DontSpreadTheWealth.com

Is Revolution the Answer?

2009-06-26T01:32:00.005-05:00

**NEW** - Download the audio commentary here.

Each day that passes our governments grow in size and strength. More and more laws are being placed on the books in an effort to destroy your personal freedoms and liberty. "We the People" sit idly by and watch. I read articles talking about protests and rallies, and I just think... "bahahahahha..... bahaahahah, what difference will 'We the SHEOPLE' make by protesting the government?". The people acting in the name of the government look upon the masses as sheep. Instead of yielding wool coats, 'We the Sheople' yield tax dollars! Your protests and rallies don't phase them. They already have the money in their pockets.

The fix is in, and corporations have bought our politicians (check it out http://www.opensecrets.org )Our Courts are stacked with liars, cheats, and thieves. The halls of Congress reek of swine. The man you call 'President' is having a multi-national kegger on the White House lawn with your tax dollars!

No rally, or protest is going to set these guys straight. They are used to it. They see it every day. If fact, protests helps them politicize issues to justify their means of existence! All I have to say is, "Grab your guns and Ammo people as revolution is coming, and these guys know it." To steal a line from Quinn and Rose, "the 2nd Amendment is the reset button to this Republic!" Why do you think they want to take our guns and ammo? It is because they fear the loss of power that they have. Who gave them that power? 'We the SHEOPLE???' We have been buying into their lies that they are here to help... Make things fair... Fix the little things. As my uncle always says, "Don't sweat the small stuff Mike!" The politicians build common ground with different GROUPS of 'sheople' on the small stuff. Then they rob you through the back door while your not looking.

Every time we call a representative to press for solutions to issues that shouldn't be government issues, we justify the means to this end - A TOTAL POLICE STATE! (i.e. MARXISM or FASCISM) A perfect example is this malarkey about same sex marriage/ defense of marriage. Right now, many conservatives, and liberals alike, have their panties in a bind over this issue. They both think that government has a role to play! I am disappointed. Especially in you conservatives that advocate "Limited Government"!!!!

As I stated in prior posts, conservative politicians are really wolves in sheep's clothing! They run around loosely using the "limited government" tag line, and hope you get hooked on it. In reality, it is special secret government code talk, "we are gonna control your lives, just not as much as the liberals do!". Don't fall for it!

Both the Defense of Marriage Amendment (conservatives push) and the Same Sex Marriage Act (liberals push) are both an attempt to herd you 'sheople' into "GROUPS" (Christians vs. homosexuals) and get you fighting amongst each other. The talking heads don't really care one way or another, just as long as you 'sheople' are occupied with this "non-issue", they'll keep spending your money on pet projects that never get public exposure.

I am sure some will disagree with what i am saying, and say that this is an important issue. I am all ears to hear both sides of the story. But, I don't want to hear things like "Gay marriage is going to destroy the fabric of the family!" or "Gay marriage will spread homosexuality". Well, that dog just ain't gonna hunt! All of a sudden the 'fabric' of YOUR family is the governments responsibilty and not your own? Excuse me? That is the biggest whopper I have heard since my late grandfather's proclamation that FDR was the greatest President in American history! LOL... The last time I checked over 50% of all marriages end up in divorce (no matter what religion or non-religion you belong to!), and most are due to infidelity! Spare yourself the embarrassment of that argument!

Likewise, I don't want to here things like, "we are people too, and deserve to have all of the socio-economic benefits that married people do!" Really? This dog doesn't hunt either! If the same liberal politicians in support of Same Sex Marriage Act would just keep their hands out of our pockets when we work, play, eat, breath, sleep, and die, There would be no such thing as "marriage benefits".

Sometimes we just need to back away from the tree and look at the forest as Glenn Beck frequently points out. Now if I can just get him on the horn and have him see this issue my way! At the end of the day, I'm just not feeling the protest/rally thing. I guess if everyone had their priorities in order, I would be excited for a march on G20 Summit in the name of FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! However, 350,000 people showed up to praise and magnify the Penguins Stanley Cup victory march. That will be difficult to eclipse.

----Revolution is the only way to stop the pendulum!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

FYI... We are not CREAPING... We are STEAMROLLING!

2009-05-14T20:04:00.018-05:00

Over the past 6 months or so I have heard many talk show personalities talk about "creaping socialism". Today, I heard it once again, and I quickly tuned the radio to a different station in utter anger and frustration.

PEOPLE!!! WE AREN'T CREAPING WE ARE STEAMROLLING!" Steamrolling right off of a cliff!

The tenants of socialism, marxism, and even fascism are all around you these days. In the media, this bank is getting bailed out, that CEO is getting fired by the President, these two companies are being forced to merge. What next? Oh, I know, your taxes are going to go sky high, and the modern economy will completely collapse as we know it!.

I digress... Many of you are already aware of my work in progress book entitled, "Spreading the Left - Naturally occuring in a community near you", but I wanted to give a quick preview as to where I am going with this book. While much of the book will focus on the leftist indoctrination of our youth in colleges and universities, the newest additions are shaping up to illustrate why it may not be possible to break the trend of leftward movement in America.

First, let's start with the whole prinicple of conservatism. Ask yourself this question, "What does it mean to be a conservative?" I know many of you are running through the gauntlet of political issues and stating the "conservative viewpoint" one by one. However, there is more to it than just a conservative's stance on the issues. It is their attitude. More specifically, a conservative's attitude of how government should function in SERVICE TO society, as well as how individuals should function as a PART OF society. (Liberals seem to have this backwards). True conservatives have an attitude about them that says the following 4 points: (read with attitude)

1) "Government, get the hell out of my way!
2) "You have nothing to offer in the way of prosperity... I got this!"
3) "Just do your job and protect my freedoms and liberties as origianlly defined in the Constitution. - Don't bother with adjustments or changes... we're good!"
4) "Oh yeah one more thing, Big Brother. Keep your hands out of my pockets!"

Often times you will hear the words "limited government" thrown around by some conservative politician or right-wing advocate. I really think this is jive talk for, "government the way it IS, just don't add anything new to this sloppy mess". While limited government sounds nice, it is a deceptive principle. To me, limited government hints a "big brother" complex, just not with a broad reach. It also implies that government is still "doing something" to me or for me. Whether it's a Republican or Democrat, both are guilty of claiming they will help the economy, or fix the healthcare system, or end poverty in America. No matter how limited of an effort, it is still more than we need from some beauracracy, and certainly not a conservative methodology. Maybe I missed this article, but where is health care mentioned in the Constitution?

The Leftist big government solutions are spreading fast. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that any type of "conservative movement" can reverse the spreading of the Left. It is all around us in our schools, our workplace, and of course in the media. By my simplistic definition above, conservatives want to be left alone. They want little from the government, and want even less with respect to their individual involvment (i.e. becoming a politician). The essense of conservatism leaves America at a disadvantage for political talent because conservatives do not "believe" in government solutions. Conservatives naturally gravitate away from government. (where as Liberalism is naturally occuring with respect to big government - hence the subtitle to my book.. ) Besides, isn't a "conservative politician" somewhat of a paradox? How can a person work for government and be a true conservative at the same time? Something just isn't right there. I need to work on this point more, but I am hoping you all are getting the picture. Perhaps an example would render a clearer picture.

Ah yes...John McCain... a perfect example. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Yes, I did vote for him as he was the lesser of two evils, but he still is a "big brother" kind of guy. Didn't we see him suspend his campaign and RUN to "Warshington" to help save the economy. Crisis crisis crisis... While he claims to be conservative, he is a moderate at best. In fact, he could be Rohm (never let a good crisis go to waste) Emmanual's best friend for all we know. Much of his policies where big government with a low tax twist. McCain's 35 year record sure showed us, right? What an expert!

I would argue that conservatives need a "commoner" to go to Washington to shake things up. Putting some common sense into that hot soupy mess called the U.S. Government, would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. Americans need someone that isn't afraid to name names. We need someone that is going to abide by the Constitution as it was written, and fight to preserve our freedom and Liberty. Finally, we need someone that believes in the individual, so that individuals can begin believing in themselves again. It is the only way to combat socialism and ultimately communism.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Freedom's cannot be taken for granted

2009-05-06T13:31:00.002-05:00

Many liberals I know insist on categorizing everything as a Democrat or Republican viewpoint. Try to stop thinking about things as "Us versus Them" and "Democrats vs. Republicans" for a moment. The reality is that Obama is better at communicating a crappy plan than his opposition. It doesn't change the fact that it is a crappy plan. I really don't care who is in power, the sad truth is that the liberties our country's creators sought to protect are being taken away (because of "need"), and the checks and balances they instituted to prevent the loss of these liberties are slowly being removed (because of "need").

We are so spoiled to be living in this great country - the greatest on earth such that people of all nations seek to live here. So spoiled, that we take our liberties for granted. We assume that our freedoms are commodities, such that people have started to believe we don't need military supremacy to maintain them, such that we think our government can create without having to earn, such that we believe that having a job is a right and not a privilege.

I can assure you that the type of opportunity that allows you to be successful is not available in the vast majority of the world. If you start allowing the government to decide what is best for you, they will. You will no longer have the option to decide what type of success you wish to create for yourself - you will be told how you can best contribute.

We are headed in this direction friends - I just hope the masses realize what is going on before we vote to enslave ourselves to our government.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

What is your monorail?

2009-04-15T17:32:00.002-05:00

All around the US, your money is being spent on projects that will provide you little to no benefit and create a burden for you and your legacy. Ask yourself, what is your monorail?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Looking Back... We Were Right!

2009-04-08T00:42:00.003-05:00

Seig Heil! to all of you Obama Mania fanatics. You got your wish! Looking back are any of you starting to wake up? In recent discussions and forums that I belong to, people are starting to admit that "maybe we went down the wrong path". All I can say is... "hind sight is 20/20". However, for those of us that did not get emotional about the "rock star", we saw this coming.

Now... all we need is to get crazy and unseat the "unseatable". Sure, the Office of the Presidency is out of the question (for the most part) until 2012. But we can get at those Senators and Congressmen up for re-election in the near terms.

It all begins with the 912project. I recommend taking a look at the 9 Principles and 12 Values on at www.the912project.com and getting plugged into the community of people just like you and me. These are people that believe in free markets, liberty for each individual, and fiscal responsiblity. The Tea Parties are forming all over the country and we will be out in full force peacefully protesting the IRS and this reckless government spending on April 15, 2009. It's time to take a stand in support of Liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. Stand up for yourself, stand up for your kids and grandkids! Protect the Constitution - it is the essence of being Patriotic.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Thoughts on Geithner's Bank Plan

2009-03-24T17:23:00.000-05:00

It's basically the worst possible "investment" for taxpayers, and the best possible deal for banks.

It's sort of complicated - I need to be a bank investor now to hedge against all the long term damage that is being caused.

Imagine your friend came to you with an opportunity:

"I have this mortgage portfolio I think you should buy, if you put up $1,000, I will match it with $1,000. If the investment makes money, you and I will split the gain, which is expected to be $2,000+. If the investment loses money, you could lose a maximum of $150, I will assume the rest of the loss."

This is about the best possible deal for banks I can possibly think of! Anyone would be crazy not to take this deal - I wish I was being offered this deal!

Hence the huge rally yesterday.

However, you cannot create wealth by printing money. Even if you stamp "Change" and "Hope" on the bills and put a picture of Obama on it, it still won't work. Its really amazing how many intelligent, Harvard educated economists do not understand this fundamental law that has been in existence since currency was invented.

In some regards, it is difficult to predict the repercussions of this unprecedented spending. However, one thing is certain: there will be inflation and higher interest rates in the future. If you do not own a house or are considering upgrading I would do so - when inflation hits you will want to own hard assets.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

AIG & How the Government has Failed

2009-03-19T10:45:00.000-05:00

The liberal mantra dictates that you need government to protect society from evil large corporations. As applied to AIG, many believe the company was simply "too big to fail", and that allowing it to fail would have guaranteed "the greatest crisis since the Great Depression" (how many times have we heard this). To this, I say... hogwash.

The reality is that there are plenty of well capitalized, non-bankrupt insurance companies that would be interested to buy parts of AIG's business. This happens all the time in the FREE-MARKET. Will some parties lose money? Of course, again this is normal in the free market.

Do you know where the $165 Billion went? Well over two thirds of it was given to FOREIGN banks, who were paid 100% on the dollar for their investments with a company that went bankrupt. Explain to me how paying back foreign banks in full, that would normally receive pennies on the dollar, benefits the US economy?

For all the mistakes AIG made, consider that those who make investments with them are responsible to conduct their own due diligence and accept risks for making investments. It's silly that the US government bailed them out just so that foreign investors could be repaid. The alternative was that their assets would be sold off to other, healthier companies. This is the natural flow of business and it is how wealth is created.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Why Wealth is Concentrated Among the Few

2009-03-12T11:00:00.000-05:00

I often hear the argument that the wealth gap is widening, which is used as a criticism of the Bush administration. Well, the poor may control a lower percentage of the world's assets, but their standard of living has never been higher! Amenities such as air conditioning, automobiles, televisions, and telephones were not available to most just a few short decades ago. People have reacted to advances in technology and the availability of cheap goods in different ways, but one thing remains constant: The rich purchase assets, and the poor consume goods.

Wealth will always be concentrated among a small minority of people. There is nothing you can do to stop this and it has nothing to do with our laws or public policy. The reason few people control most of the wealth is that the vast majority of people never learn the skills to create wealth! This even includes many highly paid people who still own very little. It is up to each person individually to decide whether they want to be wealthy and then take steps to accomplish this. There is absolutely nothing government can do to create this situation - government can only destroy wealth.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Marxism I Said.... "Can you hear me now?"

2009-01-21T22:01:00.010-06:00

Honestly, I think we conservatives/libertarians need to check our stuff at the door and and let this thing play out. It sure is a bummer, but lets look on the brite side... Only 1469 days left of the "Obama Mania". There is no doubt in my mind that Capitalism is the way. It will not take long for people to see that the liberal agenda is going to be focused on the destruction of capitalsm over the next 4 years.

But for now, let the cup runneth over and allow government to provide for all. Watch how quickly America declines, and watch as people in other nations no longer strive for citizenship in America. After all, what will make America different than say, Sweden? Barack Obama is not a Democrat, nor is he a socialist. Barack Obama is a MARXIST, it is woven into his thinking and belief system. He has been indoctrinated by his father, his professors, and his mentors. Take a look at this....

" Workers of all Lands Unite. The Philosophers of the world have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to CHANGE it.." - Karl Marx's tombstone...

"And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity. Let's protect the hard-earned benefits their companies have promised. Let's make it possible for hardworking Americans to save for retirement. And let's allow our UNIONS and their ORGANIZERS to lift up this country's middle-class again." - Obama Feb 2008

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," ... "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development." - Barack Obama Sr.

The apple does not fall far from the tree...

Now all I need is a guard shack to be erected at the entrance of my neighborhood. Then when I drive by it, the government employee inside the shack can justify his existance by asking to see my, "papers please... papers"??

Seig Heil... You are witnessing the rise of the 4th REICH.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

UAW - In denial to the bitter end

2008-12-16T12:40:00.002-06:00

I could write a lot on this subject, but in the interest of time I'll keep it short.

I find it amazing that the UAW continues to live in denial, down to the very end. Are they are so convinced that their $78/hour wages & benefits are justified that they would rather see the Automakers be shut down than concede any compensation?

They will reap what they sow. Hats off to the senate Republicans for at least doing one thing right in 2008 and making the deal contingent on UAW concessions.

Imagine if the company you work for was bankrupt and out of cash. Can you imaging being able to keep your job and continue earning your same pay? Of course not. For the rest of us though, we would pick ourselves up, go out, and find another job.

The reason the UAW is holding on to their comp structure for dear life is precisely because they know their skills aren't worth that much on the open market. Otherwise they would simply go find other work.

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200812121429DOWJONESDJONLINE000912_FORTUNE5.htm

* the hourly "salary" is around $26/hr for an experienced worker, the rest is benefits and legacy comp! The fact that benefits and pension expenses cost GM $50-60 / hour really make a statement!!!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

I Guess Twice is Nice....

2008-12-07T22:09:00.004-06:00

Lots of "hub-bub" going on lately about the auto industry bailouts. I haven't heard anyone really come up with a great reason why we need to bail them out. However, I have the best reason as to why we should not. We will be paying twice for this mess.

The first time we pay will be when we supply the big three with a 34 billion dollar "bridge loan". Then we will pay a second time when they inflate the cost of their vehicles to pay back that loan with interest (profits need to be made somehow).

The bottom line is that the big three are not profitable, and on their current course it is doubtful they will ever be profitable. Especially profitable enough to pay back the loan. So, it is more likely they will need to change everything including their pricing packages on their vehicles. Just as corporations do not pay taxes (i.e. they flow through to the consumer), corporations do not pay interest. All of the principle and interest for the "bridge loan" will get channeled into the cost of each vehicle. Even if the loan does get paid back, it is not likely that we the tax payers will ever see a benefit from the proceeds. Just as the proceeds from the repayment of the Savings and Loan "bailout" in the 90's did not yield the taxpayer any substantial benefit. One this is for sure. If they get federal funds, I certainly will never purchase a new vehicle from the big three again! This is a capitalist society, not marxist.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Who's on the New 10,000 Bill?

2008-11-17T19:51:00.007-06:00

The other day, while listening to Glenn Beck's Moron Trivia, Glenn asked the question, "What denomination of US currency should Barack Obama be on"? As funny as this question may be, people actually did answer in a sincere way. As I began thinking about it, it is very possible we will soon need a new denomination of currency in the USD. My prediction is if these "bailouts" continue into the retail sectors of our economy, the US dollar will basically be worthless. As more and more dollars are pumped into our system, the value of each dollar in circulation decreases. So maybe we should start printing the 10,000 dollar bill again. We can even put Barack Obama's face on it. The basic principles of capitalism are under siege as we speak because government "bailouts" force a non-equilibrium state of the economy. Finally, President Bush has arisen from his coma and come to his senses about funding the "big-three" autos with government rescue money. However, the 'messiah' has commented that he will in fact send tax-payer dollars to help the US Auto Industry stay afloat.

I think we need to let the free market find new equilibrium in labor markets, retail markets, financial markets, and manufacturing markets etc... Implementing factors outside of the principles of supply and demand disrupt the money supply, and ultimately inflation. Anyone see gas prices lately? ($2.08 / gallon) Using the voice of Bill Lumburgh, "Yeah... its called supply and demand!"

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Stop the MADNESS...

2008-11-10T19:03:00.003-06:00

Enough is enough! We need to end all of this "bailout" activity currently taking place in the U.S. economy. Lately, GM and Ford have stepped up to the welfare window for their handout , and it is not looking good. Did I miss the class in Business Management that taught, "grow your company big enough and the government won't let you fail."

Let's take a walk into history for a moment and look at what happened in the late 70's and 80's with US automakers. Prior to the mid-70's, bread and butter (non-luxury/daily driver) import vehicles were a rare occurrence for the average automobile owner here in the US. Early on, the American auto industry revolved around the idea of "planned obsolescence". Basically, they built cars that required maintenance, repairs, and eventually become obsolete and need to be totally replaced. We had a great model for perpetual repeat business on our hands. When imports such as Honda, and Nissan came into the picture, Americans began demanding longer lasting more fuel efficient vehicles that were readily available in foreign markets. As a result, demand for domestic vehicles began to decline and U.S. automaker profits began to dip. Did the government step in and to help out then? No! Instead, the realities of free market competition took place, and US automakers figured out how to re-acquire their market share by building better cars that lasted longer (Today, GM has a 100,000 mile warranty on their vehicles) . We need to do the same today.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler make good vehicles, but I think the labor unions have really undermined the natural competitive edge that is inherent with domestic autos. Rather than placing the blame on corporate executives, perhaps we should point the finger at labor unions for pushing wages, salaries, benefits, and pensions to unsustainable levels in this highly competitive worldwide industry. Let's face it, the Japanese do it so well because their costs are less.

The 'Big 3' need to be revamped, not bailed out. Why delay the inevitable by giving GM a government loan to continue doing business as usual? Adjustments need to be made, so let's let it happen automatically through layoffs, reorganization, and innovation. Also, let it be sooner rather than later.

There is no doubt that the fallout of a bankrupt GM or Ford would result in massive layoffs (estimated to be 1/5th of the U.S. work force), but Americans work best under pressure. I have full faith in the American worker to seek new opportunities to earn a living in the wake of an industry collapse. If the US automotive industry collapses, the government's only role should be to stay out of the way, and ensure that the barriers to entry into other free market industries are kept to a minimum. When the Steel industry collapsed here in the US (also caused by powerful labor unions), those people found new career opportunities elsewhere. My father was part of the steel bust here in Pittsburgh, PA (the Steel capital of the world in the 1970's). No he is not still collecting unemployment 30 years later. Instead, he started his own business within months of being laid off and went from unemployment to providing jobs for himself and for others. Don't spread the wealth, spread the opportunity!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Change What?

2008-11-08T20:58:00.005-06:00

I totally agree with my esteemed colleague regarding the race issue. It is a tremendous affirmation of the opportunity that exists here in America when a person can campaign on "hope" and "change" and win a Presidential election. Why am I the only one that has a problem with that? I have had 4 days to recover from the madness of election day, and have come to the conclusion that nothing is going to change! Follow the money trail left behind the $650 million dollars spent in the Obama campaign. That should give you an idea of where his interests will lie.

So far not a whole lot of change. Obama's first pick, Rahm Emmanual, as cheif of staff (this guys doesn't even pay his own property taxes). What is next, Charlie Rangle as secretary of labor? So I guess we can look forward to more of this kind of "change" Mr. Obama. Or wait... I get it! This whole time you were campaigning for "hope" and "change", you really meant "vote for obama so you can hope for change". That is about all we can do, "hope" that you are going to take us in the right direction.

With that said, I have no confidence in Barack Obama's ability to run this country. All he knows how to do is run for public office. I hope for our sake that I am wrong, but only time will tell. To all you libs out there, be careful that you wish for!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Election Aftermath

2008-11-08T14:34:00.002-06:00

As you know, I am quite disappointed with the outcome of the election.

Let me start by saying that as a proud American, I respect and support President elect Obama as the leader of our country, despite our many differences (this concept is foreign to many liberals, who use hate and slander against any differing viewpoint). There are also a number of positive things that will result from him being elected.

I'm glad that the race barrier has been crossed. This alone has caused significant interest around the world. It's great that anyone really can rise to the top of this great nation - the American dream fulfilled. With that said, I hope now that we have reached this important milestone, the next election will be about the issues rather than the race of the candidates.

A number of people told me that if Obama was not elected, Americans are racist. Let's admit it - America wanted to elect a black candidate to show that we could. I say this because Obama was never forced to take a firm stand on most issues. "Hope" and "Change" was enough for most supporters, who never asked him to explain what exactly this meant.

Congratulations to the Democrats, who ran a more effective campaign and capitalized on the unpopularity of George Bush. I'm glad you have control of both the executive and legislative branches of government -use this opportunity to put through every policy and law you want. Just remember that 2 years or so from now, there won't be anyone else to blame (I'm sure you will try).

Personally, I will heed the advice of John McCain "We're Americans - we always fight, we never give up... we don't run from history, we make history!". His concession speech showed grace and class that is very rare today and should serve as a model to others.

The pendulum will swing back again.

-Justin

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Quick... Give Georgie Back His Congress!

2008-11-04T18:38:00.009-06:00

I have taken quite a bit of time to research the facts about our economy for the past 39 years. I have made two spreadsheets that reflect Presidential Rule, and Majority Rule (A party holds a majority in both houses of congress, or the presidency and one side of congress, or all three). All of my data is backed up as factual information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I have blocked off the Political Party at the helm of the economy using red for Republican, and Blue for Democrat.

MAJORITY RULE vs. PRESIDENTIAL RULE

Look at the numbers and form your own opinion. Pay close attention to Rates of inflation and Unemployment. Also take a look at the staggering numbers that a super majority (not a super majority pertaining to one branch, but a super majority in that all three levels of government are held by one party as a majority) in either party create. George Bush is the only republican to have a Republican House Majority and Senate Majority backing him up. As a result he wiped the floor against Jimmy Carter and Clinton's 6 year combined averages. Also, Georgie isn't that bad after all. During his presidency we enjoyed lower rates of inflation, and unemployment, than the 39 year average. All of this in the wake of a terror attack on U.S. soil, 2 devastating natural disasters, and 2 wars.

Ouch, look out if Obama wins and gets his own toy Congress. I am willing to bet it looks something like Carter and the Gang back in the 70's (high unemployment and high inflation). Better brush up on your soup kitchen manners, or the soup Nazi will not "Spread the Soup".

Let the numbers speak for themselves.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Completely Speechless....

2008-11-04T18:35:00.003-06:00

For the first time in this election cycle I am speechless. View this if you can handle it.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

THE MAC IS BACK

2008-11-01T15:28:00.006-05:00

Governor Arnold electrified the crowd in Columbus, Ohio yesterday and made the case for real life action hero John McCain. Arnold explains why he left Austria decades ago, due to the socialist policies that stifled growth and restricted opportunities. These stifling socialist policies are the same ideas Senator Obama proposes. Now Europe finally gets it and has learned from us, but Senator Obama wants to make us like Europe in the 70s!

Gov. Arnold: "I'm gonna make Senator Obama do some squats" - awesome!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

If Obama is elected - I won't have to pay my mortgage anymore!

2008-10-31T16:04:00.001-05:00

I found this statement particularly enlightening. Listen to what Obama's supporters believe will happen if he is elected - all of their financial problems will be taken care of by the government!

Guess what America - if you pay your bills and Obama is elected you'll be paying for deadbeats around the country! According to Obama, it would be selfish not to give some of your money to poor people you don't even know!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Fear, Emotion, Passion.... "ILLOGICAL!" Says Mr. Spock

2008-10-31T02:20:00.004-05:00

Even though I think Passion in politics is a great place to start, it is not logical for a person to get emotional about politics and economics. Often times people get into heated political debates with me, and they tend to get very emotional in the process. Perhaps they get this way because I love to “pick a fight”, or perhaps they are just plain old passionate about their point of view. Passion drives curiosity, and curiosity seeks for truth. When people find out the truth, they are quickly stunned, almost like a deer in headlights. Getting emotional about economics and politics is problematic because we tend to run off with the emotion and forget how to present LOGICAL arguments. Emotions cloud our ability to think rationally and ultimately our ability to make sound decisions.

With that said, Obama is absolutely a brilliant presidential candidate in this regard. He is playing on the emotions (particularly anger and fear) of the people. Throughout history, the candidate that can key in on the emotions of the people always wins the election. (Kennedy and Reagan are other great examples). Obama is doing so well because he is an excellent salesman. He can get you to believe that "Bush's Policies" have failed, and everything negative that has happened during his term is his fault. Any good salesman will point out "your pain" and key in on it. Then they will offer a solution to that pain. If the cost of the solution "APPEARS" (Obama the magician) to be less than the pain itself, you will buy.

In the article, “The Obama Temptation” my colleague explored a piece written by Mark Levin which points out that there is a “cult-like” following of Obama. Barack Obama followers are like a moth to a flame. They are so mesmerized by “Hope” and “Change.” As a result, they are completely and utterly numb to the flaws in his logic, his radical associations, and his statement “spread the wealth.” Not to mention his stance on the issues. Clearly he has managed to drive his base to a level of emotion that is totally illogical. Emotions are running high in the Obama campaign, and there is no “counter-emotion” that can snap people out of it. Therefore, rather than trying to invoke emotion, we should ask questions that draw out logical thinking and ultimately rational decision making.

When all else fails, point to the Constitution. We should not be deciding who should be the next President based on emotions or fear. Nor can we vote based on associations, education level, merit, or even intentions. (I would agree that both McCain and Obama INTEND to do us well by their ideas...). But, I think we should be voting based on their willingness to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States...After all, this is the Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Who do you think will best preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and why do you think this way? Emotion vs. Logic - Polar opposites!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Wealth CREATES More Wealth

2008-10-29T09:28:00.016-05:00

Even the Communists in China know how to create more wealth, by lowering the barriers of investment. Communist China has a small 10% Capital Gains Tax on asset earnings. With that kind of incentive for people and business to create wealth, it is no wonder why they are an 'up and comer' in the world market.

Obama plans to increase the capital gains tax rate to from 15-28% (87% increase) for incomes over $250,000, and revert back to the Clinton era 20% rate (33% increase) for everyone under $250,000. In either case, a capital gains or dividends tax is targeting the wealthiest individuals. This group, the top 10%, own 97% of the nations wealth (stocks, bonds, mutual fund, liquid cash, property, and other assets). I also submit to you that these people are wealthy not because they took it from someone or something. They CREATED their wealth. Some argue that the wealthy deserve their rewards because of the risk that they have incurred for their ventures. This is true! But, not only do they deserve it for taking big risks, they also deserve big rewards for making others wealthy. As capitalists seek out new ways to add to their own wealth, they help others create wealth in the process.

Let us take Bill Gates as an example. It is a known fact that he has made other people more money than he has made for himself. After all, Microsoft would not be what it is today if it were not for personnel and capital. I would say his reward for helping others in this regard is completely justified. Let's face it, entrepreneurs know how to create wealth. They do it by redeploying their earnings into their businesses, or their investment portfolio in order to make more. Not by taking it from someone else.

Let us assume (for just a small moment in time) that that the Libs are right, and all capitalists are "greedy." Well, in that case, "greed is good" (famous words of Gordon Gecko). If we are in fact greedy, and only yearn to make more, we are going to do it with the only two tools available (capital and personnel). Without capital and personnel, additional wealth cannot be created. If you penalize me more for making more, what would the incentive be to use addition personnel and capital (at an added cost from taxes) to create more wealth? Raising capital gains is not congruent with growing an economy. It would only further stifle the economy, by decreasing capital investment and decreasing the need for additional personnel (unemployment). The notion that "spreading the wealth around" will grow an economy from the bottom up is completely preposterous.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Loan Regulation Probably Wouldn't Have Prevented This Crisis

2008-10-26T18:55:00.004-05:00

I've made the case that de-regulation is not the culprit in the current financial crisis. It's a complex issue for sure, but I think this article provides good insight. Jack Guttentag, a professor at Wharton School of Business, explains why regulation may not be the answer.

excerpt:
----------------------------------
Deregulation, meaning the scrapping of existing regulations, was not a factor in the crisis. The only significant financial deregulation in the past three decades applied to commercial banks. Restrictions on where they could have branches and on their involvement in investment banking were both removed. Most economists, including me, believe that these actions made the banks stronger than they would have been otherwise.

Regulation in itself is a weak defense against financial crises. One major reason is that it tends to look backward, similar to generals fighting the last war. ...
----------------------------------

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The Obama Temptation

2008-10-26T11:08:00.003-05:00

This is a great pieces by Mark Levin. I've met countless people who support Obama adamantly, yet when I challenge their beliefs they get very angry and defensive. It's been hard for me to understand - debate and discussion are cherished activities in America. What has caused so many Americans to believe one side so strongly without considering the other? Mark Levin explores.
-----------------

The Obama Temptation [Mark R. Levin]

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The Issues: Economic Crisis

2008-10-19T17:47:00.010-05:00

Over the past few months I've participated in extensive debate with many people about this upcoming election. Since my home in Chicago is overwhelmingly liberal, there is no shortage of opponents. I respect and have taken the time to research and carefully consider the opposing viewpoint.

The Economy and current crisis

One of the Media / Democrat's greatest accomplishments this election cycle has been to convince much of the American population that the current economic crisis is the Republicans / Bush's fault. While there are many parties at fault, most Americans have the blame squarely misplaced. We know that GSE's (Freddie and Fannie) have been around since the 60's. However, in 1999 the Clinton administration challenged the GSE's with the social mission of expanding home ownership to minorities and low-income borrowers. At the time the administration believed home ownership should be available to all, regardless of their financial situation. Consider this article, written in 1999. Some key statements:

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

Said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If [Freddie and Fannie] fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Wow..... amazing prognosis from ten years ago.

The plain English explanation is as follows: Ten years ago, there were requirements to obtaining a mortgage, such as having a job, needing to demonstrate income, having a good credit score and putting 20% down. These requirements excluded many low-income people, and a disproportionate percentage of minorities. Instead of thinking about how these groups could starting meeting the requirements, Frannie and Freddie decided to simply lower the requirements.

As you can see from the article above, the level of low-income (aka sub prime) borrowers rose to over 50 percent. However, as recently as last year, the COO of Fannie Mae was saying sub prime mortgages accounted for less than two percent of book value, and that the company was not in any danger!!!

These companies (which as we found out are backed by the credit of the U.S. government) were directed by the government to guarantee mortgages of previously uncreditworthy people. Now, we are finding out that uncreditworthy people can't pay their bills. Surprise!

Mortgage lenders didn't care who they were issuing to, because they could turn around and sell the loan to Fannie/Freddie and transfer the risk completely. Freddie and Fannie were asked by former President Bill Clinton to create standards that low-income people could qualify for - they had no choice. F&F packaged these loans by the thousands, sliced them up and and served them to investors. Many of these mortgage pools were rated as high as AAA by the credit rating agencies - theoretically as safe as a U.S. Treasury bond.

Since more people could buy qualify for mortgages than previously, more people could buy homes. This caused an unnaturally high rise in home values. Check out this chart.

As home values rose, people realized they could take a loan on the supposed equity in their house (not available during previous housing booms). They spent this money instead of saving it. Interest rates rose, ARM's reset, suddenly these sub prime borrowers couldn't make payments. Housing values started to decline, and borrowers couldn't refinance. Foreclosures skyrocketed. The banks and investment firms that held these mortgage pools are now blowing up.

Why do I tell you all this? Because this current crisis can all be traced back to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mission instilled in them by former president Clinton to expand home ownership. Those were the operators of this house of cards. In fact John McCain said so in 2006, when he pushed for greater regulation of Freddie/Fannie and warned of the great risk these institutions posed to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, this bill was squashed by the Democrats, who declared at the time "there is no reason to suggest these companies are at any risk".

Contrary to what you hear on TV, I don't believe that the current situation is as a result of de-regulation. Private companies analyze risk and adjust behavior accordingly. Instead, I believe we are in this situation because of regulation. It was regulation that lowered lending standards to the point that we encountered this chain reaction and downward spiral. It was regulation that allowed loan originators to completely transfer risk. And it is regulation that created a private loan corporation that was backed by the funds of the U.S. Treasury!

Check your facts! The Democrats ought to have to own up to this - but nobody is making them...

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Are liberals open-minded?

2008-10-19T17:11:00.005-05:00

It's fine to discuss your opinions, even get heated at times. I've been known to speak passionately about my beliefs, and I appreciate the same in others. However, part of being an educated adult is being open to other points of view. In recent years, there's been a growing sentiment among many liberals that anyone who disagrees with them is automatically an asshole, supposedly because [those who disagree] do not support "the common good" (meaning social assistance, taxing the wealthy at a higher rate, and "spreading the wealth").

Consider these examples and ask yourself, "have liberals gone too far"? The elimination of dissent is just a step away from dictatorship.

Conservatives are less welcome in Manhattan than terrorists! Watch what happened when a group of McCain supporters "dared" to march in the upper west side.

Also, apparently if you are 12 years old and support McCain/Palin, you are a racist! What are liberal parents saying to their 12 year old children to create this situation???

You should know, there is only one correct point of view in Hollywood, the liberal political view! If you disagree you are risking your career!

Liberals say that they are welcoming and inclusive - I think what they mean is that they are welcoming and inclusive as long as you agree with them!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Truely free-market health care would be much better than universal health care

2008-10-07T09:42:00.002-05:00

Health insurers are required to cover many specific conditions by the states they operate in. It's private companies operating in a socialized context - its not a free market system.

You should be able to self-insure yourself, and have it come out to be less expensive over your lifetime. However, that is not possible because people with health insurance pay a different pre-coverage rate than those who are non(self)-insured. That doesn't make sense.

Why should people pay the same rates regardless of their health condition? A free-market system will allow for different levels of coverage and medical care to satisfy people at all levels of the income scale. Sorry, but I don't believe that the country owes all citizens the highest possible level of care regardless of income, as the current system pretends and Obama's plan will attempt to enforce. Additionally, there are basic personal care steps that anyone can take to drastically reduce health care costs over a lifetime - however many people elect not to follow them. That may be their choice, but I don't agree with paying for it as I currently do.

Can you point out an example where socialized medicine has worked and been cost effective on a scale even close to the U.S.?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

The subprime situation & why McCain is better prepared to handle it

2008-10-06T17:30:00.004-05:00

I'd like to point out that the current sub-prime/credit situation is not a result of deregulation as many media outlets suggest. The situation is a direct result of policy and regulation designed to increase home ownership for minorities and moderate/low income families. This shift in lending policy was advocated by the Clinton administration and supported heavily by the left.

Here is an article from 1999 that describes the changes:
NYT Article

I will agree that the Bush administration advocated home ownership for all and he used this policy as part of his 2004 re-election campaign. However, the attempts by Nancy Pelosi, Obama and others to pin blame on Bush and the R party are sorely misplaced. John McCain was warning Congress of the dangers of F&F in 2005 and sponsored legislation to provide more oversight into their accounting policies. Unfortunately it did not pass. See for yourself, complete sentences included.

Dems say "everything is ok with Fannie/Freddie" in 2004

Also, both sides should feel embarrassed by the rescue package that was passed last week. A sickening amount of additional spending was included to satisfy both sides, including additional earmarks for:

- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark "extenders" in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Thoughts on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Obama's idea of talking with him

2008-10-06T17:27:00.002-05:00

You can't negotiate with a person who does not accept fact as reality. Decide for yourself whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a reasonable man:
Interview pt 3
Interview pt 4

Some quotes I like are [that he wants to] "wipe Israel off the map", and the reason that current peace offerings have failed is because they include Israel still being a state. Oh and he also believes the Holocaust did not happen and he hopes the US experiences a significant downfall.

Nevertheless, Obama believes he can sit down and negotiate with this man. The fallacy in this logic is that he assumes Ahmadinejad and Iran have similar motivations as the Western world and are knowledgeable and interested in democracy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Obama's proposal to raise minimum wage won't work - the focus should be on education instead

2008-09-19T10:32:00.003-05:00

"Human psychology contains many dualities, one of them being that even while people understand the need for change, knowing how important it is for institutions and individuals to be occasionally renewed, they are also irritated and upset by changes that affect them personally." - from the book 'The 48 Laws of Power' by Robert Greene.

I agree that change is very difficult. Change creates a vacuum that people perceive as chaos - I have experienced this recently at my job...

The problem I have with government providing social welfare is that it doesn't know where to stop. What is a 'minimum level of care'? Opinions vary significantly on this. Obama proposes raising the minimum wage to $9.50 / hr (by the way this is more money than I made during the summers while going to college). Surely if everyone in the country makes at least $9.50/hr they will have an improved standard of living. But why not take it a step farther? Why not raise the minimum wage to $100/hr? Wouldn't that make standards of living even better? Think through the effects of such a policy and you can see the danger in the government trying to create standard of living for people.

I have read several sociology books recently, including "The Working Poor" (which I thought was good). The author did a good job convincing me that many poor people may lack the foundation to understand that their situation could be different. Their reality is so strong and they lack role models to help them understand how to improve their lives. By and large, the education system is not working for a large percentage of people. Many people have suggested that funding is still not sufficient, but I disagree. The US currently spends more money per student on education than any other nation, yet ranks near the bottom in all testing categories.

The best idea I have seen on the table is to completely dismantle the federal educational program. Currently, public schools receive funding with a variety of strings attached - most notably in the content they are required to teach. Instead, I would like to allow for a completely private school system, but provide a $3000-$4000 education voucher. Allow parents to send their children to any school of their choosing. The whole debate over whether certain topics are appropriate for public schools is nonsense - let local communities decide which topics should be included and which should be withheld. We need to create an environment where teachers and institutions have incentive and are rewarded for the performance of their students. Only then do I believe we would see improvement in education quality.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Assistance programs make people weak

2008-09-18T16:44:00.001-05:00

The current situation feels a lot like the novel Atlas Shrugged in that the pursuit of opportunity for all ignores the basic fact that not all people are responsible. Policies were put into place to try to make home ownership available to all. It sounds nice, but its not realistic. When you start looking at something as a social good instead of a business transaction, sound judgment goes out the window.

John McCain wants to reduce taxes and trade barriers to create a more competitive environment. His energy policy will encourage our nation to pursue a variety of energy sources and let the market decide which are most viable. Competition in any free market system has led to greater variety of services offered and better value (lower price) to the consumer.

Some of Obama's energy policy ideas are just illogical. For example, he wants to tax oil companies and then hand out rebates to the American public? Doesn't he realize that nothing is created by doing this? It's simply a transfer of wealth. We'd all like to believe that the poor will take this $1,000 rebate and spend it on education for their children. The reality is that the poor will continue to spend it on televisions, McDonalds, and whatever else they currently buy. Does anyone believe that giving people more money will change their behavior?

Most people do not appreciate things they are given for free - marketers and retailers understand this concept well. A better idea is to make it easier for people to create their own wealth and then set them free. The government has never been successful at addressing social issues, and I don't believe it ever will be. The people who think up social programs make the false assumption that the recipients would use the opportunity/benefit to improve their situation. The reasons for their current situation are typically a lot more complicated than simply a lack of opportunity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Obama's ideas for our environment sound nice, but his implementation plan is flawed

2008-09-16T14:21:00.004-05:00

I believe the environment is important. Where I differ from many people is that I believe the government's role is simply to place caps on harmful outputs, and then let private industry figure out how to meet that cap (allowing a trading system). You don't have to look any farther than Obama's web page to see some of his misguided implementation plans for solving our energy needs and protecting the environment. He proposes a lot of big ideas, but very little information as to how these ideas would be implemented, other than the first step of collecting more taxes.

- "Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits" [and give the money to citizens].

Huh? Oil companies aren't making any more money than any other type of business (they do more volume). Oil companies do not directly set the price of oil. They are already not investing money to explore and drill for more oil because it does not make financial sense to do so. Obama wants to tax them more? That will just make them invest even less in exploration and drilling. They'll simply deplete their reserves and then turn themselves into a trust.

- Crack down on oil speculation? Swap oil from the strategic petroleum reserve?

Its not clear what Obama plans to do but if you try to obstruct free market trading of something, then there is no real price - similarly to how the govt. is taking over Freddie/Fannie and has restricted short selling on many securities. This practice can obstruct the true value (could be $0).

- Weatherize 1 million low-income homes annually

Why would the government take on a project like this? This is supposed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? I don't get it. Who is supposed to pay for this, I suppose individuals and businesses making over $250,000?

- Develop & deply clean coal technology

Sounds nice and I think we should pursue it but this technology is a long way from being available.

The reason I like McCain's plan better is that he doesn't promote a specific technology or have any crazy plan to insulate poor people's homes with taxpayer money. His plan is simply to enforce emissions ceilings and setup a carbon trading program. Along with that he wants to reduce the regulatory burden associated with developing new technologies.

As soon as there is a viable system in place for people to make money by reducing carbon emissions, they will do so. This is already starting to happen but a commitment to this system would catalyze developments in "green" technologies much faster than anything the government could do with any amount of money.

The government has no experience in creating things that are commercially viable. It's only goal should be to provide an environment where there is a financial reason for green technology to be developed.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Insurance Companies Should not Provide Coverage for Anorexia

2008-08-13T23:30:00.006-05:00

Or they should... either way, it should be up to them.

I recently read an article in Newsweek suggesting that states require insurance companies to cover treatment for Anorexia and other eating disorders. While I agree that Anorexia is a serious disorder, I wholeheartedly disagree with the thinking that laws should require insurers to cover specific illnesses.

Marisa Meiskin had been battling anorexia for some time when her parents decided to take drastic action. They selected a private treatment facility with an intense five-step program "against a backdrop of picturesque rolling hills and complete with an equestrian program, yoga and music therapy." Marisa spent four months recovering there, and now has regained a normal life as a healthy teenager. The only problem? The program cost $30,000 a month, of which approximately 1/4 was covered by Aetna. This left Marisa's parents with about $90,000 of debt.

According to Newsweek, the solution is to simply have states require insurers to provide coverage for Anorexia and other similar illnesses. That way, families will not be taxed with the financial burden that comes as a result of having children with an eating disorder. This is an extremely oversimplified way of thinking about the problem and a great example of why America's health care system is broken. Allow me to point out two flaws in this reasoning and an alternative viewpoint:

First, by requiring insurers to cover specific illnesses, the government is making a judgment that the total cost of treating that illness should be spread over all insurance policy holders. In addition to my belief that the government has no place to make these kind of decisions, not all people are at risk for eating disorders. Why should I be forced to pay for anorexia coverage when I know there is no risk of me ever battling that illness?

Second, the proposed solution makes the flawed assumption that all people should have access to the most advanced possible health care. Can you think of any other service where this is the case? Medical professionals generally uphold an ethical obligation to serve all in need. I believe it is reasonable to assume that services will continue to be available for less wealthy patients in the absence of a regulated system.

The problem with the current system is that it does not allow me to shop for what I want and pay for what I get. Like most people, my health coverage is partially covered by my employer. I have exactly two options for coverage, of which the only difference is the deductible and the percentage covered. I have very little flexibility to customize the type of coverage that I am offered.

In a free market system, if coverage for Anorexia (or any illness) is something the market needs, then it will be provided at an appropriate price. If the price of coverage is expensive and the treatment does not apply to a large percentage of people, that it will be offered as an optional service rather than part of the base package. Requiring insurance carriers to cover specific illnesses is like raising the price of auto insurance and saying it now covers watercraft, even if you don't own one. Would that make sense?

As a healthy individual who averages one doctor visit per year, my policy is very profitable for the insurer, and my premium should be low. My premium is already over $2,000/year, and Newsweek and the Meiskin's believe that my premium should go up further to cover the cost of their daughter's anorexia treatment.

Sorry but I cannot agree.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Take your liberal agenda to someone who cares

2006-10-02T19:20:00.003-05:00

I see you chanting outside my office, protesting on my way out of Lollapalooza, and trying to hit me up for donations when I go to lunch. Here's an idea, why don't you move out of the condo your parents bought you, get a real job, and start contributing to society. Seriously, I'm tired of supporting your lifestyle and your high and mighty attitude.

Recently I witnessed a discussion went something like this:
p1: Taxes are way too high in Chicago
p2: Yea it sucks
p3: We really need to impeach Bush

These type of contradictory statements really undermine your credibility. Do you have anything else to say, any real ideas? Can you back up these statements with facts or supporting evidence for your position? Is it better to just close your eyes and jump on the impeach Bush bandwagon because many celebrities advocate it?

Taxes

If it were up to Gore, Kerry, or any other liberal, you would still be paying up to 39% tax on corporate dividends (instead of 15%) and would only be able to contribute $2,000 to your IRA next year (instead of $5,000). Do you realize how this affects you? A persons ability to control their own financial security should take precedence over any social program. When you support higher taxes and government sponsored benefits, in effect you are saying knows how to spend your money better than you do. Why would you ever support a candidate who wants you to work harder and longer so that others don't have to? In a free society you can contribute money to any cause you find worthy, wouldn't you rather have control over what you do and don't support?

Iraq

Look, we'd all like to leave Iraq as soon as possible - its not that simple. I agree that we underestimated what it would take to win this war, but now we are left with the responsibility to help establish a real government. The decision to invade Iraq was supported by both parties and approved through the house and senate, deal with it. Just because you don't like it anymore doesn't mean we should leave. If the US were to leave Iraq now, the country would plunge into a state of civil war. The US is still there because stability provides long term benefit.

Regardless of whether you think the reasons given for invading Iraq justified the action, the bottom line is that Iraq was an enemy state of the U.S, harboring a deep resentment for us and our allies, and had been threatening aggression against us. If you've studied history, you should know that enemies cannot be allowed to fester and plot. They must be crushed completely or their hatred will smolder and burn until it becomes a raging inferno.

The US still reigns as the world superpower. Do not ever forget all the incredible advantages and luxuries that affords you, including the right to voice your opposition to our occupancy of Iraq. You act as though their civilization carries the same benefits, it does not. It is our governments duty to protect our citizens and allow them to prosper, this includes maintaining our interests around the globe. We will see to it that this job is completed, and your anti-American sentiment hinders our progress.

Illegal Immigrants

I have no problem with illegal immigrants being in the country. I have a problem with the fact that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. As a guest in the US, illegal immigrants gain access to the advantages of living in a developed country - therefore they to pay taxes. Why should the entire tax burden be carried by those of us who live here legally? If you're a legal business and you hire illegal aliens who don't pay taxes, or for whom you do not pay taxes, you are also contributing to the problem

Conversely, it is too difficult for educated, legal immigrants to stay in the country. After four years of education in the US, my college roommate (from India) graduated as the top engineering student of his class, yet had trouble finding a desirable employer who would sponsor his visa. After some searching, he returned to India without ever working in the US (and paying US taxes.) Shouldn't we want to make it easy for people like this to stay? Perhaps even require it after becoming educated here?

So next time you're about to ask me to donate to the Missing Children's Project or the National Arthritis Association, just so you know - I already gave at the federal level.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

India: Thoughts after returning

2006-07-25T00:00:00.001-05:00

The trip to India was incredibly rewarding. Although I have done a lot of traveling in my life, I still wasn't really able to imagine what it would be like to see it up close. It helped me gain perspective on some things in my own life. The poverty is quite extreeme in many areas compared to what you are used to in the U.S. Millions upon millions of people are homeless and just sleep on the streets.

At the same time, most of them seem genuinely content with their life. In India, there is a lot less focus put on individual achievement compared with the U.S. However, there is a huge focus on family and the social network. Family's are usually large clans that, if wealth, also have a lot of power. The disparity between rich and poor is vast. If you are a wealthy family, you have servants, cooks, cleaners, drivers - you don't do any domestic labor yourself.

The caste system doesn't officially exist in India anymore, however there is a very distinct social hierarchy. This hierarchy does not seem to be challenged much by the lower classes, which I find interesting. I think this may have to do with the teachings of the Hindu religion. This may make it hard for the social gap to close.

Despite the hardships, there is massive, massive growth going on in India. The entire country seems like it is under contruction. Thousands upon thousands of trucks drive up and down the highways at all times of the day and night. There is a big need for infrastructure, but it is on the way. A two lane highway does a poor job currently of servicing Delhi from Jaipur, but a massive 6 lane elevated highway is under contruction. India will be a global economic power, they have a massive amount of people, and also now a huge number of highly educated workers. However, there is still a long ways to go. Wages are currently 10-20% of what we earn in the U.S. Most commerce is not organized at all. There are 1 billion people in India and probably 200 million businesses, 198 million of those sole proprieterships. It will be interesting to see what happens as businesses become organized and actual stores start to replace the 1 man shop.

India is fascinating and I highly recommend it. Go in the winter though, when it is very nice. Summer is brutally hot.

If you'd like to see some additional photos, check them out here:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

India Part 5: The Wedding

2006-07-07T23:52:00.001-05:00

The following took place over two nights. Indian weddings can last up to 7 days. I was present for 3 days of festivities, and I was told another two would take place in Bombay the following weekend.

A rare moment when I cornered Shot. The prelude night had 350 guests, the actual wedding had 700 guests!

On the second night, the friends of the groom offer numerous dances to honor the couple:

Indian Dancing

Shot and his (at the time) almost bride Smita. I did not have hardly any opportunity to talk to her. Although this was not an arranged marriage, traditional customs were observed. Therefore, the bride was not around at all in the days leading up to the marriage.

The following night was the actual wedding. I was loaned some traditional clothing (a Salwar Kameez) for the event, which was fun and I think a hit with the guests. I was the only caucasian in attendance at the wedding. At one point, since I was hanging out with 25 Indians and wearing traditional Indian clothing, I was told the photographer asked someone what was wrong with my skin (in Hindi). Apparently, it didn't occur to him that I was a westerner :)

What shot is wearing is traditional wedding attire. It couldn't have been too much fun from a comfort standpoint as it was about 100 degrees out. By the way, that is an emerald necklace.

In the old days, you went to go pick up your bride on horse.

A 30 piece marching band is on hand for the occasion. These guys rocked it out and caused a spectacle even with the locals.

The procession marched down the street, marching band in tow, until we eventually reached the wedding location

OK.... so you haven't really had fun until you've been to an Indian wedding. The Barat is part of the procession where the grooms friends dance in front of the groom on horse. Not wanting to dissappoint, I did my best to bust out some Indian dance moves. This procession easily lasts an hour, with band at full volume. The energy level was incredibly high. Lets just say I was pumped.

My view was never obstucted by any heads during my stay..

The Rambagh Palace hotel is one of the most amazing hotels I've seen. Unfortunately, I did not take any photos of the spread, but it was very impressive. My tolerance for Indian food was wearing down a bit at this point (due to digestion, not necessarily taste), but the wedding had Thai food as well (rising in popularity in India).

The Rambagh was originally a royal palace before it was turned into a hotel. Forbes rates it as one of the top 10 palaces on earth.

After the Barat, 10 million photos were taken, followed by dinner. I guess alcohol is not part of the tradition. They made it available, but in a hotel room away from the main serving area.

After dinner, the Phera (fire) takes place. The phera went on for more hours than I can count (until about 3-4 in the morning). There is a lot of chanting, some smoke. Over time, the bride and groom move around the fire 7 times to invoke the blessings of the Gods and Goddesses for different benedictions:

Phera Funda 1 - Economic Stability
With the first step, the couple invokes the Gods for the plentitude of pure and nourishing food and a life that is noble and respectful.

Phera Funda 2 - Health is Wealth
With the second step the couple pray for physical and mental strength and fortitude to lead a healthy and peaceful life.

Phera Funda 3 - Faith
The third step is taken for the fulfilment of spiritual obligations. The Gods are invoked for blessing the couple with spiritual strength.

Phera Funda 4 - Love & Trust
The fourth step is taken for the attainment of happiness and harmony through mutual love and trust and a long joyous life together.

Phera Funda 5 - Progeny
The fifth step is taken to pray for the welfare of all living entities in the entire universe and for begetting noble children.

Phera Funda 6 - Togetherness
The sixth step is for bountiful seasons all over the world. The couple prays for bountiful seasons and seeks that they may go through these seasons together, just as they would share their joys and sorrows.

Phera Funda 7 - Forever
With the last step they pray for a life of understanding, loyalty, unity and companionship not only for themselves but also for the peace of the Universe.

Exhaused, I went to bed. I hadn't slept very well during the trip. Since India is 10.5 hours ahead of Chicago, the jet lag is pretty extreme. I would typically wake up around 5am each morning, wide awake despite a lack of sleep, and feel catatonically sleepy around 2pm. Fortunately, it was a lot better coming back to the U.S.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

India Part 4: Ajit & Anirudh

2006-07-06T19:38:00.001-05:00

Thursday afternoon, I met Shot's friends Anirudh (left) And Ajit (right) at their office. The two are business partners involved in Jewellery manufacturing and exporting. Jaipur is the world capital for jewellery, exporting more stones than any other place on earth. Last year, $3.5 billion worth of gemstones were exported. During my visit to the office, I saw vast quantities of emeralds, rubys, diamonds, and other stones.

After a while, we proceeded to get some lunch nearby before embarking on a big afternoon adventure:

Monkeys roam the streets in certain parts of the city, leaping from rooftops to power lines and back again. Sometimes, more adventureous ones will break into homes and raid fridges. You have to chase them out with brooms; they don't go easily :)

We went down to the jewellery making district. Jewellery is made by the best craftsmen in the world. They live in the slums of Jaipur and make approximately $3 / day. This studio apartment is the largest space you can get on a jeweller's wage. This room is about 4 feet wide as you can see. I was shown how stones are produced.

Here is some blue topaz. The stones are kept in water for better cuttting. This is after the first step in the process, where larger rocks are separated into individual gemstones

Once stones are cut to a manageable size, they are further sanded to remove the non-gem portions of the rock.

Examining some finished stones. The guy in the top left is essentially the manager of the craftsmen along this stretch of road. If there is something to consider when considering a jewellery purchase in the future, I think it is: Jewellery is considered valuable, because we say it is, not necessarily because it is that rare or expensive to produce. Also, almost none of the retail price that we pay in the U.S. makes it to the jewellery makers. I am not condemning this, but I do think it's interesting to know.

Standing outside the workshops (and promoting Hubbard One around the world). You can get an idea here of what conditions are like for many people in urban India. To the left of me, that is an open sewer which barely flows. As the children play crickett in the street, they often had to retrieve the ball from the sewage. Decayed would be an optomistic way to describe the condition of many buildings. Animals, trash, & feces litter many areas. Despite the poor living conditions for the poor however, I found that most people appear to be genuinely happy with their life.

A goat has a snack of ????? off a car windshield

We were supposed to be getting ready for one of the many wedding receptions, but from here we proceeded to a hindu temple. I was given a flower wreath, a very good sign for my fortune I was told. I was blessed by the priest, and afterwards handed some ashes, to be eaten - along with a piece of rock candy. The ashes were a shock to my tongue, but I consumed them. I then rang the bell (to alert God to my presence).

I am not a spiritual person, generally I do not participate in religious rites. I sensed though that the hindu people were genuinly appreciative of my participation and it was a unique experience. Seeing their faith demonstrated in person gives insight into their behavior. Hindu people seem to maintain a high level of faith and generally seem to accept their life and circumstances.

We tried to visit a spiritual man who would tell me my fortune, and tell me about my life, even though he had never met me. I was pretty excited for this, but unfortunately he wasn't home.

On the way across town, Ajit and Anirudh (constant jokesters) got into a fight about some photos Anirudh had taken (Ajit wanted to delete some). This escalated into a physical battle in the front seat of the car. We were driving about 50 miles an hour at this point.

I really enjoyed these guys, they spent a lot of time with me during my trip and made sure I got to see Jaipur up close and personal.

After going to the fortune tellers house, we came back and found that our car wouldn't start. Whoops - I was already about an hour late in going to Shot's house at this point and I still needed to make it back to my hotel first. I hopped a ride in a cab. This fine auto is known as a rickshaw, and is essentially a three wheeled..... scooter? A five mile ride cost about $2.

As I made it back, I prepared for the wedding festivities.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

India Part 3: Sightseeing

2006-07-06T12:48:00.001-05:00

I set out Thursday with a guide to tour around Jaipur, which is located in the state of Rajasthan. The color pink is associated with hospitality in Rajasthan, and all buildings in Jaipur are washed in a pink shade. Planned by a young Bengali architect, Jaipur was founded in 1727, laid out in a grid system with straight avenues, roads and streets. The only planned city of its time, Jaipur is encircled by a formidable wall.

Hawa Mahal (Temple of the Winds):

From here I proceeded to the Amber Palace & Shila Mata Temple. The Amber Palace is a comples of palaces, halls, pavilions, gardens, and temples. It took about two centuries to build and is constructed almost entirely of marble and sandstone. The palace emerges dramatically from Maotha Lake (since it is summer currently the water level is much lower than during winter) and is accessible by a steep path.

Elephants bathing in the lake:

I decided to ascent to the temple via Elephant. They are pretty fun to ride - definately a unique experience. My driver offered to take a photo of me wearing his turban. Although I didn't really want to put on his sweaty turban, I didn't want to offend him. And so....

During the winter, this garden would have the water coming up to the edge:

Made it to the top :)

Nobody other than the king was supposed to view the Queen. This screen allowed the Queen to look upon the citizens and speak to them, without them being able to view her. The pain used on this building was made using a special process. I don't remember exactly what it is, but it creates such a durable paint, that what you see is the original paint used when the building was constructed centuries ago.

From there I proceeded to Jantar Mantar, a midievil stone observatory. Built between 1727 and 1734 the Jantar Mantar incorporates multiple buildings of unique form, each with a specialized function for astronomical measurement. These structures with their striking combinations of geometric forms at large scale, have captivated the attention of architects, artists, and art historians world wide, yet remain largely unknown to the general public.

From here it was off to the Jaipur palace. I was concerned at whether I would be able to make it in past the formidable security:

While I was in India, I was somewhat of a spectacle many places that I went. Americans are not common in this part of India, especially at this time of year. I was the tallest person that I saw while I was there. Over the course of my trip, many people came up to me and wanted to take a picture with me, as if I were a celebrity. Here are some friends I made at the Jantar Mantar.

After a full day of sightseeing, I met up with Ajit and Anirudh, two of shot's friends, for what would promise to be another great adventure.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

India Part 2: Reunion & Culture

2006-07-04T16:47:00.001-05:00

In the morning I met up with Shot. After college, Shot returned to India, so it's been about 6 years since I've seen him. It was great to be reunited and get to see what his life is like in India. We spent some time catching up while he gave me a brief tour of the city. Afterwards we went over to his aunt's (buaa [father's sister in hindi])house for lunch. If you are wealthy in India, you live somewhat of a royal life. All of the upper class have servants and cooks working in their house, constantly cleaning and preparing food. Homes are kept impeccably clean. It feels unusual at first, but I suppose it is kind of nice having someone bring you water / iced coffee / soda / whatever you want every time you sit down :)

Buaa blessed us shortly before this photo. The area between the eyebrows, the sixth chakra known as the 'agna' meaning 'command', is the seat of concealed wisdom. It is the centre point wherein all experience is gathered in total concentration. According to the tantric cult, when during meditation the latent energy ('kundalini') rises from the base of the spine towards the head, this 'agna' is the probable outlet for this potent energy. The red 'kumkum' between the eyebrows is said to retain energy in the human body and control the various levels of concentration. It is also the central point of the base of the creation itself — symbolising auspiciousness and good fortune.

After a while we proceeded over to Shot's house:

The floors throughout the entire house are a beautiful marble. While still a great luxury, a large quantity of marble is produced in India, making it comparably less expensive than obtaining in the U.S. Several ancient temples were contructed entirely of marble. Courtyard inside Shot's house:

It was fascinating to see what lifestyles are like in India and how they differ from the U.S. For example, a lot of time is spent sitting around talking. When you go over to someone's house, you sit down, have a drink, and talk. There is not a lot of urgency to get to any specific activity. There is also a lot of focus spent around meals - it felt like we were eating all the time. I was constantly being offered food... I had to learn to say no when I really had enough.

I think I did quite well with the food. I'm not sure if it's a regional or religious thing, but Shot's family eat completely vegetarian (or 'veg' as they call it there). Many dishes looked similar to me, like a greenish or brownish sauce about the consistancy of spaghetti sauce, with various items in it (vegetables, yogurt based items, tofu, etc.). Most items were very spicy. According to Rajni, Shot's sister in law, Indian restaurants in the U.S. do not prepare dishes with the same level of spices as they are prepared traditionally in India (American palettes can't handle it). I tried most everything (fortunately, they steered me away from a few things they thought my stomache wouldn't like). A few times I choked a little and my face turned red. The spicy taste is a lot different than say, a mexican spicy taste.

Indian people are some of the most hospitable I have ever met. The level of hospitality that Shot, his family and friends showed me was incredible, even a bit overwhelming at times. In the Hindu religion, guests are to be treated 'like god'. All of Shot's friends that were meeting me for the first time went out of their way to show me around, drive me places, take me out, take me shopping, show me things of interest, explain foods and customs to me. During the two main wedding days Shot was quite busy so I spent a lot of time with his friends. I did not spend any money when I was there, except the one day I went sightseeing by myself ($30). Absolutely everything was taken care of; there was never even any opportunity to argue. They told me I am considered their brother now, and I have a standing invitation to stay with about 10 different people in India now, use their cars, drivers, homes, cooks. After thinking about it somewhat, I think it's a lesson I can apply to my own life, I would like to work on being more selfless, to give myself more freely without expecting anything in return. I would like to have the same affect on people that many people I met had on me.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

India Part 1: Arrival

2006-07-04T02:38:00.001-05:00

It took 24 hours, 40 minutes door to door from my house in Chicago to Shot's in Jaipur, India. This record pace is probably the fastest way to get there.

It started at 4pm July 2nd, I left my house with my three bags for my great adventure to India. i thought pleasant thoughts about the journey. I headed toward the bus stop. Unfortunately, at that moment, the Cubs game ended... Thousands of people streamed onto Addison st. blocking my attempts to move in almost any direction. I gave up trying to get on a bus or catch a cab near the stadium and began walking west. 4 blocks later, a cab was finally spotted. There was two of us, it was going to be close... instead, I offered to share. That part worked out, the traffic however did not cooperate. It took about 50 minutes just to reach the blue line (3.5 miles away). Despite the added stress, I made it to the airport ontime, ready to go.

There is now direct service from Chicago to Delhi. For those who have never gone, this flight is 16 hours long - the 3rd longest commercial flight that I know of (1: New York -> Singapore, 2: Dubai -> Syndney). There is no other way of putting it, this flight is damn long. At my height coach sucks for me, but oh well. In a lucky break, the person next to me decided to move, so I got control of two seats and the armrest. There are about 5 movies playing, but only two in english (the other three in Hindi), and 3 meals served. I brought many many books along. Read...sleep...read....sleep....read....sleep

Arrival

It's 9:30pm local time in Delhi (Delhi and New Delhi are the same city, New Delhi is a district within Delhi) and it is hot - 94 degrees. Shot hadn't responded to my email in the previous 5 days, and I had almost no instruction on what to do once I reached the airport ("it will be taken care of"). With a slight bit of aprehension, I passed through customs, grabbed my bags, and proceeded out of the gates....... Fortunately, a guy was there holding a sign with my name on it. I walked over and said hello. It quickly became apparent that he spoke no English and we couldn't communicate. He motioned for me to come outside; I did. Both of us tried a a few attempts to make a phone call, with no luck. He motioned for me to get in the car, I figured he knew what was going on. After a bit of driving out of the airport, we stopped at a STD shop (As I was about to object I learned that in India this means a phone shop - stands for Standart Trunk Dialing). We got ahold of Shot, who explained that this guy would be driving me to Jaipur, he had some money so we could stop to eat, and to just relax as I would arrive in Jaipur in about 5 hours.

Whoa, thats a long time to go 150 miles.

Driving in India is one of of the most stressful experiences I have ever encountered. Let me rephrase, driving or being a passenger while someone is driving in India is hardcore to an American. Imagine the worst traffic jam you have ever been in.... Now take away all traffic rules..... Now add 100 motorcycles within 20 feet of your car, 300 pedestrians crossing the road, 12 people on bicycles, 4 camels, 2 horses, 5 cows, and an elephant. This is what we were dealing with as we tried to leave Delhi (at 10 at night).

For 5 long hours, exhausted from the flight I watched us risk our lives over and over, splitting the uprights between two semi's (on a two lane highway), watching trucks change into our lane and coming within inches of pinning us against the concrete divide, dodging tractors with no lights, dodging cows as they streak across the road to graze in the median.

To give you an idea of what it's like, check out this video which I took the next day on a routine street crossing.

Watch out for camels:

Or elephants:

Carpooling:

Cows are sacred in India, they are not owned by anyone nor are they used for labor. Pretty much they just roam around and do whatever the heck they feel like:

Finally, around 2:30am, we arrived in Jaipur. I proceeded directly to the hotel, I will begin exploring tomorrow.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.