been recalled before and Davis was only successfully recalled due to Issa and his fellows setting up the recall as just another election. Polls, prior to the “recall vote” (really a new election), showed that a recall vote would have failed. However, in a redo election, Arnold Schwarzenegger was just too tempting a candidate for the people to pass up.

Now Issa is trying to take down Obama. Why? First, because he can. Second, because he just doesn’t like Obama. . . . And, if he can’t take down Obama, he’ll take out Hillary Clinton.

Headlines Lie. Read the story !

2012-07-16T21:26:00.001-06:00

Some headlines even take pride in lying, taking statements out of context, and deceiving the people. Fox News recently covered a speech by Barrack Obama with the headline “Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'.” The point of the headline seems clear … Obama disses small businessmen.

In an appearance in Roanoke Virginia on the July 13th, Barrack Obama’s contempt for small business was finally exposed. Obama finally, without a doubt, proved that he is a Soviet style socialist.

During his speech Obama address small businessmen in American. According to Fox News television, he said to small businessmen everywhere:

“If you've got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen. The point is that, when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

… A direct attack on the American businessman. Apparently Obama thinks that “success” can only be handed down by the government.

If Obama’s statement is true, what’s the difference between Bill Gates and a welfare mother with five kids and six different baby daddies?

Now that you’re incensed …

The above statements were in fact made by Obama, but they come from two different paragraphs and are surrounded by context providing sentences. If you read the Fox News article on President Obama’s appearance even it tells a different story.

Here are the full paragraphs surrounding Obama’s criticizing small business owners:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

and

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.”

Only the first paragraph was included in the Fox News’ article.

What’s the real point of Obama’s speech?

I think Obama’s point certainly was not that American’s need to be nurse fed by the Federal Government. His point was that we’re all more successful when we worked together; that every business relies on infrastructure, ingenuity, and attitude that come from America as whole, past present and future.

If you read the Fox News article, you can get an inkling of Obama’s point, followed unfortunately by some unrelated statements about the Democrats raising taxes. If you continue to the speech itself, you can get his full point.

Obama said something entirely different from what he was alleged to have said, but you’ve got to read the whole article to get to the real point.

Next: When you’re the owner, president, and CEO of a company doesn’t “the buck stop here”?

Romney Doesn’t Understand Technology He’s Promoting

2012-01-26T22:52:00.000-07:00

In a recent speech, former Governor Mitt (Willard) Romney referred to the oil flowing through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The pipeline is being touted as a solution to American oil needs. The pipe would run from Alberta, where tar sands are mined, to Texas.

Tar sands are a petroleum precursor to oil, similar to oil shale found in the Rocky Mountains. In both cases the substance must be treated to convert it from tar sands or oil shale into oil. Then, the oil needs to be refined into standard petroleum products.

So, the obvious question, which Romney has apparently never asked is: What exactly would be flowing through the XL pipeline?

It ain’t oil.

What would be flowing through the pipe is a substance called diluted bitumen. Bitumen is the technical name for tar sands. Bitumen will not flow through a pipe, so they dilute with a series of hydrocarbons (the composition of which they will not reveal to regulators), creating a fluid-type substance. Coal is shipped through pipelines is a similar fashion.

Though it may seem trivial, when the President recommends an action, he should understand the basics of the technology behind it.

I don’t mind that a legislator or president doesn’t know how the substance is refined or the specifications of how it is pumped. I do, however, mind when a legislator, president, of candidate makes a big deal out of something and doesn’t know the basics of it.

Any governmental official or governmental official wannabe who espouses a project should ask some basic questions: In this case …

What is tar sand?
What’s going to go through this pipeline?
How much energy goes into making a unit of refined product? More than contained in the refined product?
What are the environmental risks of the project?
What are the employment opportunities created from the project?
Where will the money for the project come from?
Where will the profits go?

When Willard tells us that oil will flow through the pipeline … Is he lying? Is he lazy? Is he not smart enough? Is he just not curious?

Didn't we learn from eight years under a uncurious President?

I’m a Small Businessman --- No You’re NOT.

2011-10-14T11:48:00.011-06:00

… after I pay my 500 employees, I’ve only got $400,000 left over to feed my family. (Self-described “small businessman”).

By what definition does this guy think he’s a small businessman? Is a family owned company that employs 10,000 workers a small business? Is an incorporated law firm with five employees a big business just because it has “corporation” after its name?

We don’t really seem to have a definition of a small business and anyone who wants to exploit the term just calls himself a small businessman.

So, here’s a definition. A small business is a business where

the owner knows every employee by name

The real difference between small and large business is number crunching: How does a business deal with an employee who has some special need?

The 500 person “small business” most likely has an accountant and a human resources department. Since the owner doesn’t know his employees personally, he has to rely on his number crunchers who, due to the lack of personal relationship with each employee, have created a rule which must be followed.

The small incorporated law firm’s owner knows everyone by name. He can sit down with the employee with the special need and work something out. And, if the employee is sufficiently valuable, he will bend over backward to meet his needs.

So, incorporation doesn’t make a business “big.” Neither does family or personal ownership make a business “small.”

A small business is a business where the owner knows every employee by name.

Let’s get some rationality into the discussion by spreading this definition …

What’s in a Headline . . . or not.

2011-09-03T12:05:00.000-06:00

The Denver Post published a story today with the headline “Colorado ranch owner plans lawsuit after PUC rules against his appeal.” Clearly, another family farmer abused by the government …

Just reading the headline, one gets the impression that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) doesn’t care if it ruins a hard working rancher’s family legacy. Unfortunately, many of us, believing we got the point, will stop at the headline.

In this case, the interior story is much different. In the third paragraph, “Colorado ranch owner” Louis Bacon is identified as “billionaire hedge-fund manager Bacon.”

Is this really a travesty against the little guy or a story about a whiny billionaire who doesn’t want power lines interfering with the view of his 170,000 acre ranch in the picturesque Rocky Mountains? That’s for you to decide, but don’t decide until you have sufficient information.

You can’t just read the headlines and walk away; you’ve got to read the story. The 18 second news story on television and radio doesn’t tell you much; you’ve got to dig a little. The one sentence argument doesn’t tell you the story; do the math.

Light at the End of the Tunnel Turned Off by Governor Christie

2010-10-08T20:11:00.001-06:00

Governor Shows no Understanding of Economic Cycles

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie put an end to the building of a tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York City, along with an expansion of New York's Penn Station that would have created 6,000 jobs. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/08/new.jersey.tunnel.project/index.html?hpt=T2. The Governor is either playing crass balanced-budget politics or has no understanding of economic cycles.

Does Christie think that these 6,000 workers can just go across the street and get jobs? Is he trying to keep unemployment rolls high? Drive New Jersey and New York back into recession?

What has Governor Christie done? By clutching idealism instead of acting pragmatically, he is pushing New Jersey and New York into a longer and deeper recession. Of course, the Federal Government will probably rescue this project and Christie can look like the budget-cutting tough guy while he complains about Federal Government spending.

Despite Reaganomic theories, economic cycles cannot be done away with. Periods of growth and recession will always be with us. However, the depth of the recessions can be lessened. John Marnard Keynes taught us how.

I lived in Indianapolis during the economic downturn of the early 1990s. Indianapolis got lucky. They had several large building projects under way when the downturn struck. While many cities struggled, due largely to those projects Indianapolis barely saw the downturn.

I moved out to Denver and watched the city blow its chance to balance the economic cycles. While the economy was going great guns, Denver built a new baseball stadium, a new football stadium, a new hockey-basketball arena, and a new art museum.

Now, during our current great-recession, construction in Denver is in the dumps; right when we need these projects to reduce the depth of the recession.

Your city or state can protect themselves against recession by saving big building projects for when they need them. Don’t build the stadiums when things are going great. Rather, design them (preferably with labor intensive designs) and put them in the drawer. These projects need to be shovel ready when needed.

When the economy turns toward recession, pull out your new stadium, bid it, and start building it.

You don’t over stimulate the economy when it doesn’t need it and you do stimulate it when you need too. Yes, it is difficult to determine where in the cycle the economy is, but we have to try.

Last-Man-Standing Politics

2010-10-05T14:07:00.001-06:00

The Plot to Push the Middle Away from the Polls

Newt Gingrich started Last-Man-Standing Politics in the 1980s. The goal was to make the average voter so disgusted with government and with politics in general that he wouldn’t bother to vote.

The plan is simple: The Republicans have the larger loyal base of voters, so if people don’t vote, leaving only the parties’ bases, Republicans win.

Remember, the American political system is based not a majority vote, but on a plurality vote. The candidate that receives the most votes, even though less than a majority of eligible voters actually vote, is still the winner.

By convincing people that their votes didn’t matter, Gingrich convinced the average American to sit on his hands on election day. We had some of the lowest voter turnouts in American history and the Republicans won just enough seats, relying on their base, to take over the congress in 1994.

Karl Rove continued Gingrich’s plan by aiming the Bush campaigns directly at the Republican base. In the past, politicians generally tried to attract independent voters, but Rove was able to disgust enough Independents and get just enough base voters to support his candidate to barely win. In fact, Al Gore won the plurality of votes in 2000.

Independents turned out in droves in 2008 and Obama swept into the Whitehouse. Now, the Independents are disgusted again. Why? The Republican Party has stopped everything in the Senate and all most voters see is that the government can’t get anything done.

This year, the same group throws out bizarre accusations, like throwing spaghetti at a wall, to see what sticks and what will lead to voter disgust with the process. Many voters will sit out this year’s elections. Many others, like beagles, will blame the party that’s in power for every problem, no matter who caused them.

Having pushed the average voter away from the polls the Republicans will be the Last-Man-Standing.

A Pledge to an Ideal Rather Than to the People

2010-09-24T19:26:00.000-06:00

Perhaps I’m nitpicking, but I can’t help but notice that the Republicans made a pledge to an ideal rather than to the American people.

The Pledge to America is not titled A Pledge to the American People; a pledge to someone; a pledge they’d need to honour. Rather it’s a pledge to an ideal; something that doesn’t really exist; a pledge that need not make sense nor be honoured.

The Pledge to America is a pledge to their ideal of an idyllic America that never existed. They’ve pledged to take the country back to the time when the government didn’t interfere with business and businessmen treated their employees with fairness and dignity and sold quality products at fair prices.

Of course, they’re really dreaming of the 1800s when children were employed at starvation wages to clean mortar shells because their hands were small enough; a time when there were no safety regulations and a laid-off or crippled worker was on his own.

Pledging to an ideal rather than to the people allows the party to make meaningless promises because the promises aren’t made to any identifiable people.

*** Notice that I ignored the Republican’s fanciful math here … like … where budget cuts of $100 billion will wipe out a deficit of $1,400 billion dollars. oops.

We Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Vote

2010-09-13T12:40:00.002-06:00

Polls show that the economy is the number one issue to Americans; that Americans, by a ten percent margin, blame Republicans for the state of the economy; that people approve of Democrats over Republicans by a nine percent margin; and that, by a ten percent margin, Americans plan to vote for Republicans over Democrats this fall. (CNN Opinion Research poll, Sep 1-2, 2010) (NBC - Wall Street Journal poll, Aug 5-9, 2010). (Gallop poll, Aug 23-29, 2010).

WHAT ???!!??!?!?

People are upset with the Republicans, but they’re going to turn the government over to them? Are we out of our collective minds? Is the United States actually the insane asylum for the planet?

We’re mad at the President and the Democrats for not getting enough done to turn the economy around, but we also seem to understand that the Government is currently run by the minority party in the Senate. Republicans are on pace to triple the greatest number of filibusters by a Democratic minority. (ABC News, Mar 1, 2010). Filibusters have stalled critical appointments, only to be followed an almost unanimous vote in favor of each appointment. The Republican Party is using a tactic of stalling and stopping to make the Democrats look ineffectual. Are we really dumb enough to fall for this?

We Americans realize that, in December 2008, we were headed for the second great depression; a calamity which will take years to fix. Yet, here we are, in a mere recession, beginning the long haul out of the collapse.

Do we want to reward those who held off economic Armageddon? No. We want to put those who crashed the system back in power, with the same policies that caused the crash.

To borrow from the president: This is like taking a kid who crashed the car because he was texting and giving him the keys to the repaired vehicle and a new cell phone.

Spaghetti Politics

2010-07-27T20:41:00.001-06:00

Following the Shirley Sherrod story, I have to wonder how far some people will go to plant ideas in our heads.

Which brings me to Spaghetti Politics:

Spaghetti politics is the old idea of throwing the plate of spaghetti against a wall just to see what will stick.

Andrew Breitbart created the edited, out of context, video showing Sherrod to be a bigot. Then he threw it against the wall to see if it would stick. It did.

Today’s spaghetti politics involves an accusation that the White House supported the release of the Lockerbie Bomber. In fact, the White House opposed the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only conspirator convicted of a crime in the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. So far, it doesn’t look like this pasta has stuck.

One of today’s other spaghetti politics is the false outrage over Barack Obama not attending the National Boy Scout Jamboree. Let’s see how far this one goes.

The constant beat of pasta flung against walls is, of course, that Obama is a racist or a socialist or born in Kenya.

Whenever you see a report that sounds a little off, check to see if it has sauce dripping from it.

Are State Balanced Budgets Helping Our Economy?

2010-07-07T20:26:00.003-06:00

This is an important question that has not been featured in the national news. The simple answer is … No, state balanced budget rules are deepening the recession.

The Fiscal Times tells us that a study by economists Joshua Aizenman and Gurnain Kaur Pasricha found that fiscal contraction in the states offset almost 100% of the fiscal stimulus at the federal level in 2009.

This fiscal contraction has been primarily caused be balanced budget rules in the various states.

Here, in Colorado, we have a strict balanced budget requirement, including a virtual prohibition on raising state revenues. The TABOR Amendment to our state constitution prohibits increases in state revenue that are greater than the national inflation rate plus the state population growth. During an economic downturn, the state must severely cut its budget and then cannot simply return to a normal budget afterward. (see below).

According to Keynes, to keep an economy out of depression, government needs to borrow and spend during a recession. Following the recession, during the period of growth, government needs to pay off the debt to put the government’s finances back in order and lessen the next recession.

The Federal Government has lived up to its duties during the current great recession. So have many other countries. However, the states are gumming up the works.

We tend to forget … Budget cutting means cuts in jobs. The largest cost, by far, of most things is labor. This is especially true for government which provides many more services than goods. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) predicts a shortfall of 21 percent for FY 2011 in Colorado. Due to our balanced budget requirements, that means the State will have to cut its budget by 21 percent. This means cuts in jobs.

So, while the Federal Government is borrow and spending large amounts to keep us out of depression, the states are fighting against this fiscally sound policy. The CBPP found that states will have a shortfall of $200 billion in FY 2010. The states will have to cut their budgets by a similar amount; spend $200 billion less. That means that the states are reducing the Federal Government’s $800 billion stimulus by $200 billon.

Balanced budgets are important, but only over time, not at all times. If the states temporarily suspend their constant balanced budget rules and help the Federal Government by doing some temporary borrowing, we could get back to national economic growth much more quickly. Then we pay off the debts during the good times.

What’s wrong with TABOR? (1) The national consumer price index has little to do with inflation in government services and does not necessarily apply to Colorado. For example: Schools spend most of their money on construction and professional salaries. While the CPI remained relatively flat during the 1990s, the cost of construction and professional salaries soared, but school districts were not allowed to keep up. (2) Increases in population do not reflect increases in the cost of government. For example: Even if a school were to have constant enrollment, it will eventually have to replace its boiler. Because the school district cannot raise its revenues or spending, TABOR does not allow for replacement costs. (3) TABOR does not allow for recovery. During an economic downturn state revenues will automatically decrease. Following the economic downturn, the state cannot simply go back to the revenue level prior to the downturn. For example: The CBPP indicates a shortfall of 21 percent in Colorado in FY 2010. TABOR thus requires budget cuts of 21 percent. If the recession ended this year, the state could only raise revenues next year by inflation (3.00 % in 2005 (before the recession started)) plus population growth (1.81 % in 2009) or 4.81 %. This is only enough to keep up with inflation and population growth. We’ll never catch up.

Beagle Politics

2010-06-21T21:32:00.004-06:00

Just like between 1992 and 1994, we’re in another age of beagle politics.

What is beagle politics?

Years ago, while working as an engineer, I did a survey of the University of Illinois’ veterinary medical school.

In one room I found 20-25 beagles in cages. Those that were awake looked bewildered, sad, or angry and they were all looking at me as if I was to blame for their captivity. In the next room I found 20-25 more beagles. Those awake all blamed me for their captivity. In the third room I found 20-25 beagles and one cat. The beagles were mostly mad at me. The cat didn’t care.

Beagles tend to blame whoever’s in the room for their plight or their joy.

So, Beagle Politics is stoking the anger of the electorate, knowing that the voters will blame whoever’s in office regardless of whose fault the situation is.

Coming out of 2008 people were angry with the economic state of the country. Although Obama has made most of the right moves, keeping us out of an outright depression, he’s still being blamed the economy as it stands. Regardless of the Gulf oil spill being due to lax oversight by the Mineral and Mining Service under Bush and arrogance on the part of BP, Obama is being blamed for not swimming down and capping the well himself.

Between 1992 and 1994, Republicans and right-wing pundits stoked the growing anger from Bush-41’s violating his pledge not to raise taxes and redirected it toward Clinton and the Democratic Congress. Now, they’re stoking random anger just so people will be furious with the government and in a throw-the-bums-out mood in November.

Beagle politics: Convince the electorate to bite whomever is in the room.

A Memorial Day Message

2010-05-31T16:22:00.001-06:00

On this Memorial Day, I’d like to make a plea for some forgotten people.

Humanitarian aid and development workers deserve benefits similar to what military veterans receive.

These people perform an invaluable service for our country, helping others in war-torn, impoverished, and devastated areas of the world. Wherever they go, they give everything they’ve got to the populations they work with and everything they do improves the standing of the United States around the world.

Increasingly, they are coming under attack. The group Médecins Sans Frontières spent 24 years in Afghanistan (since the beginning of the Soviet-Afghan war), only pulling out after the deaths of several doctors. Dozens of Red Cross workers have died in areas of man-made and natural disaster.

Most humanitarian and development workers make little if any money. Peace Corps workers, for example, are volunteers. All they get is a temporary deferment on their student loans while actually working for the Corps.

Although many are private contractors, our government should provide them with at least the education and healthcare benefits our soldiers are rewarded with.

Rand Paul Raises a Good Question

2010-05-23T17:39:00.001-06:00

Rand Paul’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act raises a primary question that we’ve all been avoiding.

Paul said that he supports equal rights, but that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate. So, the question he raises is this:

Whose freedom?

Requiring a restaurant owner to serve someone he doesn’t like impinges on his freedom, but allowing him to discriminate impinges on the individual’s freedom.

Forbidding a kid from walking across my grass impinges his freedom, but requiring me to allow it damages mine.

Walking down the street in a bikini would impinge on the freedom of someone who doesn’t want their child to see it, but requiring a woman to cover up infringes on her freedom.

No matter what the issue, freedom is always a balancing act. A restauranteur must serve someone of another race, but he doesn’t have to allow him in his house. A woman needs to cover up in court, but when she walks down the street, dad can cover his child’s eyes.

I’ve heard many knee-jerk reactions to Rand Paul, but whatever the issue, we’ve got to look at both sides and find a proper balance.

Can Emmert Bring Real Honesty and Integrity to the NCAA?

2010-04-30T18:40:00.005-06:00

The NCAA has chosen its new leader: Mark Emmert. He’ll be faced with many issues in his job. Should there be a Division 1-A football playoff? Should the basketball tournament expand and by how much? These issues will resolve themselves if the NCAA school presidents commit to sports through honesty and integrity.

Honesty

NCAA rules are based on athletics as an extracurricular activity. Let’s be honest. Football, basketball, baseball, hockey, soccer, and lacrosse are not extracurricular activities; they are academic programs.

Kids go to college to become entertainers in many fields. Potential actors, singers, writers, and journalists can go to school and major in programs training them for their chosen profession. Potential professional athletes, however, are required to do a double major: football and business for example. Most of us wouldn’t do a double major, so why should athletes be required to?

Let’s stop squeaking athletes through programs they’re not interested in and shouldn’t pass through. Instead of worrying about a school’s graduation rate in second majors, just grade athletes in their chosen profession. Any football player that will be drafted by the NFL would receive an A level grade point average, a great success. Players who aren’t headed toward the NFL can transfer into other programs as they near graduation. Many players would make great teachers.

Integrity

The NCAA supposedly exists for the student-athletes, yet the NCAA has allowed its Olympic sports programs to be decimated. I’ll use a program I’m familiar with as an example: Men’s Gymnastic has lost over ninety percent of its programs

Although the World’s toughest sport (World’s Toughest Sport, Men’s Fitness March 1996), ranking even above the Ironman Triathlon, Men’s Gymnastics has declined from over 200 teams in 1969 to just 17 in 2010. Only five teams exist west of the Mississippi. There are now less than 15 athletic scholarships available for gymnasts each year … nationwide. Only the very best get to compete in college. This costs the sport numerous quality coaches for junior programs even though more boys compete in gymnastics than ever before.

The NCAA just signed a new television contract for the NCAA basketball tournament for an estimated $11 billion. That’s plenty of money to support the nation’s Olympians.

The NCAA schools should meet their professed goals, acting with honesty and integrity. Convert professional sports to academic programs and develop Olympic sports programs around the country.

Whaddya Mean WILL?

2010-04-20T10:58:00.002-06:00

I’ve been watching media figures raise debate over whether the current climate of real and feigned anger will push someone to attack the government.

What do they mean WILL? It’s already happened!

In February, in an attack shockingly akin to ‘Oklahoma City’ and ‘9/11’, Joe Stack flew an airplane into a building in an attempt to kill Internal Revenue Service employees. Why have we forgotten this attack on the government?

Are we ignoring this attack because Stack screwed up and only killed one other person? Would we still be talking about this attack if Stack had killed hundreds?

Hell, CNN, you did a special on Joe Stack and then, the next day, asked whether Tea Party anger could push someone to attack the government. Maybe your correspondents should confer with each other once in a while.

What Obama Needs to Explain --- Keynes

2010-03-11T11:00:00.001-07:00

It’s a pretty quiet week, so for the moment, let’s continue our discussion of systems we live with. A while back we discussed the proper definitions for the basic political and economic systems under which our communities are organised (http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/capitalism-is-socialism.html).

This time, let’s talk about John Maynard Keynes. I’ve discovered that most people who want to discuss the economy, the federal deficit, interest rates, taxes, and government spending do not know who Keynes was. I’m not exactly sure how you can have a well thought out opinion on these topics without being able to at least identify the leading economic theorists:

1. Adam Smith – The Wealth of Nations
2. Karl Marx – Das Capital
3. John Maynard Keynes – The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

The theory we need to dig into here is Keynesian economic policy. If you don’t know, Keynes was the guy who pulled us out of the Great Depression. His theory kept our economy strong for fifty years beyond that, until our government failed to follow the rules.

Before the Great Depression, the American economy was governed by classical economic theory. The classical theory held that the short term is unimportant because in the long run the economy is in balance; full employment, no inflation, etc. This laissez faire theory espoused that the economy will operate fine if the government leaves it alone.

The classical theory was proven wrong with the Crash of 1929. When Franklin Roosevelt came to the presidency, he turned to Keynes. Keynes’ famous reflection on the classical theory was that “in the long run, we’re all dead.” The short term IS important; we all live in the short term, not the long run.

Keynes was proven right in the 1930s, in the 1970s, when Volker pulled us out of Nixon’s recession, and now with the Great Recession of 2008. Fortunately, Obama is a Keynesian, but I’m worried that due to Republican stoppage of government, he’s backing away the Keynesian policies that have thus far kept us out of the Great Depression #2.

So, what is Keynes’ theory?

Short Term Keynesian theory deals with the business cycle. The higher the peak of a cycle, the deeper the trough will be. Keynes tries to calm the waves by minimizing the troughs and peaks in the cycle. Peaks and troughs are caused by increasing and decreasing net spending in an economy.

There are three ‘parties’ who spend money: (c) consumers, (b) businesses, and (g) government.

Spending = Spending(c) + Spending(b) + Spending(g)

In a country of 300 million people, it takes forever to change the spending habits of consumers and businesses, but the government can change its level of taxation and spending almost instantaneously. It’s up to the government to maintain balance in the economy.

When in recession, we need more spending, in a growth period, we need less spending. In recession the government will deficit spend, spending fictional money by creating debt. In growth, the government will pay off the debt created during the recession.

Where Keynesian economic has failed is in the failure of government to pay off the debt during good times. We’re so afraid of raising a tax that we use only monetary policy to balance the economy when we should be using fiscal policy and paying off the debt.

If you look at what Obama is doing, it’s this: He’s cutting off the trough by spending fictional money and raising the country’s debt. But, at the same time, he’s proposing to cut the deficit in Fiscal Year 2011, thus slowing the coming peak and paying down the debt so we can deficit spend during the next recession. I just hope he remembers Keynes in 2011.

Next, we’ll get into long term Keynesian theory.

Update 2: Order for Serbs to Pay for Mosques Overturned

2010-01-29T10:55:00.001-07:00

The District Court in Banja Luka has overturned its order for the Republika Srpska and the city of Banja Luka to pay $42 million for the destruction of 16 mosques in Banja-Luka during the 1992-1995 war. The reason given was that the suit had been filed too late. The Islamic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina has since appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska.

It’s incredible that a suit for a war crime has a statute of limitation.

As posted earlier, ( Karadzic's Destruction of Bosnia Lasts Long After War), Bosnian Serbs destroyed every mosque in the Serb controlled city of Banja-Luka. Banja-Luka is now the capital of the Republika Srpska autonomous region of Bosnia-i-Hercegovinia.

The most prominent of the mosques, built in 1579, the Ferhadija Mosque was on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites and is being rebuilt.

Our Collective Alzheimer’s

2010-01-27T13:01:00.012-07:00

(with apologies to those who actually have the disease)

Barack Obama’s administration bailed out Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG, created the TARP spending, passed irrational tax cuts that ran the national debt beyond $10,000 billion, and allowed Enron to get away with accounting atrocities.

No wait … uh … wasn’t that the other guy? What was his name? Right … that was all before January 2009 …. George Bush, that’s it.

We seem to have collective Alzheimer’s where we think everything happened yesterday. Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009. TARP, and the bailout of the banks, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG were all done in 2008, prior to Obama taking office.

The government ran a budget deficit of $1,400 billion in FY 2009, which we’re blaming Obama for. But almost all of the spending in FY 2009 is attributable to George Bush.

In 2001, Bush budgeted a ten-year federal budget down to 0.5 percent to justify $1,600 billion in tax cuts. For just one year’s budget, anything less than plus or minus around 20 percent is irrational. Budgeting a ten-year budget to on-half of a percent is criminal.

The only spending that’s really attributable to Obama is the bail out of GM and the stimulus package; about $200 billion in FY 2009.

The biggest factor in the national debt is that when we should have paid off the debt, Bush instead created completely irrational tax cuts which now leave us deep in debt for generations looking forward and unable to do much of anything for the American people.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Blame Obama for what’s he’s done, but blame Bush for what he did.

Republicans Have a 41 Percent Majority in the Senate

2010-01-19T19:47:00.001-07:00

Thanks to the perpetual Republican filibuster, the election of Scott Brown to the Senate now brings a screeching halt to all progress. During the Obama presidency, the monolithic Republicans have used the filibuster on all major legislation in the Senate and put anonymous and non-anonymous holds on numerous appointments simply to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything.

The worrisome thing is that the ‘mainstream’ media continuously blames the President for this lack of progress. CNN even tells its viewers that, although the Constitution requires only a majority vote, it takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate. My math may be off, but I’m pretty sure 41 is not a majority of 100. Of course, the Republicans do think of themselves as the miracle party.

To Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper: It takes 51 votes to pass legislation. Start blaming the right parties for the current failures of our government: The Newt Gingrich inspired, minority, Republican Party.

To Harry Reid: Forget the cloture votes. Let them do a real filibuster. Let’s see how long one of them can endure the torture of standing for days at a time.

Feels like it's 1978

2010-01-06T21:02:00.003-07:00

2010 feels like 1978. Fortunately without the lime green leisure suits.

We have a president who could be transformative; who came into office with an unprecedented slew of problems, the solutions to which could get him replaced in the next election by a fringe candidate.

Jimmy Carter took office in 1997 with an economy in shambles, a shambles which had never been seen before. Carter inherited Nixon’s recession which was a mix of stagnation and inflation. He appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Volcker had the courage to push interest rates above ten percent, finally breaking the back of the double digit inflation. This was extremely painful, but necessary; Carter will be forever condemned.

Meanwhile Carter was left to deal with the government’s failure to deal with Iran, starting with Eisenhower’s replacing a democratically elected president with the brutal dictator Reza Pahlavi. Following the Iranian revolution, Carter helped to exile Pahlavi, a move that was misunderstood in Iran, resulting in the hostage crisis. Ronald Reagan eventually got credit for the release of the hostages even though they were boarding a plane before he was sworn into office.

In 1980, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and Carter put an embargo on all grain sales to the country along with a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. The grain embargo and boycott tipped a dying economy over the edge and allowed Mikhail Gorbachev to end the cold war in 1986.

Carter also created cabinet posts for Energy and Education, helped bring peace between Egypt and Israel, began a program of clean energy research, and introduced human rights into US foreign policy. All of this meant nothing to the average voter who was legitimately more concerned with his pocketbook.

--------------------------------------------

Due to the inherited economic woes, foreign policy failures, and general anger with government stemming from Watergate, Carter was turned out of office. The 1980 election was a perfect storm. The Republican party managed to nominate a radical, but glib, Goldwater conservative as their candidate and people voted with their pocketbook. At no other time could Reagan have become President.

Reagan came in with a majority in the Senate and working majority of Republicans and Dixiecrats in the House. Together they stopped the green energy research (now we’re feeling the consequences) and rammed through deregulation and irrational tax cuts generating monstrous national debt. The Reagan tax cuts and deregulation created investment bubble after bubble, the savings & loan crisis, skyrocketing government, corporate, and personal debt, massive bank failures, and Enron. We’re only now dealing the national debt that was created during the Reagan and Bush-43 presidencies (or more to the point, once we’re past the current recession).

--------------------------------------------

Now, we have a President who came into office with an economy headed toward a second great depression, few allies, enormous debt, and a failing ‘war’ on terror.

Working with majorities in both the House and the Senate, Obama and the Democrats passed a stimulus package that turned the next Great Depression into no more than a Great Recession. Obama won a noble peace prize for bringing our allies back to us. And, he has been taking the ‘war’ to the actual terrorist groups, rather than some random country.

Meanwhile the Republicans have succeeded in stopping all progress. Senate Republicans have used a perpetual filibuster to stop almost all legislation. They and their media cohorts belittle the White House with half-truths and lies at every opportunity. The American people can no longer see through the political smog anymore.

--------------------------------------------

Could Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney really be headed toward the presidency? If the American voter struggles as he did in 1978 to comprehend the complex issues facing the USA, it sure looks it.

Real Class in the NCAA

2009-12-31T19:35:00.006-07:00

I watched the Arizona - Nebraska bowl game last night. Arizona's coach showed great class. When Nebraska had showed its defense deserved it, Arizona's coach gave the Huskers a chance to get a shutout; a huge deal in major college football.

Arizona had a high powered offense, but Nebraska's defense had completely shut it down. With only a few minutes left in the game, Arizona's offense had only been on Nebraska's side of the field two or three times and hadn't scored. Nebraska led 33-0.

With just over a minute to go, Arizona had moved inside the Nebraska ten yard line. Arizona had a fourth down, three yards to go, on the eight yard line: easy chance to kick a field goal and put some points on the board before the game ended.

Instead, Arizona went for a first down, giving Nebraska a chance to get the shutout.

What a classy move. We could use a lot more of that.

The Reason for the Season?

2009-12-21T11:32:00.005-07:00

What a wonderful winter day … Everyone is in the season of celebration.

Because it’s Christmas? No … Because it’s the Solstice.

While Christians celebrate Christmas, the season belongs to everyone. Most pagan and every major religion has a celebration surrounding the Solstice:

Christians – Christmas
Jews – Hanukkah
Buddhists – Bodhi Day
Muslims – Ramadan
Hindus – Makara Sankranti

The Christian celebration of Christmas on December 25 is really a celebration of the Solstice. In a brilliant move, early Christians set their celebration days on the same days as existing Roman holidays.

What do eggs and bunnies have to do with the execution and resurrection of the Jesus? Nothing … Eggs and bunnies are part of the celebration of birth surrounding the spring equinox. Early Christians pegged their celebrations to the existing Roman holidays, partly to hide from Roman authorities and partly to bring pagans into their religion. It was especially fitting for early Christian leaders to match the resurrection with the celebration of rebirth. Brilliant.

Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the star patterns and weather conditions in the story of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem align with September, not December. So, early Christian leaders decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus along with the Solstice. Roman pagans were already celebrating Christmas and didn’t even know it.

So, what’s the point?

Happy Holidays

Senators Want a Longer Healthcare Bill?

2009-12-10T11:17:00.001-07:00

Following my entry asking our legislators not to waste their time reading the entire healthcare bill, Senator Mike Enzi now wants a longer bill. Apparently Enzi hasn’t been able to break any furniture with the current bill. Apparently, he wants the Senate to waste more time.

Relax Mike, you’ll find some other way to waste time instead of passing this legislation. Go read the Washington Times and the Drudge Report, twice. Take a run, or at least a brisk stroll, if you’re healthy enough; due to a lack of preventive care, many aren’t. The budget bill will be along soon and you can hurl that across the room, if you can lift it.

See Republicans now arguing that the Senate health care bill isn’t long enough.