Day 1

President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping - a historic first step.  An agreement on the world stage to combat climate change.  Maybe China and the lungs of its citizens have forced his hand.  Health costs are real (so stop saying its environment or economy).

The agreement they made, and China's promise to reduce emissions from coal plants by 2030 - a strategic direction, and probably the first foray in that direction from China.  Why does this matter?  China is a world power, the U.S. is a world power, and when they set a combined direction for reducing greenhouse gasses, it can only set the stage for other countries to follow suit.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is too late to "stop" climate change.  Like you can't stop that river of lava heading for that village in Hawaii.  When I was in Hawaii in September the road was closed, so you couldn't get close to it.  Even then, the local papers talked about previous attempts to "stop" a flow of lava - douse it, divert it, none of it worked.  Village residents were looking for hard to find dwellings in other Big Island towns.

Ah if it were that simple.  Just find a new dwelling planet.  There would be a market for PlanetBnB, so we could really continue the frontier mentality (even more than we already practice it in Oregon) and just keep moving to new planets.

For now, I am encouraged by President Xi Jinping's commitment to reducing greenhouse gasses.  Kind of a long schedule to get there.  But if our pres and China's pres can strike a chord on this common ground, even build a relationship, then there is hope for solving other problems, come what May.  Like how to accept climate refugees and find a new world order when the tropics are fried, you can swim in the Arctic in just a swimsuit, and we still want to eek out a living.

To Be Neutral, or Not To Be Neutral

I know it is seen as 'equitable' and 'fair' to be in favor of net neutrality, which would regulate internet companies to prevent any kind of two-tiered pricing.

Well tell me a market that does not have tiered pricing.  Does your cable company charge the same for 'basic cable' as for 'premium multi-lingual sports intense cable'?   Does your satellite company?  Despite the fact that the same bits are probably flowing over the same pipes, and clever software throttles what channels you can actually watch.

Even my water bill reflects tiered pricing.  A basic rate for a certain threshold of 'basic' service, then a higher rate for usage beyond that - to keep those zinnias looking colorful, and my chard from wilting and parching.  Oh and the blueberries growing over the season.

Gasoline - tiered pricing.  Food - tiered pricing (I like cheap cuts of meat, still trying to follow my historical $4 per meal per package), so when my husband asks me, as he did tonight - what kind of meat is this?  Um, meat - you know, maybe chuck steak or something?  With a clever recipe like Beef Provencale, you can get by with cheap cuts.  Would he notice if I fed him a strip steak?

So I have to think twice before I go along with every other blue Oregon bubble voter on this thing.  We have all been lucky, I am lucky at this very moment, with internet service available to me.  Not free.  Should people who consume bandwidth for streaming games and movies pay more?  Maybe I am old fashioned, but I pay for streaming internet service from XM.

If companies can't charge more for premium service, but all firms are mandated to abide by the same regulatory pricing scheme - how will this incentivize any firm to offer new services?  Their pricing strategy is already going to be fixed.  So lets take a rational policy view about this.

My Monied Friends

Well, not my monied friends, but if I was President, I bet I would.  Obama does.  W did.

It is not about political stripes, there are entrenched monied interests on both sides of the aisle.  There are entrenched social welfare groups, just as there are entrenched pharmaceutical and military interests.

How I might wish that there were pure policy decisions based on merit, or serving the most people, or achieving worldwide aims like reducing rural poverty, or even clean drinking water for everyone.  In this country, parts of which are still seeking these opportunities.

But what happens to someone who climbed to the top of the political food chain, and is leader of the Free World?

I have thought lately that this designation is just so much history.  In what ways is the U.S. the leader of anything in the world?  Perhaps from the inside you are too used to things and cannot see your own country objectively.  I wonder how my Canadian daughter thinks about her birthright?  I wonder if I will have culture shock after going to Peru for 2 weeks this fall.

Maybe the answer is a populist President.  Someone self-taught, home-schooled even. Not any ivy league connections. No monied friends to hand out all that federal cash to.

The Peaceful Transfer of Power

I love the pomp and ceremony of an inauguration.  Still, happy to be watching from my warm living room.

Obama's main theme - togetherness.  We accomplish great things, together.  Not exactly riveting.

Themes for his second term:
* Clean energy - well, this doesn't exactly jive with reality, with our becoming energy independent, based on natural gas and petroleum reserves
* Immigration reform
* Middle class - same old campaign stuff

When all is said and done, I suppose it is the speech for today.  The call for togetherness is essential.  Maybe it will become a rallying cry, though it doesn't speak to me today.

The most moving thing about the inauguration ceremony was the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir singing "Battle Hymn of the Republic", reminding us that we are forged from war, that we are a republic, and that our glory is both individual and collective, based on being God's creations.

Nearly the Eve of Inauguration

Cspan has been playing the 2nd inauguration addresses of past presidents, and they are interestingly alike.

All call for the US to be universally part of the world, fighting for democracy.  All call for us as a people to be One people, a unifying message.  I'm sure Obama's speechwriters want the legacy, so that when this speech is replayed by cspan-of-the-future it will again bring a tear to our eyes in its universal appeal to the human condition, need to be part of a country we can be proud of, need to be part of the world order and creating order out of entropy in the world.

Reagan spoke about all of us.  Even Clinton spoke about individual responsibility.

At one time I thought Obama was inspiring, maybe Monday he will suddenly realize a legacy is not founded on championing class warfare, but on unity.  Not founded on berating your enemies, but in doing the biblical thing and meeting them.  We shall see.

It has got be beyond optics.

I will not report, speculate, or ponder..

If I captured one quote a day from Mr Jay Carney, the President's press secretary, it would provide a compilation of Big Government statements devoid of content.

Pressed today by the press (hey!), he did not reply to their questions about the President's gun policies.  29 executive orders tomorrow on gun control.

Now wait, can he do that?  Well, I suppose our legislative process is broken.  And power loves a vacuum..

Even on Satellite Radio

I thought Romney came through clear and uncluttered, and to the point.  And even on radio, Obama sounded defensive.  And even referred to his own health care policy as "Obamacare", which some find disparaging.

Then again, do debates sway voters?  They say the slice of undecided voters is quite thin this time around.  So Romney would have to steal votes.

Which is possible.  Can't wait for the foreign policy debate, just 2 weeks before the election.  Then again, I've already declared myself a Paul Ryan voter - with now his human running mate Mitt Romney.

Beyond the Rhetoric

It could have been someone like Condi Rice, or Rob Portman, and then I would have a choice.  Or it could have been someone like Marco Rubio, or Chris Christie, which would be interesting.  But Paul Ryan.  Lets give him some credit.

The rhetoric and devil names are already coming out, since I still seem to be on Mr Obama's favorites email list.  I get to hear about all the rich and famous movie stars he will be dining with.  Is this supposed to make me think he can solve fiscal policy problems, and get us on a sustainable path to the future? So that my kids won't have to pay for my medical bills when I am aged, and their kids don't have to wait till generations hence to cash in that Millenium Barbie (please try to save it till Year 3000)..

As they explained on Poli-Optics, when our own Ron Wyden joined up with Mr Ryan to propose Medicare reform, well some of us wrote letters of praise.  Yes, bipartisan cooperation!  Yes, a chance at real reform!  But Poli-Optics explained how Wyden was chastised so badly by the Democrats that no one else was going to stick their neck out.

It is going to be painted as an epic battle between good and evil.  Light and Darkness.  Before you believe, like apparently half the cspan callers-in (the other half are authentic!) the rhetoric, stop and think.

Who is actually trying to solve our fiscal problems.  Who is actually putting forth solutions - maybe not perfect ones - but even trying to start the conversation.  Who cares about the American economy and is not willing to give up on it, and let us sink into a hand-out society.  Which is really what we've become.

Beyond the rhetoric, give Paul Ryan a chance - he is authentic.  And now Romney has my vote too!

Political Cover

What does it take?  Can I run down to the local antique dealer/lotto shop/gun shop, in a neighborhood near my nice urban enclave, and buy an automatic assault rifle?

Now don't get me wrong, AK-47s have their place.  I will always always remember the brave truck drivers like Reynaldo, from my 2-week stint in Nicaragua doing random technical chores (in solidarity).  He carried such a weapon on his food distribution rounds.

Well, if that is what it takes to get rice and beans to equalize inequality in a less developed nation, then I am all for it.

But we do not live in a less developed country.  Though it appears every day that Oregon is in some kind of dis-reality bubble.  But nevermind state politics.  Assault rifles.

Listened to the weasley Jay Carney, President Obama's press secretary, on the "reaction" to the latest episode of horrific violence on normal average Americans.  This incident in Milwaukee Wisconsin, the last in Colorado.  And the evening radio news talking about cracking down on gang violence in my city of roses (my city!!).

Mr Carney spoke about needing a broader discussion beyond specific legislation, aimed at reducing violence overall.  So - the time is not right for anti-assault weapon legislation?  But to talk about stuff??  Like some sort of encounter session?

Flash the episode of West Wing - the one where Josh gets shot.  Maybe if someone close to the core of power was involved, instead of normal average Americans, who are supposedly represented by The Executive Branch We Voted For, then maybe the time would be right?  Help us all.

The Seeds of ..

If you lived in a country where someone was jailed for failure to file taxes..

If you lived in a country where "executive privilege" was a reason to hide policy decisions from its citizens that resulted in dead federal employees, due to guns run from its own agents..

If you lived in a country where the elected branch of government was continually engaged in political theatre, and nothing else..

If you lived in a country where the chief executive had broad powers - to exempt key fundraisers from any criminal prosecution (whats a couple $billion?), power to pass laws unilaterally, target drones on U.S. citizens in foreign countries on his say so, orchestrate more policies to stop life in its tracks by witholding care from aborted babies..

If you lived in a country where the rich stayed rich, the poor stayed poor, the vanishing middle class stood close to the edge of peasantry..

This used to be considered the definition of a "third world country".  Now the politically correct term is "less developed"..

But - this is the US of A.

What has gone wrong with this picture.  We have surely lost our way.

Today Tomorrow Yesterday

I miss cspan.  Well, its still there, its just that I don't have as much (or any) time to legitimately watch it on the job anymore, what with this project management coup and all..

Listened to some of the House Budget Committee hearing this past week on cspan radio.  Paul Ryan is all about "social mobility".  Then I reflect on Obama and how he rails against the unfair tax system, wanting to divide the pie now for everyone.

Yesterday.  The 5th amendment to the Constitution "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  So, shall I hand over more of my hard earned paycheck (private property) for public use (more bailouts, handouts, and the like) - where is my just compensation?

Today I see a debt this country owes of $16 trillion and growing.  Had to ask a lawyer friend what comes after Trillion?  To my surprise he answered right away, Quadrillion.  Of course, there must be something to those Latin roots and all.

Yesterday, people learned the classic languages - Greek (so they could read the original un-translated Bible) and Latin (the root of all the romance languages).

Our national discussion now routinely includes trillions, but some day may evolve to quadrillions.  It seems meaningless, except that it will render every human in this country (and then some) with a debt choke collar around their neck.  Perhaps all the amor over dogs in Portland is just training us for the day when each of us has a debt load that chokes off our social mobility.

hmm, Atlas Shrugged on my bookshelf, awaiting completion.  Required reading for Paul Ryan's staff.  If he were candidate for VP, I would vote Republican.

Andresson Watch

Its always fun to determine trends from one data point.  Case in point, Marc Andresson.

If you don't know who he is then you are too young, or too old.  But if you've been following the internet since its inception, you know, when Al Gore invented it, then you know he was the entrepreneur behind Netscape.  Which was a popular browser, no doubt engaged in mortal lawsuit combat with Microsoft, who of course always likes to have the shiniest toys on the block, even if they have to bully their way to it, and buy up all the other browsers on the block, and buy ice cream cones for everyone too..

In the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign, Mr Andresson gave the maximum in campaign contributions to Obama.  I don't know what the amount was back then, but assumably some amount where you can use a 'fraction' and 'a million' in the same sentence.  Probably not 3/8 of $1Million (does not have a great ring to it), though it might have been.

In the current 2012 Obama campaign, perhaps to hedge his bets, he gave $100K to the Romney campaign.  Of course all of this is public record, unless of course the money went to a "Super PAC" which then can give money to anyone, and its all legit.

Is this the pulse of Silicon Valley politics?  Steve Jobs, when hammered by Obama about caring about jobs in the US, responded that he didn't have any responsibility to create jobs in the US.  Quintessential business, and the mantra of the last decade (and this) was "maximize shareholder return".  Notwithstanding the cute "happiness index" that some economists like to play with - hey, beats Solitaire I suppose.

But why would this Silicon Valley entrepreneur give real money to the Romney campaign, instead of to the Canmpaigner-in-Chief?  I think Steve Jobs answered this question quite well, and for many business people.  But alas, does anyone remember Mr Andresson?  On the revered Tim Farley Morning Briefing show, he was referred to as 'Mr Anderson', as if he was one of those drones who control The Matrix.

This isn't France, and Obama is not a socialist.  But businesses aren't in it to tend to the poor among us, or to tithe their income, or to satisfy the ole Democratic Party.  They are in it for capitalist freedom, which the US still espouses.  Now thats not in your Constitution, but maybe because of our Constitution, we have more private sector freedom that most nations.  And the Andressons of the world would like to preserve it.

Bake Sales for Bombers

Its real, the day is upon us.
Remember, back in the day, the t-shirt that said "It will be a fine day when schools have all the money they need, and the Military has to hold a bake sale to build a bomber".  And kids were climbing in sillouette on a jungle gym?

Yep, got one of those t-shirts, yellow-beige with green text.  Stored away someplace, awaiting moving to a new house.  If I had a dollar for every t-shirt I've saved, I could probably have a nice down payment.

So this week, the U.S. House passed a FY 2013 budget template, handing certain $dollar amounts to the 12 different subcommittees responsible for appropriation.  The meta picture is that they are working with a budget amount $1.028 trillion, that is less than that agreed to in last year's summer budget drama.  Just like an ongoing mystery saga that is so horrible you cannot avert your eyes, I do wonder what new drama this coming summer will bring - or more likely they will keep me hanging, cspan episode by cspan episode, till the fall.  And force me to squander early morning and late nights trying to see how it all ends - does he get the girl?  Do we fall into the ocean, with or without global warming?  Or do we elect some savior who brings our economy back to the exceptional place it once was?

The President has already said the budget figure is $1.047 trillion.  Honestly, these numbers don't mean anything to me - they sound pretty close.  I mean we're not building a rocket to Mars or anything, what is .019 trillion between friends?  Except of course no one is friendly in Congress, its all out war.

So the line items for the various appropriation bills show:  $573 billion, as an outlay for Defense.  Sounds like a lot.  Another category that I am obligated to follow is Labor/HHS/Education - and, while the discretionary portion is small, the 'mandatory' amount is $593 billion.  This covers mandatory spending (which is not discretionary, so not subject to slashes unless they take dramatic and revolutionary action) - includes unemployment insurance, Medicaid, Medicare.

So we are paying out more in entitlement programs than we are spending on the military.  Of course this is all projected for Fiscal Year 2013.  Which starts in October. 

Lets see, if I wanted to bake something for my favorite missle sysetm - I liked the ones they used in Libya.  We were the only country armed and ready to step in, at a moment's notice.  War Powers Act?  Hmm, well the President can engage in war for up to 60 days without Congressional approval.  And he did so.

People like those chocolate chip oatmeal cookies. They even sound healthy!  So if everyone in the country made a batch of cookies - sold them for $10, that is $10 * 300 million = $3 billion.  Sounds like enough for an arsenal of bombers.

Celebrity in Chief

Have been getting texts from my main man from November 4, 2008 this week.  He never calls, just texts.  Today he is trying insistently to get me to donate so I can win a dinner with not just him, but George Clooney too.  As if.  Yesterday it was just the Pres, so I suppose he felt that was not sufficient.

Now this is the 21st century, do you get it?  If you text me with some line like, "hey girl, what do you think about single sales factor today"?  Now that would hook me!

Who Are You?

For awhile there it was an initiative every day.
From health care reform to equal pay for women to clean energy investment to doubling exports. Yes our federal government has many domains.

Fundamentally, its domain is national security. The Rs will say, in their sing song political rhetoric, Obama is about "big government".

To which I generally think - big country - big government - FDR saved us from The Great Depression...

And yet - we have more warrantless wiretaps than ever before. Larger deficits than ever recorded. A larger debt burden, and growing.

National security. Am I safer than I was on November 19, 2009 (pre Obaama inauguration)?

Economically, we are all stuck feeling shattered. Maybe just maybe, Obama could ponder "less is more". If the federal government did less activist legislation - which only results in confrontation with opposing forces - maybe everyone could calm down a bit. Calm, less shattered. Is that a way forward?

Warren Buffet in Context

ok the Buffet Rule, our President's solution to fairness, tax policy reform, and deficit spending all wrapped up in a neat little package. Who could argue with that?

Except its none of these things.
Fairness - if our system was so broken, why after 5 years are we finally hearing about this? The facts (if anyone cares to listen to actual facts, instead of the lovely political rhetoric) are that the well off pay 60-80% of all tax revenue. So lets get past the percent paid and brackets on the brain, shall we? The road you travel down, the B-1 bomber in its silo, yep those wealthy ones with lots of capital gains - paying for most of it.

Tax policy reform - ha. At 70,000 pages of tax policy, lets add more!

Deficit spending. The real truth, as it came out today, is that implementing the Buffet rule would bring $46 billion to the Treasury over a 10 year period. Some context. That is $4.6 billion per year. Well remember that Stimulus, and all the unemployment benefits bequeathed on states to keep social order and protect the peace (and pay for food and rent)? Oregon netted over $2 billion in federal benefits. In context, $4.6 billion sounds like chump change.

One Size Fits All is not a 21st Century Strategy

You can tell the players by their keywords. A "balanced" tax plan - ok, Obama and the Democrats.

Today's NY Times had a play by play of the budget deal that fell through this summer. Since I am sick I took the liberty of pouring through this. I was reminded of how frustrating it was, being the designated cspan watcher at work, to not find any actual legislation or text about the various plans that were being talked about. Well thats cause there weren't any. That's a relief!

At one time, I recall the ad, senior citizens didn't have enough money to live a decent life. One lived in a chicken coop. Enter social security. Later one, enter Medicare. Retirement accounts and full medical care for all seniors.

And yet, this is still called a "safety net". Now it is a safety net if you are on the verge of living in a chicken coop and eating dog food. It is not a safety net if you have $millions in the bank, eat caviar in Switzerland, and can get cat-scans whenever you feel the need.

At one point, like in 1935 when the Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the average lifespan was age 65. So most people would not see any of these benefits, or maybe a day or two of this money.

In the 21st century, everything is customized. There are no more black rotary dial phones from Ma Bell. There is no large telecommunications firm where everyone's dad works, and the moms all stay home and bake cookies.

I have a smartphone and can pick any plan or color I want. Or I can not have one and therefore no GPS so the feds won't know my whereabouts. And people have to piece together jobs that satisfy them and pay their bills - most switch about 7 careers in their lives.

So why do we still have a one-size-fits-all social security plan, and Medicare plan. The easy term for this is "means testing". If by the time you are a senior, and have an elevated standard of living, then maybe just maybe, it is Your Turn to give back something to society.

Adaptive Programs

You can write programs that are linear, and always do the same thing with inputs. Or, you can write programs that run in infinite loops, and spend hours of your life debugging them. Hey, back in the 1980s when faced with what kind of computer science I should study, I stayed away from those hot new topics like Artificial Intelligence. Where you could write adaptive programs, like "Eliza", that you could talk to, and they could understand you, and adapt to you.

So how do you debug a President? This one produces the same policy output no matter the circumstances. Spent this morning reading President Obama's FY 2013 budget. Sort of an addictive habit (plus people just want to know what is buried in there)..

More stimulus - same old recycled policies from last year, the $$ to teachers and first responders. $$ for infrastructure like high speed rail, and affordable health care. $$ to Democratic voters (oops, being redundant).

So where is the President who is adaptive, like a computer program that reacts to new situations in new ways? The one, you know, who represents all Americans? Is there any hope for this?

Are You a Middle Class voter?

If so, then Obama was talking to you, in his State of the Union speech tonight. Lets see - stop offshoring jobs! A plea to get those nicely paid manufacturing jobs back. Tuition is too high! Responsible homeowners should be rewarded! $3000 for each of them! Drill baby drill, off our coastal shores!

And do you know why he had to raise the debt limit by $1.2 Trillion just last week? It was to pay for those tax breaks for the uber-rich, like Warren Buffet. Wait, are you sure that money didn't go to pay for the interest on the national debt? Or a B-1 bomber? Or maybe 99 weeks + 2 more months of unemployment insurance for millions?

What is an investment, and what is a payoff to supporters, and what is money down a black hole?

And how exactly are those promises going to be kept? I would like nothing more than manufacturing jobs to return.. but saying it does not make it so. Please, tooth fairy, I know I didn't lose any teeth lately, but I truly believe, and maybe that 50cents I got when I was 6 years old should continue to be compensated now, due to inflation you know.

Bottom line, there is no "there" there, no substance in this speech. But, it does precede his annual budget proposal in February, which will also have no bipartisan support. For now, it is promises to voters, who he hopes will remain on his side through November 6 at least (at most). Its the promise of "hope" and "change". Well how well did that work out last time ?

I don't hear the fat lady singing..

And this isn't the opera, with its endless dying scene.. We did see Aida, a masterpiece, the other year. It took a very very very very long time for someone to die at the end.

So this is not that tale. This is a tale of the latest "agreement" between Rs and Ds. Those tea party Republicans, those liberal Democrats. Both equally guilty of political theatre, at the expense of the American people.

I am not sure which is worse, the way the world feared and hated us under Bush II, or the way the world thinks we are completely dysfunctional right now. I could say "under Obama", but of course the extended cast of character is far broader. None of them sing, that I know of. Maybe they sing in cowboy poetry? Oh wait, that was nuked in the last federal budget.

Tiny secret: the Prez hasn't yet signed that Omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2012, and your favorite budget analyst may be talking about "cash on hand"... Good news here though, this legislation is at least on the "pending" list. So maybe Obama can sign before he goes off to improve his tan and snorkeling capabilities with the kiddos in Hawaii.

So back to singing. Boehner today says he basically "caved" and has agreed to a 2-month extension of the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits, Medicare reimbursement rates. Wait, we've heard that before. Is this tape on a loop? And is someone trying to break in and steal my new TV? Sounds like a bad movie.

But one week ago (last Friday), there was calm in DC when there was an "agreement". Then it unraveled Sunday with those dratted Sunday talk shows, exposing the truth, no deal. So a week of teeth-gnashing, and lo and behold another deal. This time for real..

Here is the kicker - Boehner personally needs to get 100% unanimous agreement from his membership to pass this bill by unanimous consent tomorrow. Maybe he can send them all electronic spiked egg nog and they will vote yes.

Like I said, I am going to wait till the fat lady is singing, till the dead are really dead, and the opera is really over.