Obama Smoking 'Issue'...

I continue to see little references to the fact that President-Elect Barack Obama has the occasional cigarette, and musings about whether or not he will or even should quit that nasty habit.  (I can say that because I did smoke cigarettes... a lot...and quit many years ago.)

I am amused that these musings probably come from people who were and are adamantly opposed to smoking but who are now being 'forced' to make excuses for the person they favored in the recent election.  Some of the musings have been nothing short of farcical including the comments that he might well make better decisions if he can smoke a cigarette while pondering the weighty issues of the office he occupies come January 20th.

Will this slow the inexorable tide to rid our nation of any and all cigarettes and all other tobacco products, to close any business that has the audacity to think it is a private entity entitled to make decisions as to the customers it will serve, to outlaw all public use of a lawful agricultural product?  I suspect not.

Does anyone detect any hypocrisy?  Does it matter to anyone?  Is this the sound of one hand clapping? 

~~~

More Scientists Join Global Warming Dissenters...

Dr. Will Happer, award winning Princeton University Physicist says, "I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken."  Happer, who was fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993, said of that incident, "I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy."

Additional dissenting scientists include:

• Dr. W.M. Schaffer, Ph.D. who is Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona - Tucson.
• CNN Meteorologist Chad Meyers, a meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American Meteorological Society.
• Engineer and Physicist J.K. "Jim" August, formerly of the U.S.Navy nuclear power program and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering.
• Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
• Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam's Royal Dutch Weather Bureau.
• MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately fifty years of teaching experience.
• Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements and who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
• German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist.
• Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience and a past member of the American Meteorological Society.
• Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich who has more than thirty years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government.

The story line of a "consensus agreement" is simply not true as we have come to understand with the more than 650 dissenters who have now made themselves and their views known.  Those who are pushing for rapid adoption of the so-called "consensus" are doing so for fear they are being disproved more with every passing day.  They cannot afford to answer the criticisms since they're hypothesis is riddled with error.

Is there any real need to rush to judgment?  Or is this more a contrived need with those pushing the global warming issue recognizing that once unleashed, the movement will go on and on and on regardless of the validity of the movement.  These things take on a life of their own as we have seen in any number of previous government-backed programs, without regard for facts.

This debate is far too important and far too costly for us to make an incorrect judgment.  We will literally ruin the economy of the United States if this is permitted to take root, and we're already sliding down a very slippery slope created by other government meddling where well enough should've been left to be.

The use of the term "debate" is really a reach since there has been only a one-sided diatribe to date; there has been no true debate. 

There is an excellent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning written by Fay Vincent, former baseball commissioner.  He discusses his earlier experiences while working in the Securities and Exchange Commission and reviewing the reports of corporate executive perks.

The theatrics we observed during the recent automobile executives' testimony only serves to remind us of the 'classes' that exist in our society.  That was very effective as a tool to embarrass the executives, but it played a spotlight on what, to me, is at least as serious a problem as are corporate jets in our present economic situation.

Mr. Vincent also tagged our elected representatives for the perks they have given themselves over the years.

Two things jumped out:

• Elected officials have a fleet of military 'executive' jets awaiting their needs and stationed at Andrews Air Force base near the capitol.  Not many of them has ever likely flown on commercial flights when they go abroad on their junkets.  Nancy Pelosi was taken to task for her reported use of military jets to fly her home from Washington, D.C. to California.  She was angry that she didn't get as good a jet as she thought she deserved.  Hers had to stop to re-fuel and that was apparently an unbearable delay. 
• How many members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate have flown on those very same corporate executive jets when on their way to 'speaking' engagements or some other junket?

At least the corporate executives are taxed on the perks they receive.  I don't recall that is the case for our elected representatives when they fly on a military flight or use other perks they've managed to create for themselves like a gymnasium. 

Our elected officials supposedly are required to reimburse for the costs incurred if they fly on corporate aircraft, but I suspect there are some methods employed to assure that they remain 'whole', such as through an increase in speaker fees to offset any out-of-pocket expense that might have been incurred.

We have an 'elected' class and a 'rest of us' class.

If you've watched the Fox News Channel chances are good that you've seen Judge Andrew Napolitano, the dapper and perpetually happy senior judicial analyst for Fox News.  He has written a piece titled "Most Presidents Ignore The Constitution" that appears on the Opinion page of today's Wall Street Journal.

He writes about the 2001 Public Radio interview of Barack Obama where Obama was lamenting that the civil rights movement had become too 'court centered' and therefore failed to cause 'reparations' for past abuses.  That, of course, serves as quite a bombshell so far as future implications if he is elected and presuming he has the same thoughts today that he held then.

I thought, however, that the balance of the opinion piece was quite interesting as Judge Napolitano discussed how the majority of presidents of our country have ignored the Constitution and forged ahead as they desired.  Roosevelt caused agriculture to be subjected to a "Soviet-style central planning" process and rejected arguments that this was unconstitutional.  Roosevelt said that the Constitution was "quaint" and that it was written in the "horse and buggy days" and predicted that the public and the courts would agree with him according to Napolitano's article.

Napolitano cites that Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland were the exceptions he recalled who didn't ignore the Constitution.

As we move into the next presidency, regardless of who wins, I'll have to remind myself that most have ignored our Constitution whenever I feel the current President has crossed the line.  He probably will have crossed the line, and appears to have had a lot of company over the history of our country.

We have survived even with the intentional ignoring of our Constitution...but it doesn't seem right no matter who ignores that document.  Where will it end, if it ever will end?

I received an e-mail containing the following quotations and thought it simply had to be in front of as many readers as possible as we approach perhaps the most important election in my lifetime.  Much food for thought follows:

• Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of Congress, but then I repeat myself.---Mark Twain
• I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.---Winston Churchill
• A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.---George Bernard Shaw
• Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.---James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
• Foreign aid must be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.---Douglas Casey, classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown
• Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.---P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
• Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.---Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
• Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And, if it stops moving, subsidize it.---Ronald Reagan (1986)
• I don't make jokes.  I just watch the government and report the facts!---Will Rogers, Humorist (1879-1935)
• If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it is free.---P.J. O'Rourke
• In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.---Voltaire (1764)
• The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.  The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.---Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
• What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.---Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
• A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.---Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Patriot (1743-1826)

 Some things, it seems, never change.

Conservatives are accustomed to being involved in 'come from behind' situations and many of those, I submit, are created by the media.

For those of you seeking a decent piece on media double standards, I invite you to read the Human Events opinion piece by Patrick J. Buchanan titled Camp Followers.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then we have the debate concerning experience over hope with hope appearing to be ahead at this point in the race.  Charles Krauthammer has done a good job on his Washington Post opinion piece, McCain for President.

~~~~~~~~~~

Finally a cute little item that you may've seen before:

A woman in a hot air balloon realizes she is lost.  She loses altitude and spots a man fishing from a boat below.

She shouts to him, "Excuse me, can you help me?  I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his GPS unit and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above the ground at an elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level.  You are at 31 degrees 15 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees 49 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican".

"I am", replied the man.  "How did you know?"

"Well", she answered, "everything you tell me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost.  Frankly, you're not much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat".

"I am", replied the woman.  "How did you know?"

"Well", said the man, "You don't know where you are or where you're going.  You've risen to where you are, due in large part to hot air.  You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect me to solve your problem.  You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it is my fault."

The following words are variously attributed to both Abraham Lincoln and to Rev. Wm. J.H. Boetcker (circa 1916).  Without debating from whom they flowed, I thought it very important that these be shared during this particularly important election season.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could, and should, do for themselves.

Powerful words and powerful thoughts, indeed!

Lincoln's 200th birthday will see new 2009 pennies issued.  That raises the question as to why we still have pennies.  Is it to weigh down a lady's purse or cause a man's pocket to bulge and jingle?  Is it to fill all those glass jars in which people collect their unused pennies?

A Cox News Service article by Chris Megerian discussed some of the facts regarding pennies.

In answer to the question posed in the headline, a penny minted in 2007 cost 1.7 cents but the U.S. Mint has gotten that cost down to about 1.4 cents today.

A penny in 1857 had the buying power that a quarter has today.  I've not seen anything in recent memory that could be purchased for a penny, and I probably wouldn't want it if it were only a penny.  On the other hand, I used to covet pennies because, as a kid, I could buy all kinds of candy at the corner grocery store with a few pennies!

It seems to me that we have outlived the usefulness of the penny.  It should be eliminated and we should simply re-price things and round up or down to the nearer nickel.  There used to be a half-penny but that was eliminated in 1857.  We really ought to 'get with it' and make this happen.

There have been attempts in Congress in both 2002 and in 2006 to eliminate the penny, but both attempts failed.  The U.S. Mint produced 7.4 billion pennies last year.  At a cost of 1.4 cents each, that comes to over $103 Million if my long-hand math hasn't been lost completely.

I know that doesn't sound like much to our members of Congress, but it sounds like a whole lot to me!  Especially for a coin that we simply don't have to have.

Cigarette Taxes...

The state raised cigarette taxes to $1.77 per pack and promptly budgeted/spent all the new money that would bring in.  The only problem is that this 230% increase in the tax rate only generated a 48% increase in the tax money received!  Now, we're stuck with a lot of people circumventing the tax entirely by buying cigarettes out-of-state or over the Internet.  And, we have added to an already staggering budget shortfall.

Makes a lot sense, huh?

~~~~~

Clean Air Act Gone Wild...

One of my favorite agencies, the EPA, has decided that it now has free rein over so-called greenhouse gases.  This came to pass as the result of a 'namby-pamby' U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that didn't go quite far enough to ward off this rampant agency.  EPA has now released its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-making, an ANPR in the jargon, and this is astonishing.  EPA would regulate airplanes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, farm and mining equipment, lawn mowers, garden equipment, portable power generators, fork lift trucks, construction equipment and logging equipment.

EPA estimates that more than 500,000 new permits will be required.  Among the supposed new requirements are these:

• Lawn mower standards:  "...each application could require a different unit of measure tied to the machine's mission or output-such as grams per kilogram of cuttings from a 'standard' lawn for lawn mowers."
• Truck speed standards:  "Speed limiters are generally available on new trucks or as a low cost retro-fit..."
• Single family homes become polluters:  "...we believe that small commercial establishments...and indeed, a large single-family residence could exceed this [CO2 pollution] threshold."

All of this means that our taxes go up exponentially since the EPA will be forced to grow staff and facilities to handle this new found mission.  And, it means that we'll all pay more for products and services.

And, none of this was ever the intent of Congress nor has it had the opportunity to inject itself to this point.

~~~~~

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs...

Regular, nice old incandescent light bulbs (starting with 100 watt bulbs) become illegal to manufacture in 2012.  The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) points out that this means we can forget about spending 20 cents or so for the old bulb while buying the new CFLs for something on the order of $3.00+ (remember that these are usually subsidized today).

While CFLs save energy, they have costs associated with them that make all this really questionable:

• The average lifetime is not 10,000 hours, but "up to 10,000 hours"
• The energy savings and lifetime of CFLs has been exaggerated in some applications
• The CFL only achieves the claimed efficiency if burned continuously for long periods
• If left on for only 5 minute periods, the CFL will burn out just as fast as an incandescent bulb
• CFLs dim over their lifetime and do not deliver what is promised

And, we're adding mercury to the environment which supposedly will be handled by proper disposal.  Yeah, sure!  How many of us has disposed of a burned out CFL improperly already?  How is that ever going to be policed?

~~~~~

Clean Water Restoration Act...

The EPA is back again.  The original Clean Water Act of 1972 had gotten to be very broadly interpreted under various EPA rulings.  "Navigable waters" had morphed into isolated wetlands, dry lake beds and drainage ditches, for example.  Now, two Democrat members of Congress have introduced the bill named in the title.  It would replace the phrase "navigable waters" with the phrase "waters of the United States"  This means "all waters subject to ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds and all impoundments of the foregoing".  Reason magazine, August/September 2008

If this bill were to pass in its current state, it would very likely result in massive new regulations for boaters, fishermen, hunters, and even conservationists.  This act would leave it to the courts to decide what constitutes "waters of the United States".

Thanks to Ronald Bailey for writing the article "Feds in a Fishbowl" in Reason.

~~~~~

Anti-Meat Campaign...

Finally, from the Heartland Institute, this on global warming activists' latest efforts.  They are launching new efforts to restrict meat production and consumption, building on prior efforts to restrict various agriculture activities that supposedly would reduce 'greenhouse gases'.

More on this can be found on the worldchanging.org website.

If we continue to have a ban on drilling more oil, we won't be able to buy meat anyway, so maybe this isn't as bad as I first thought.

Maybe we really do have too many crackpots in Congress...or too many people are being paid through campaign contributions and don't have the commonsense necessary to sort out the good from the crazy.

Oregon has had government involved in health care for quite a few years.  The state electorate also approved the concept of state sanctioned suicide several years ago.

Recently, the board that reviews the medications that are approved for state residents made a determination that was controversial...in my mind if no where else.  The board, in essence, said that, given the cost of a certain medication, it would approve suicide for this patient but would not approve use of the medicine given its relative newness and the lack of convincing data as to the outcome.  It had essentially set a price on the human life involved.

Today I read the story concerning Denver Children's Hospital and heart transplants in infants that use the heart from another infant that died a 'cardiac-related death'.  This differs from a heart harvested from a brain-dead infant in which that heart is beating until removed from the donor body.  A decision has been made that the donor that has been pronounced dead and has been in that state for only 75 seconds, is a valid heart donor for purposes of this new program.  The earlier line that had existed required death be determined only after some five minutes during which time the heart did not re-start itself.  In this instance, the length of time a person had been deemed 'dead' had been reduced to assure that the harvested heart had a decent chance of functioning in the new body.  The three cases in which this approach has been employed resulted in three infants alive today.  The decisions to withdraw life support were made by the parents in all three instances.

We know so much more today than we did a decade ago.  We can do things from a medical perspective that were impossible then, and these procedures have become commonplace now.  We are, in this area, pushing the envelope as it has never before been pushed.

I know there are at least two sides to these issues.  I have good friends whose daughter lives today because of transplanted organs that were available on a timely basis.  I can't even begin to comprehend being placed in the middle of such decisions, and I earnestly hope that never befalls me.

And this leads to my general question:  Is there a line we dare not cross?  If so, where is or was that line?  Am I comfortable with an appointed board making life and death decisions about me?  Who among us can claim the right to make such a decision?  How do medical ethicists deal with these kinds of issues?

I don't profess to have the answers to these questions.  If you do, and you're willing to share, I'd appreciate your comments.

As we watch the Summer Olympics, we see the pageantry and the heroics of the athletes from around the world. 

We don't see the oppression that has persisted for centuries in China and that continues to persist under the very noses of those who are walking the streets of Beijing.

TV cameras and microphones have been installed in all the taxi cabs and are remote controlled by the authorities to be sure that no one says or does something threatening to the regime.  130,000 police and soldiers are present ostensibly to protect the attendees.  They also help assure that the opposition will be suppressed during the games.

300,000 Chinese citizens augment the 130,000 people mentioned above as additional eyes and ears.  Reporters are subject to censorship.  Passports are summarily pulled from some reporters who have sought to broadcast by telephone back to their home countries.  That is a subtle form of reminder that the regime is in complete control and that one shouldn't forget it.

Against this backdrop, the President stood aligned with Chinese protestants this morning to deliver a few words of support.  We don't know what kind of persecution will follow when the reporters and TV crews leave, but we can remember the Tienanmen Square episode of a few years ago and draw upon those scenes of brutality to get some idea.

China is China.  Nothing more and nothing less.  It owns a big chunk of America.  It spies on us every day.  It works to find weaponry that can be used against us.  It still wishes to defeat us; if not on an actual battlefield, then in commerce.  We seem to forget these things, but they are critical.

Back on July 21st, I Blogged about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" that would compel radio stations to mount the same number of hours daily for 'liberal' talkers as they do for 'conservative' talkers.  This would, in the minds of the liberals in Congress, equalize the message of the two differing points of view. 

On the heels of that, we saw the 'celebration' of Rush Limbaugh's twentieth anniversary as a conservative 'talker' this past Friday.  There is not, to my knowledge, a liberal radio personality anywhere with anything near the run that Limbaugh has had and will continue to have according to the new $38 million contract signed that takes his nationally-syndicated program into 2016.

This drives the liberals nuts but it has nothing to do with 'unfairness', and everything to do with the difference in messages.  We Americans, thankfully, are able to listen to anything we prefer.  If we preferred the Air America message, it wouldn't be struggling and on its third owner in nearly the same number of years.  We prefer the conservative message.  Liberals fight battles using class warfare actually pitting one group against another group to create animosity that the left believes will result in votes for its candidates.

If you follow any of the national debates, you'll see this clearly.  Conservatives understand the free market forces and seek more oil being drilled recognizing that this will drive prices down.  Liberals still cannot tolerate the concept of the free market since they find it threatening, and, therefore see everything through the prism of taxation forcing certain behaviors.  They believe that taxes on the 'egregious' profits of oil companies will result in lowered prices in the marketplace.  They simply do not want to understand that oil companies don't pay taxes; the customers of oil companies pay taxes...and that is us.

That starkly displays the difference in message, and it explains why there is a Rush Limbaugh and why his popularity is probably the equal or better of all the liberal 'talkers' in combination.  And it explains the extreme dislike, even hatred, with which the likes of Limbaugh are perceived by their enemies.  It also explains why liberals think that legislation will cure this problem as well as all other problems.

This 'freedom of thought-freedom of speech' thing is a real problem...for those whose thoughts are not swallowed by the listening masses.

It is expected that Corsair Capital, a New York based private equity group will sign a deal with National City today that will affect Germantown.  You've guessed by now, if you're a regular reader, that the effect is to keep our newest bank name, National City Bank, in Germantown, at least for the foreseeable future.  Corsair and some other individual investors will put around $6 billion into National City at a share price of some $5.00.

We earlier traced the evolution from St. Francis Bank to Mid America Bank to National City Bank in the first Blog that discussed the plight of National City.  It's shares closed at $8.33 on Friday and that marked a 52 week decline in value of 78%.

So, it appears that my friendly, efficient bankers in Germantown will continue to be there when I need them.  I'm happy for them and for me and the rest of their customers.  Changing banks is a nuisance.  If there are direct deposits, those must be changed.  If there are automatic withdrawls, those must be changed.  New checks and bank cards must be obtained, and decisions as to which of the numerous accounts offered is the right account need to be made.  If Internet banking is involved, there is another level of change, and if telephone banking is involved, yet another level.

We sometimes are oblivious to the things that happen on Wall Street and the world but many of those distant happenings directly involve us in one or another ways.  This whole subject has been one that most of us has not followed...and yet it has an impact on our nice little village.  Our economy has truly become a global economy whether for the better or not.  IBM sold its laptop computer business to a company in China.  The Jaguar and Range Rover nameplates are now owned by a company in India.  GM is building a new engine plant in Brazil.  Medical x-rays are read off shore.  When the Far East markets hiccup, Wall Street flinches.  The demand for gasoline and diesel fuel in India and China have thrown our prices into a seemingly unending upward spiral.

Perhaps more important, these changes have occurred in a relatively short span of time..in decades rather than centuries.

A short week ago I wrote about Eliot Spitzer and the havoc that he had wrought as the Attorney General of the State of New York.  I referred to the 'trail of carnage' that he had left behind in his quest for higher office.

Yesterday the press reported about his apparent involvement in a prostitution ring, and we witnessed his non-apology apology delivered in front of his weary and saddened wife.  Eliot Spitzer appears to have been caught up in his own 'trail of carnage' as has his wife and their three daughters.  He will likely be forced from office in disgrace; he could be indicted on federal charges since the prostitute traveled across state lines to meet him in his Washington, D.C. hotel room where he registered in the name of one of his friends.

His political enemies, and there are legions of those, are after his head, politically speaking.  Politics in New York is indeed blood sport.  The story will unfold over the coming days and weeks and months.

But all this notwithstanding, there still are those who were hurt by this megalomaniac (my diagnosis) during his meteoric ride.  And there are those who have been hurt badly by this latest revelation.

Yet, as much as I dislike the actions of this man, I feel saddened, particularly for his family.  It may be that his past has caught up with him; I don't know.  But I still think of those who lost companies and positions and reputations by his doing.  Forgiveness is difficult but certainly a worthy goal, especially it seems for an Eliot Spitzer.

Eliot Spitzer was the New York State Attorney General before he became Governor of that state.  Spitzer has the well-deserved reputation as a 'pit bull'.  The Wall Street Journal editors brought up his trail of carnage (my term) today discussing what he did to major organizations in America with his 'pit bull' style of threatening companies with enough damage to cause them to 'voluntarily' do as he directed they do. He made himself the investigator, the accuser, the judge and the jury.

The two companies mentioned this morning are AIG, the world's largest insurance organization, at least at that time, and Marsh & McLennan, a leading U.S. insurance brokerage organization.  Spitzer's threats caused both companies to fire their Chairmen.  Both companies have been on a downhill slide ever since costing shareholders huge sums of money in retirement funds, stock portfolios and so forth.  Many of these investors are you and me, whether or not we know it.

Those were companies caught up in Mr. Spitzer's web in New York City.  There was another that is much nearer and dearer to many in the Milwaukee area.  Strong Funds, and the related companies in Dick Strong's business holdings at the time, found themselves caught up in the Spitzer meat grinder.  The charges were of a questionable nature but that didn't stop the meat grinder that was Eliot Spitzer.  The Strong organization's good name was soon damaged beyond repair.

In the end, Dick Strong was forced to sell his companies at essentially 'fire sale' prices.  He paid significant fines for the trading activities in which he supposedly engaged.  The remains are now operated as part of the Wells Fargo organization.  The hundreds and hundreds of Strong employees who lost their jobs have, I hope, found their way into other organizations and may have forgotten much of the anguish they were personally subjected to by the Spitzer meat grinder.

Dick Strong, who was, and is, one of the finest men our community could hope to have in it, has survived.  Certainly his personal wealth probably has diminished somewhat although he is not in danger of losing a home or having nothing to eat.  There are some who will look at his situation and feel good because one of the 'haves' got what he deserved.  Those people are sadly misinformed and will simply have to live with their misshapen ideas.

The real loss has been for our community.  The companies Dick ran were major contributors to the community.  Those companies are gone and I doubt that Wells Fargo has taken over the philanthropy that was once the domain of the Strong group of companies.  Few buyers would have done so.  I am sure that Dick is still doing good works because that is who he is.

All this because a man named Eliot Spitzer managed to bull his way through the office of Attorney General of New York state in his quest for the Governor's chair and maybe even a run for President at some point in his political career.  I'll remember to my last day, and I'll remain saddened over what this man brought upon us...in the name of justice.

I will be in our nation's capitol for a few days and thought I'd share thoughts from here for those who might be interested.  I have been coming out for the past few years to meet with our Wisconsin Representatives and Senators on behalf of an industry trade association of which I'm a part.

This is always an interesting trip.  As I stepped outside Reagan National airport this afternoon, I was greeted by temperatures in the low 50s and a sunny sky.  This is where it disappeared to from Wisconsin!  Our special airline, Midwest, made the ride very comfortable and the cookies were just as good as ever.

As I rode into the city toward my hotel, I noticed the fairly large number of tourists out and about, lining up to see the Washington Monument, strolling on The Mall and gawking at all the famous buildings like we tourists do.  Our nation's capitol is a very special place no matter how maddening some of the laws that are passed here seem to us.  It is the place that the rest of the world looks to as the home of the greatest democracy ever seen.  They sometimes love to hate us, but they almost all envy what we have.

The city is comprised of people from virtually every country in the world.  Some are here as diplomats, others have moved here for one reason or another and still more are students.  It is a truly cosmopolitan city. 

I am fortunate to only see the better parts of Washington, for this great city isn't so great as one moves outward from the epicenter.  It is probably the most government-dependent community in our country, and it doesn't work very well from my perspective.  Tight gun controls haven't stopped the shootings.  There are only a handful of places where I can puff a cigar for all indoor smoking has been banned.  The homeless beg for money within a hundred yards of the White House and live in the many parks and on the many benches found in the city. 

As you can tell, I see a city of vast contrasts.  On The Hill, our elected representatives occupy the seat of government while a few miles away one can see some of the poorest sections of any city in America.  I am always torn by that, but I know I'll be home in Germantown soon.  It is a shame that some of these residents can't 'go home' to a Germantown somewhere.  And, it's a shame that some of the politicians can't do us a favor, and go home wherever that is for them.

Earmarks...

The Republicans are fighting amongst themselves over whether or not to try to control their budget 'earmarks', and if so, how to proceed.  The party's elected members met over the week-end and failed to take any real steps to end earmarks.  The President is expected to address earmarks in his State of the Union address this evening.  It is reported that he will tell Congress that he'll veto any appropriation bills for 2009 that have greater than 50% as much in the way of earmarks as the same bill in 2008 carried.

That is a start, but until we have convinced our elected officials that they are spending our money and not their money, we will make little if any real progress.

And, this may well be the only true bipartisan area we have.  It is an affliction of both major parties as well as the small group calling themselves independents.

Limits On The WCCA...

WCCA stands for Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation and it has a website that you can access here.

This site permits any citizen to locate information about court decisions, charges filed, cases scheduled and so on by county.  If you have an interest in where the case involving John and Jane Doe stands, you would access the site, pick the county (if you know it) and key in one of the names.  You'll then see the actions that have been taken, dismissals if that is the case, etc.

For some strange reason there have been two recent attempts to limit public access.  Last summer, two Democrats (Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids and Kessler of Milwaukee) mounted such an effort.  They would've permitted access only for court officials, law enforcement personnel, attorneys and journalists.  Now Rep. Vos (R-Racine) and Sen. Lassa (D-Stevens Point) want to limit access by removing certain cases from this site.  Those cases or charges would include a civil forfeiture or misdemeanor within 90 days after dismissal, a finding of not guilty or if the case has been overturned on appeal and then dismissed.  Felonies would carry the same requirement except the time frame would be extended to 120 days.

Both of these efforts are misguided at best and an assault on our rights at worst.  Wouldn't the accused rather have the information there for all to see if he or she had been absolved or if the case had been dismissed.  Why would we be concerned about those convicted? 

An example of the significance can be found in articles now running in the Journal Sentinel concerning physicians who have been involved in numerous complaints alledging malpractice over the course of time.  Many of those records would become unavailable under these efforts to wipe the slate clean.  This is not only an assault on our rights but it is also potentially going to endanger lives.

Anti-Gun Proposals...

Many in the group that would outlaw ownership of guns, or the group that wants to ban the carrying of guns (that is legal in 47 other states) would have us believe that their solution is the answer.

Here are some snippets that seem to point in the other direction:

• New Jersey adopted a very strict gun law in 1966 and by 1968 the murder rate was up 46% and the robbery rate was up nearly 100%.
• Hawaii adopted a series of anti-gun laws and its murder rate tripled over the next ten years.
• Washington, D.C. imposed strict gun control laws in 1976; its murder rate has grown by 134% since.
• England banned handgun ownership in 1997, and the number of citizens injured by firearms has more than doubled since.
• Prior to these actions, the statistics cited had been falling.

When guns are banned, only the bad guys have guns.  In states where concealed carry laws are in place, the bad guys really have to think hard about trying anything.

Miller Executive Dies In Walkers Point Shooting...

The Director of Compensation and Benefits for Miller Brewing was killed at about 1:10AM on Sunday morning after leaving a bar in Walkers Point.  He was accosted by a robber, gave the person his wallet and was then shot to death as he sat in his auto.

The concern immediately arose over whether Milwaukee would suffer as the result of this in the process that is now ongoing as to where the headquarters of the new combined Miller Coors will be located.  It is reported that crime and homicide rates rank first in the equation that most corporations use to determine quality of life rankings.  The Journal Sentinel reported this morning, and I paraphrase, that Milwaukee is 2.3% larger in population than Denver, has 228% more violent crime including 263% more homicides.  This is extrapolated from the FBI's statistics for the first half of 2007 that were recently released.

Would you think about that if you were making the decision?  Would you add in the fact that MPS is graduating 50% or fewer of all students that start as freshmen?

Seemingly everytime we pick up a newspaper or periodical we see that health care costs have risen again.  The only real question anymore is 'How Much?'.  Of course, if we still have health insurance, the premium rates continue to go up and up.  What in the world can we do about this?  Would statewide mandatory insurance coverage do the trick?  Can we somehow legislate lower insurance premiums?  Are the drug companies really the culprits?  Maybe we simply need to move to Canada or Europe.

Recent studies show that our national health care spending increased in 2006 by 6.7% to $2.1 trillion.  That means that one out of every six dollars spent in our national economy goes for health care.  The 'good news' in this staggering number is that this is actually slower growth than we saw for 2005.  Apparently we're going in the right direction, even if too slowly.

Another amazing fact, to me at least, is the amount of 'out-of-pocket' spending each of us averages after insurance premiums, etc.  In 2006, we spent, on average, 12% out-of-pocket for our health care expenses.  Know what we spent out-of-pocket in 1960?  We spent 47% out-of-pocket for health care expenses. 

That means that we are shielded to a much greater degree today from our real health care costs than we were in 1960.  Our out-of-pocket costs have decreased steadily since 1960.  We are often at the point today where we think of the cost of health care as being the $10 or $20 co-pay we have to come up with when we go to see the doctor.  Or, the $20 or $30 dollars we have to cough up for medicines.  Those amounts are very small percentages of the total costs.

Why is this important?  It is important because we need to think about what we're spending if we're ever going to be able to bring this cost spiral under control.  If we come to understand that the real cost of the doctor visit is in the range of $125 to $150 or more, we can begin to understand that maybe we shouldn't be running to the doctor everytime we have a runny nose or a cough.

Another very interesting fact is this:  more than 50% of all health care claims costs in America today are to cover lifestyle-related illnesses.  Those are the things that you and I can control to one degree or another.  But, we can't control them if we don't know about it or if we choose not to do anything about it.  What are 'lifestyle' issues?  Smoking, alcohol use, obesity and simply laying around doing no exercise.

Does this apply to us?  Here are the most current facts:  One in every four Americans eat fast food every day!  Six of ten Americans do not exercise or seldom exercise!  Two of every three Americans are classified as either overweight or obese!

This is the real source of our health care cost crisis.  We have met the enemy and it is us!

No mandatory state programs, or profit controls on drug companies or anything else is going to solve this problem.  The simple truth is that this is up to us.  All the rest of these proposals are simply pablum calculated to make us feel good.

That is why this 'stuff' is flowing from the mouths of politicans.  And it does nothing to solve the problem!

Let your politicians know that you understand this.  If they really want to help us, they'll begin an educational program using some of the 'smoker money' to get the true message out.  And, be sure to tell them we do not want laws banning fast food or drinking or smoking.  We need to take responsibility for ourselves.  No one else can do that for us.  The marketplace will make its own corrections just as you've begun to see with the menu changes going on in the world of fast foods, for example.

Maybe if insurance companies were permitted to charge people what we deserve to be charged based on our lifestyle habits, we'd begin to see these changes occur.  If I smoke, I pay more.  If I'm overweight, I pay a surcharge.  Make me feel my wallet lightening up if I don't take personal responsibility (just don't think this is your new way to raise taxes). 

Don't just continue to blame big health, or big drugs or big insurance!  You are doing nothing but pandering when you resort to this, and we're on to you!

How in the world can one combine freedom and light bulbs in the same context?  Well, let's see.

We are being told that incandescent light bulbs are being eliminated in favor of a nationwide conversion to the use of compact fluorescent lamps.  Those are, so far, considerably more expensive to produce (although subsidized by tax money to make them seem less expensive), are not capable of generating the kind of lumens to which we're accustomed, the color of light is different from what we're used to seeing and they have no where near the flexibility we find with incandescent bulbs.

As if this weren't sufficient, the idea of using compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) laden with mercury is a bit disconcerting to me.  I have quite a few fluorescent tubes and a couple of CFLs that I need to toss out.  I called the Village of Germantown staff to learn about proper disposal.  The nice lady who answered on the solid waste disposal line said, "That's a problem."  As we talked about this further, I learned that the next dangerous waste disposal date is set for September, 2008 in West Bend.  Our recycling center is either unable or unwilling to accept such things.

I sought an alternative that would be available sooner.  There is a site in Port Washington equipped to take these items but they charge for the privilege of recycling such things.  I think you and I both know that these things are regularly finding their way into our landfill sites, and that will increase at quite a rate as more people are forced to begin their use.  We are creating a serious mercury problem for ourselves that will manifest some years down the road.  Our land, wetlands and streams, rivers and lakes will be more polluted than they are today.

All this got me thinking about where we've come from, why we're where we are, and just what it all means.  I'm not at all sure that I have everything figured out, but maybe you can help me work through the parts I don't seem to understand.

We are using more carbon-based energy than many think we ought, but we also ignore solutions that we've mastered many years ago.  Nuclear energy is safe and efficient and yet we've not built new reactors in years.  We have oil fields available on our turf but we're forbidden by our own government from drilling into that apparently sacred soil.  There is more oil available today but we can't refine it any faster than we are today even if we had access to a greater supply.  Why?  Because the government has caused the establishment of new refining facilities to be so cumbersome and expensive that it simply is not cost-effective for investors to plow money into that use.

The grand movement by those who think we need to be 'green' has caused our 'political' will to be turned against the will of the majority of citizens.  The 'green' people are outnumbered by the 'non-green' people; yet, our main stream press and politicos continue to thump the drum for being 'green'.  Lobbyists spend a lot of money to keep this political engine humming along.  Government has the best of both worlds in this situation.  It is getting money from both sides of the argument, so why not keep the argument alive by dithering.

The 'global warming' group adds fuel to these flames.  It seems that virtually everything causes global warming.  It also seems that global warming causes virtually everything.  I could easily understand hot weather being a direct function of global warming.  I have a little more difficulty believing that cold weather is also caused by global warming.  Until very recently, any debate has been squelched; that is now changing and, I hope, we'll begin to see the real debate taking place.  I cannot buy the suppositions of Al Gore's slide show.  I can buy the opinions, however, of a very well educated state representative by the name of Jim Ott (a professional meteorologist), who actually knows of which he speaks.  An interesting phenomenon from a politician, I agree.

I harangue on the subject of the 'slippery slope' more than many would like, but there are simply so many examples that I cannot help myself!  Then, to add fuel to that flame, I came across a statement in the Wall Street Journal letters section on Friday made by a fellow whose name is Constantine E. Anagnostopoulos from Bloomfield, MI.  To paraphrase, he stated that we began as a country in which everything was permitted except for those few things that had been forbidden such as killing another person without provocation.  Today, we are a country where many things are forbidden and fewer and fewer things seem to be allowed. 

We have myriad laws on the books, and yet we continue to enact new laws every month that a government unit is in session.  There is nearly nothing that needs to be outlawed that hasn't had multiple laws forbidding it already enacted.  (An example is the creation of a law against use of cell phones when there is a perfectly good law against inattentive driving already on the books.)  We have become such a nation of laws and litigation that we actually stifle our creativity, our economy and our lives.  It is impossible for anyone today to account for every law that impacts a certain activity.  We even feel the need to have judges 'creating' laws that don't exist through their interpretations of existing language, or by opining as to what the original authors intended as the 'living' documents were penned.  Our laws are more designed to affect behaviors to which the ruling class does not subscribe than to actually outlaw something needing to be outlawed.  Laws today are much more the tool of social reformers than of policing agencies. 

These are all harbingers for our future existence.  If we continue on the path we're on, at the pace we're traveling, we'll have managed to destroy the freedoms generations before have fought and died for in a few short lifetimes.  Maybe the loss of great democracies, as history recounts, is our self-fulfilling prophecy.

All this began with a diatribe on light bulbs.  Wow! 

How tough must it be to have roused your membership 41 different times, only to have sand kicked in your face?  That is where 'poor' Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) finds himself as the week begins in his world as U.S. Senate Majority Leader.

Sen. Reid has played to the far left side of his party and has sought, 41 times now, to end the Iraq conflict by snuffing out funding and/or imposing requirements that troop withdrawls be completed by a time-certain.  In return, he has failed to gain sufficient bipartisan votes to override the veto either made or threatened by the President.  It has been said that the definition of a person who is crazy is when that person continues to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Adding insult to injury, he now pouts and says that he'll not permit any more money to be voted for and sent to our troops until after the first of next year.  Never mind the needs of the troops.  I'm reminded of the child's comeback:  "Who died and made you King (or Queen)?

Reid must really believe that us Americans want to lose in Iraq, whether or not we were in favor of the entry into that conflict.  Why else, unless he is as clueless as he appears at times, would he persist in this charade.

What charade you ask?  The charade in which he claims he supports the troops while he denies them the funding necessary to continue to bring the fight.  The charade in which he has taken center stage with a handful of like-minded elected officials (mostly Democrats but also some Republicans that have earned the classic branding of RINO...Republican In Name Only) to force the Commander-In-Chief to pull our troops when they're finally on top of the problem in Iraq.

Reid professes to think he can force a time-certain by which all troops will be out of Iraq, and that this could happen without the rest of the world seeing it as America's surrender...much as they saw Viet Nam.  Isn't it ironic, and very sad, that it is always the politicians that cause us to lose wars, and never the fighting troops we deploy?  Isn't it strange that virtually everyone of the people in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the move into Iraq, and now many seemingly have developed institutional amnesia?  If a person can take such a decision so lightly, they should not be making such decisions on our behalf.

Isn't it sad that when even the New York Times is forced to admit our troops are making good progress in Iraq, Sen. Reid continues to tell us that all is lost.  There will, he says, never be an end to the fighting, the people themselves don't want it, it is a civil war and blah, blah, blah, blah.  Even Iran has markedly reduced its illegal movement of the new and improved "improvised explosive devices" (IEDs), but Sen. Reid is impervious to good news.  Even the warring factions have chosen to become supporters of the troops since the option was to be removed from the earth forever.  And, the citizens of Iraq (you remember all those people running through the streets with purple fingers after they risked their lives to vote?) are squarely behind the troops.  They love the fact they can shop in the local marketplace, send their children (boys AND girls) to school, watch non-imposed television, and use computers and the Internet.

And, if we need anymore proof...even the French are true believers!

It is simply impossible for me to comprehend how one sees only bad news.  I just don't think that is possible.  Then, there must be those people who see good news but who insist on portraying it as bad news for some ulterior purpose.  Among the many descriptive terms for such people and actions that come to mind is this...disingenuous.

Too many of our elected representatives turn out to be disingenuous.  And they need be remembered so that we can turn them back to pasture at the next election and put some fresh faces and capable minds there in their places.  I think the vast majority of us wants a positive government.  There is already too much disaster and bad news in the world to desire that more be manufactured.  Voters are the only group that can make this happen.

That is your job and my job.  If we fail to get the job done, we'll know exactly where to place the blame...just look in the mirror.

Neither have I [except when Al Gore sneaks onto my television screen], but I came across a website that is selling 'Carbon Offsets'.  If I buy enough carbon offsets, they'll give me the assurance that I've canceled out all the bad stuff I'm doing to the environment.  Does this also mean there is a site somewhere that will take my money and forgive me for other bad things I do or contemplate doing?

I drive an SUV that calculates out to producing 27,174 lbs of carbon dioxide per year.  If I pay this company $79.95 for the first year, I'm off the hook for being such an environmental hazard.  I get a static-cling window decal telling everyone how great I am and a bumper sticker.  The company sends my money to somebody else who'll plant trees or build wind generator farms or whatever seems to be the 'saving grace' of the day.  They assure me that all this is audited by the Center for Resource Solutions, a non-profit (which must mean I can trust them implicitly) organization that apparently knows that there really is global warming and that we humans are so smart that we can reverse it even though it seems these cycles have gone on and remain unchecked for ages.

If, by now, I'm really feeling guilty, I can also buy carbon offsets to cover my home.  My home calculates to produce 31,551 pounds of carbon dioxide annually (and they remind me this is the equivalent of burning 1,613 gallons of gasoline).  It will only cost me $159.68 a year, but they tell me I can reduce that by using their home energy tips.  Those tips include: washing with cold water, turning off my lights, getting rid of a second refrigerator [which I'll have go out and buy], and using CFL bulbs [even though those are dangerous because they contain mercury].  Now I am forced to try to decide between carbon dioxide and mercury as to which is worse for me and the planet.

By the way, I can buy carbon offsets to take care of weddings, and I can give carbon offset gifts, too.

This has been a bit tongue in cheek as you've probably surmised.  The company is located in San Francisco [who'd have guessed that?].  It was founded by a college professor [who'd have thought that possible?].  It is run by people who appear to be thirty or younger, and who have credentials from several liberal universities [sorry for the redundancy].

Nowhere did I find an offset coupon available to ward off the nasty effects of bovine flatulence, however.  That should be a big seller in Wisconsin.  I suspect that they're working on that but I can't be certain.  Nowhere do they mention giving money to the home for displaced polar bears.  It seems they're missing some opportunities.

ABC News did a story about this company and carbon offsets on April 22, 2007.  It was filled with phrases like "a way to theoretically cancel out or neutralize the carbon dioxide that you produce", and reminds us that Al Gore lives in a 20 room house with a $30,000 annual utility bill while he claims his life is "carbon neutral".

The topper for me was learning that carbon offsets and carbon credits are traded as commodities on the open market, and this trade activity is a multi-billion dollar per year business.

Given the lack of  anything but assumptions that, to me, are not based on fact since the facts don't exist, this whole thing would come near being called a 'scam'.  People are paying other people for absolution of their environmental sins but continue to do that for which they were absolved.  Nothing changes except that some money moves from one place to another in the name of eliminating global warming.

But, of course, I forget the Nobel peace prize having been awarded to Mr. Gore.  Shame on me!

I can forgive Alfred Nobel for having invented dynamite, but only a fiend in human form could have invented the Nobel Prize.  George Bernard Shaw