Warren Buffett, "The Snowball"

This rather massive book by Alice Schroeder covers the entire life of the current richest man in the world, the super businessman often called the "oracle of Omaha", Warren Buffett from birth to '08 with a huge amount of detail. I've historically not been that much of a biography reader, but maybe age is changing me, I enjoyed the book.

There are 838 pages of text and a bunch of endnotes, so I'm not going to do a lot of quoting and discussion. The biggest things that hit me:

• Simplicity / Models. Relative to business and investing, while clearly a genious, Buffett used a huge focus and passion for business over a LONG time with relatively simply models of price/earnings, only buying businesses that he understood the business model of, and ALWAYS making sure that he had a "margin of safety" built in. Sticking with a few quite simple basic models with a whole lot of intelligence, patience and courgage to "ignore the herd". Allowed the "snowball" of his great wealth to slowly unfold over time.
  
• While unquestionably having simple tastes in diet and lifestyle, Buffett is a complex man in his dealings with people. He is insecure, hates conflict, loves to push things that he doesn't like off on others (but is generally brilliant at selecting folks that can handle it well and motivating them well). In many ways, it is his "weaknesses" that make him a great business executive--he delegates what he isn't good at well, and focuses like an effective laser on what he is definitely the best in the world at -- selecting the best available businesses and weaving them together into a money making machine.
  
• The "sweep of history" relative to business is discussed in a very "inside business" way that is enlightening. The constant of different sets of people "certain" of some trend or another -- expensive money, cheap money, stocks never going up, stocks always going up, fuel prices always going to be low -- or high, "new models" that would "never change" -- the "Nifty Fifty", Junk Bonds, Techs, Derivatives, etc. The ditches are littered with all sorts of "new paradigms" that fall on hard times wiping out billions and trillions of dollars in their wake. Meanwhile -- people still eat candy, buy furniture, jewelry, insurance, food, mobile homes, Dairy Queen, Coke, etc -- those are Warren's businesses, the ones that are "always going to be around", the ones that are "boring", unless you want to amass a fortune of billions of dollars from a start of a 100K over a period of 50 years.
  

Warren and his family seem to be 100% atheist or agnostic and in general quite liberal. He is pretty much 100% a supporter of Democrats, the farther left the better. He essentially ended up with "two wives" -- Susan, the mother of his children, took great care of him for 25 years or so, but he was pretty much the 100% traditional guy that spent 95% of his time on business and 5% on his family. When the kids left home, Susan wanted to travel, do artsy stuff and help others. She ended up traveling around with some of her old tennis teachers and moved to San Francisco and took care of a lot of gay guys. When she moved, she never really called it leaving, and left a friend of hers named Astrid Menks who ended up moving in and being Warren's female companionship for years. He essentially had "two wives", in public outside Omaha and legally, Susie stayed his wife. He saw her for a few weeks each year. Otherwise, Astrid was his usual companion.

Warren is a huge public propoenent of higher taxes for the wealthy -- but interestingly, he takes a lot of actions to avoid the paying of taxes himself. He has spoken out often and been quoted a lot of being strongly in favor of inheritance taxes, but again, he has transferred many millions to his children using foundations and other mechanisms already and plans to make it a "mere 10%" in the end, constituting a "mere 6 Billion". Apparently, consistency isn't an issue for a liberal no matter how rich you are. I found it especially interesting that he is transferring the remainder of his 60 Billion to the Gates foundation to be spent "as efficiently and well as possible". So why not the US Government? Warren has been outspoken on the need for higher taxes for "the wealthy" -- I assume he MUST believe that those taxes would be well and efficiently spent? Apparently when it comes to taxation the rhetoric and the actions just don't match up even for as succesful, intelligent, and generally admirable a liberal as Buffett. "Do as I say, not as I do".

Buffett is a great study in how captialism allows brilliant people to allocate resources in ways that government would NEVER think of that result in more jobs, stronger business, more money, and while those folks doing there jobs, better allocation of capital for ALL. While guys like Warren and Bill Gates are exceedingly wealthy it is extremely easy to see how they have created far more wealth than they have consumed, and as they allocate that wealth back into the good of all as they get to the end of their lives, they will do even more good. It is a shame that they can't understand that the same principles that have worked so well for them can and do work on a smaller scale for people of far lower wealth, so they continue to espouse political solutions that are likely to kill that golden genie of economic growth that allowed them to amass their great fortunes.

Let's Worry About the President Again!

The Associated Press: Blagojevich questioning takes up Obama's time

Hey, imagine this, the President's time is precious! What a concept! The last time I recall this it was when Slick Willie was defending the Presidential right to oral sex by the underling of his choice in the oval office! The press was mighty concerned then as well!! What a shame to be taking up the mans time when it might be better spent with an adoring big haired intern of his choice providing "personal office service".

Now we have the good Saint BO from the political fever swamp of IL, and horror of horrors, somebody thinks that just because your political career was spawned in a swamp, you may have gotten just a wee bit of muck on you. How could they think such a thing! The very concept--why has the MSM says here, BO has SAID that "he and his folks are clean"! Why, what more could one possibly want?

Now somehow I don't recall exactly the same sort of concern for Bush's time. Let's see -- Valerie Plame affair, which never even came close to the oval office? I don't recall much concern over that consuming Presidential time with meaningless questions? Why, I'm sure that Bush even said that he wasn't involved -- now the press was pretty quick to get worried about his time being taken up once he said that, right?

Nice to see the press all concerned that the poor President elect can "keep focus"--would be nicer if there was just a tiny bit of such concern for the POSITION rather than just for "the president of the MSM's choice".

The "Southern Strategy"

Op-Ed Columnist - Bigger Than Bush - NYTimes.com

Here we have a standard little "assertion that requires no support" from the NYT recent Nobel Prize winning "economist".

The fault, however, lies not in Republicans’ stars but in themselves.Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party’s champion, to the Bush administration’s pervasive incompetence, to the party’s shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.

Let's look at a little number relative to the Civil Rights act of 1964:

The original House version:

• Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)
• Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

• Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%-31%)
• Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

Now I know that the MSM constantly harps about the "fact" of "Nixon's Southern Strategy", with the not very subtle message being claim that the "Republican party was nothing but a bunch of racists", but one would think that a short look at the numbers above might indicate that the idea that the Democrat party, the party that did all it could to allow slavery to live on in the 1800's and spent the 100 years from 1865-1965 as the party of Jim Crow wasn't exactly "individually responsible for the voting rights act".

Yes, the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses of congress, but it was really REPUBLICAN VOTES that allowed this to happen. The DEMOCRATS from the south were filibustering, and 46 votes isn't going to break a filibuster! 82% voting for the act is a lot better than 69%! One might have some idea that the party that fought the bill tooth and nail and had 30% of it's members in the Senate voting against it might be seen as less than "a champion of the black man in America"--but one would not have taken the media and general lack of public interest in critical thought into consideration. Something repeated enough times tends to become true to most people, so the idea that Republicans are some sort of racists has become "truth" to many Americans.

So Krugman feels that the worm has turned--ding dong, the evil Republicans are dead, long live king BO! Hopefully we have entered an era where facts are no longer a factor and we can all prosper by being bailed out!

The Forever War, Dexter Filkins

I have to thank NPR for this book, I heard a few minutes of an interview with the author on I believe "Fresh Air", and it was obvious that while a NYT reporter, Dexter was a WAR CORRESPONDENT first and foremost and taking tidy political positions wasn't part of what he saw in the position. REPORTING -- on what he saw, the people he was with, all of that was what he did. To some degree, war was where he reported because he saw that as "the best and worst" of humanity -- war was a "laboratory" that was always going on around the globe somewhere, and it allowed him to see humans in a concentrated form available nowhere else.

So he starts out in Afghanistan -- during the time of the Taliban, talking of how the Taliban brought "order" to Afghanistan which sorely needed it. People didn't "like them", but it is a realative world -- compared to complete disorder, they were preferable. We in the west are at least SUPPOSED to be "honoring of other cultures". Dexter gives us a little detail on how these cultures work: "I joined the Taliban because they were stronger," Gulimir said. "I'm joining the Northern Alliance because they are stronger now." Yesterday my enemy, today, my brother". It seems that often times the Arab culture is far more pragmatic than our western culture.

He points out matter of factly much of the violence that the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam -- all the people taken and tortured, sometimes killed, sometimes not, often "lost", dead or alive. However, he makes it clear --"there was no entering an Iraqi home, no matter how hostile your relationship with it's host, without being embraced by a hospitality that would shame anything that you would find in the west." Again, a cultural difference. What does it mean?

The whole book is great and very well written, and he very much doesn't tell you what to think. He lets you in on the massive amount of "gray" that permeates the Iraqi situation, but I just couldn't forget the chapter titled "Blonde". One of the US troop companies had the job of searching for guns in the little Iraqi towns. Thanks to the co-ed services, they happened to have a hot blonde in the company, so knowning the local culture, they put her out on the hood of the Bradley with her blonde tresses flying in the breeze and broadcast over the PA "Blonde woman for sale". They would drive into the town square and every male of close to age was bidding like crazy ... goats, trucks, all their money, children -- everything. Meanwhile, the rest of the company is searching the houses.

Once they are done, the Captain says, "not enough, no deal" and drives off. The Iraqi's aren't happy, but it is "just business". Think about this just a bit -- it is a muslim country, women have no status, and "infidel women" don't even count -- if you can pick one up it is a "freebie". Needless to say, the Captain ended up getting a repramand--not the kind of innovative use of the co-ed military that the brass had in mind. Sort of puts US innovation and Arab culture in a light that one would not be very likely to hear from the MSM.

It is a book that can't really be quoted and dissected because it isn't trying to "make a case" -- it is reporting what this guy saw and heard. They end up getting a Marine killed trying to get some pictures of a dead Al Quaeda guy. They obviously didn't mean to, but the reporters still feel responsible and it points out that Al Quaeda has their operational imperitives, and some of them (we don't leave our dead behind) aren't all that different from ours.

I highly recommend the book -- in some ways it would be better to read it not knowing what the outcome of the Surge was going to be -- because Dexter didn't, and I doubt that anyone truely did. Bush made a decision which a huge number of people, including Obama, were CERTAIN had no way of working. Dexter wasn't certain -- he saw the potential for hope, but it still worked better than even he expected (not covered in the book, covered on the interview). I consider the Bush decision on the Surge to be one of the great calls EVER by a US politician, especially since although it has become clear that it was an incredibly right call, there is as close to zero credit as possible given to him for it.

Dexter gives an insight that the Iraqi people and our soliders that have fought there are worth something -- maybe even more than a bunch of folks being able to say that "Bush was wrong, AGAIN".

Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)

https://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/1491514132

This book by Carol Tavaris and Eliot Ar0nson is one that I ought not have wasted the time to read all the way through, but I did.

In summary, humans don't like to recognize our mistakes and admit them -- so we end up with something called "cognitive dissonance" when our natural tendencies try to blame others, say that "everyone does it, and I'm no worse", "the choice I made was the best at the time", etc, etc. Strangely, this writing duo barely seems to realize that "universal" means "universal", so the fact that they seem to be able to see the foibles of conservative politicians much better than their own, or those of the more liberal ilk would seem to be a corollary that they fail to point out. "While it is hard to see faults in yourself or those you agree with, it is EASY to see them in others, and especially those that you disagree with".

To insure that we understand this piece of breakthrough thinking (known at least since "cast the log out of your own eye before going after the mote in your brother's eye"), we have to go through Watergate, the recovered memories movement, police interrogations, and other matters. Yes, yes, at least WE "get it" -- although these folks found a lot of bad cops, interrogators and even psychologists, they "somehow" failed to remember that Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno was one of the early heavy users of recovered memories as a DA. Strange, one might jump to the conclusion that these folks are more correct than they realize they are.

They finally have some good advice -"By looking at our actions critically and dispassionately, as if we were observing someone else, we stand a chance of breaking out of the cycle of action followed by self-justification, followed by more committed action. We can learn to put a little space between what we feel and how we respond, insert a moment of reflection, and think about our actions."

WOW ... and who would be MOST likely to be able to do that? Those of the left who tend to pride themselves on being "in touch with their feelings" and therefore "more genuine", or those evil righties who seem to think that one needs criteria, reasons and supporting data for making decisions? I guess I'm too biased to think that one out.

Looking Back 40 Years

I happen to be about 1/2 way through the Buffet Biography, "Snowball", and one of the sections recently covered touched on 1968. While turning 12 in the fall, I certainly have recollections of the year -- more Bobby Kennedy being shot than MLK, and of course the big Apollo 8 moon orbit, but other than a general recollection of all the folks in the Baptist Church being pretty much sure that "this had to be the end times", I don't remember the emotional nuance.

I do get to read a lot of columnists on how AWFUL Bush has been and he really ought to be "the worst president". Reading about '68 and other aspects of the LBJ term and thinking just a bit has made me wonder some on that point. Do we have any criteria? Vietnam is pretty much an "LBJ war"-- over 50K dead and absolutely nothing accomplished. Maybe the WOT might get to 10K if it goes on long enough, but can anyone really look at it from the perspective of today and compare it even in the same ballpark as Vietnam? Let's see, we had two major assassinations and riots across the country--see any of those lately?

Add to that the "slight difference" that LBJ was a one-term president that realized there was no way for him to win a 2nd term, so he declined to run. Of course LBJ had gigantic Democrat majorities in both the house and senate -- from my perspective, that may make him a lot less responsible for the disaster of his years in office, but I hardly think that those MSM columnists would agree with me?

I don't even need to get into Jimmy C ... another classic "one termer". Seems that not a lot can be said for his short tenure other than "it was short".

The Dark Side, Are We Safer?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Dark-Side-Inside-American/dp/0307456293

I've read three books on roughly the Iraq, War on Terror theme this fall, I'm trying to catch up on my book reporting. I've been reading well, just not writing about it much. The thesis of this book is basically that the Bush administration has committed all sorts of torture crimes, none of which have netted any information and all of which have hurt the US, probably irreparably in the world. The book could have had one of those 1-2--09 "The End of an ERROR" bumper stickers on it.

Interestingly, as books like this often do, page 114 says:

"On August 5, 1998 a month after the Albanian rendition, in what was to take on the aura of a very personal vendetta, an Arab-language newspaper in London published a letter from Zawahiri threatening retaliation against the United States--in a "language they will understand". He warned that America's "message has been received and that the response, which we hope they will read carefully is being prepared" Two days later, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, killing 224 people.

I guess that would be "very early" in the evil Bush administration. A lot of the book is more supposed detail than one would ever want to know about the supposedly secret "renditions", where a terror suspect is jetted to an intermediate country for "intensive interrogation" -- or "torture" depending on your perspective. The book is certain at least during the Bush administration it was torture -- I'd assume that the standards that they applied to "early Bush" in '98 would be more lenient.

Page 137 has another tidbit:

"When Tenet dropped the bombshell. He said that they had a high-level Al Quaeda figure who just told them that Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein's secret police trained together in Baghdad--and chemical and biological weapons were involved."

When one reads the detailed record of Iraq, a few things hit very hard:

1). The thoughts and policies carried out in the Bush Administration nearly all have their genesis in the Clinton Administration, '98 or earlier.

2). Carrying over George Tenent as CIA director from Clinton was a fateful decision for Bush. One can't really tell if he was incompetent or something more sinister, but many of the pieces of information on which decisions were made turned out to be either "wrong", or "not possible to prove/defend given the infighting with CIA/State and the Bush Administration". Very clear statements made by the CIA that can't be verified by facts on the ground once the invasion happens are taken as "Bush failings".

3). The same policy and in some cases, even actions ("renditions", military action in Iraq, wiretaps, etc) taken under Clinton suddenly become somehow "sinister" under Bush.

Page 167, "Sexual humiliation was a regular feature of the SERE program. In addition, the notion that Arabs were particularly vulnerable to it became an article of faith among many conservatives in Washington."

Uh, just conservatives? The idea that countries where women trundle around in packs covered from head to toe in cloth 10 steps behind, might expose the males to some "vulnerability" to sexual humiliation by women? One would expect that it would be at the very least "different" from their standard experience, and I know I've read a number of articles in the MSM that apparently have that same misconception as those poor simple Washington conservatives supposedly had.

Mostly the book is dedicated to the evil of David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, but Doug Feith and the Rumsfeld pentagon get in for some blame as well. Naturally, "the claim that needs no support" -- that "all the efforts of the Bush administration made us much less safe" runs throughout the book. As the last sentence of the book says "fear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools".

As I've argued before, one might think that such thinking might require some sort of objective measure. My statement has been since we had the Cole attack in Oct of 2000 and then 9-11 the year Bush took office, if we are indeed now less safe, we ought to have had something similar to Cole in late '08 and be looking for something, or some group of things worse than 9-11 in similar timing in 2009. Perhaps someone can suggest "better criteria" -- although when one realizes that there were a number of attacks during the Clinton administration (first WTC, Covar Towers, Embassy bombings and Cole), and NONE during the post 9-11 Bush administration, it seems that the statement of us being "less safe" would at least be open to question by those thinking in less than purely ideological terms.

It is a hard book to recommend -- the summary is pretty much "Bush, Cheney really really bad, torturers, failures, incompetent, did nothing helpful, everything wrong -- they ought to be prosecuted as war criminals". If you believe that, then you would likely enjoy the book -- and like most of the folks that agree with you, be willing to overlook the odd little things thrown in about "renditions" in '98, CIA stated connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda and such.

My sense is that we are due for a lot of willful ignorance of factual information for a good long while now. Hopefully whatever it was that has kept us safe from attacks since 9-11 was either something unrelated to Bush, or something that Obama will be willing to keep going on the sly so the string continues. If not, then there will likely be terrorist attacks and the need to respond to them in some way that is "without fear and anxiety, by moderate and capable thinkers". If that time comes, I'm sure his worshipfulness BO will step right up, take responsibility, and give us clear direction as to the "smart way" to handle a terrorist attack.

Creatures and Christmas

A plague of iPhone flatulence - Apple 2.0

Having had the Christmas season marred by the invasion of the flu to both my home and person and being an iPhone owner, this little article hit my strange connection circuits. The Christmas story where the God of all takes on the oh so humble existence of a human baby to be completely dependent and lacking any control over the basic functions of body and emotion, to literally become "a creature", worse yet, a sacrificial creature (and God), seems to much for a human to even imagine.

Nothing went as planned over the Christmas season due primarily to flu, so it was in many ways in keeping with 2008. When "change" is the order of the day, it stands to reason that "plans" are not. Disorder, once it comes calling, is a very powerful house guest, and the flu, followed by a sinus infection is very disorderly indeed. I fear that a lost week of flu may not be nearly as disorderly as maybe a lost decade of national meandering, but being creatures, we play the best we can with the hand that is dealt.

Conservatives of the stripe that believe in transcendence have as much appreciation of a creaturely fart as the most human-worshiping lefty on the planet. In fact, I'd argue that it is really the concept of infinite souls tethered to biological power packs able to heap all manner of indignity on their clearly very human "hopeful transcender" that provides the spark of humor to "iFart". Put that juxtaposition in the context of the descent of Christ to be Emanuel "God with us" and the miracle stretches our creaturely brains to even concieve it at all.

A Lost Decade?

Get Ready for a Lost Decade - WSJ.com

Some excellent points on the fact that the Great Depression was "one off" at least so far. All this supposed confidence that we won't have another "Great Depression" is pretty meaningless. First of all, whatever we have, it likely won't be "the same"--we would hope it would be "better", but there is no real information to make those kinds of assumptions. There are indeed some very good reasons to make opposite assumptions -- we didn't enter the Depression with 50-100 Trillion of unfunded Social Security and  Medicare obligations!

40 Years Ago, Apollo 8

'God bless all of you . . . on the good Earth' - The Boston Globe

I've mentioned it a few times in this blog, Christmas Eve '68 watching the broadcast from Apollo 8 is one of my most vivid memories from youth. It was very cool to visit the capsule at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago a few years ago, and something like 25 years ago to get to hear Jim Lovell at an inventors breakfast at work.

I would have never believed that our space program would be as pitiful as it is 40 years later. Folks actually believe that competition doesn't matter? There is no doubt that we would have never made it it to the moon without the competition with the USSR!

Non Political View of Financial Meltdown

High and Low Finance - A Year of Financial Contradictions and Chaos - NYTimes.com

Nice concise, well done summary of the meltdown without a bunch of finger pointing. It seems pretty unlikely to me that anybody -- Democrat, Republican, Wall Street tycoons, bankers, businessmen, or anyone at all "wanted it all to melt down". Maybe some really true crazies from the far right or left, just to say "we told you so", but nobody really cares about them. One can always just stare at the craters on the moon, predict that eventually a "big one" will hit the earth with the certainty that EVENTUALLY it will be the right call. So what?

Somehow we now have to restore confidence in the system. Scapegoating won't help unless we can truely net the problems down to some specific actionable set of changes that will help the confidence aspect without destroying the creativity needed in the markets. Not an easy task. We all have to hope that BO and his team are up to it, or as this guy says, next December will be much sadder economically than this one.

The Obama Nation

This book by Jerome Corsi is subtitled "leftist politics and the cult of personality" is a lot more detailed than it needed to be. The key points can be covered here:

• Until some time during his college years, Obama was known as Barry Soetoro -- "Barack" was just funny sounding, so they made it "Barry", and Soetoro was the name of his moms 2nd husband, the one from Indonesia.
  
• Barry was educated as a Muslim -- and a Catholic. He makes some points that he didn't take EITHER religion seriously, but the MSM has made that clear about the Muslim training, not the Christian training.
  
• He did a good deal of drugs and alcohol in HS, his biological Dad pretty much killed himself by repeatedly driving drunk. Both his biological dad and grandfather were pretty much serially irresponsible womanizers. BO has the genetics to fit into the Democrat president lineage just fine.
  
• He was heavily influenced by "black power" and very far left politics. Is that who he really is? Who knows, I'm not convinced that HE could really tell you who he is other than a guy that wants power -- he seems to have been successful with that, now we get to find out what he wants to do with it.
  

I can't really recommend the book. It is way to long for covering information that is largely pretty anti-climactic. A lot of the stuff in this book is just pulled out of BOs two books and linked in context to a little more depth. There is no doubt that "community organizing" is the child of Saul Alinsky, and that BO (and many others of the late 60's/70's in the far left) were very impressed by the subversive nature of Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals". It is on my Amazon list, I'll get to it eventually.

The bottom line is that the information that we have would indicate that we have a guy headed for the White House that has at least heavily exposed himself to anti-white racism, anti-capitalism and basically "anti the America that we had at least up to sometime in '08".

So what America do we have now? One with a lot less wealthy and a lot less money overall? A nation in some sort of a "transition"? But to what? Socialism? Fascism? Destruction? I'm sure I can't tell.

I'm not at all certain that even BO could answer any of those questions with any sort of implementable policy. He would love a lot of "hope, change, justice, fairness, folks getting a chance, putting America to work, 2.5 million new jobs ... and a hundred other "good slogan things", but other than that rhetoric, I really have no idea what he thinks is a good idea, and I suspect neither does he. I have to admit he is high on the list of the smoothest empty suits that I've ever seen, but I bet Bernie Madoff is pretty good as well. I suspect that comparison may be about as close as one could get to pegging BO.

The Grey Lady Has Cold Feet?

Op-Ed Columnist - Pan Am Dies, America Lives - NYTimes.com

So now that the sheep have fully left the pen, it appears that even the NYT may be having 2nd thoughts about leaving the gate open. That is what I hate most about liberals, the constant willingness to dodge responsibility while complaining of the results of the very thing they push. The NYT is worried about "socialism"? Egads, they ought to stand up and CHEER for it, they have long supported the Chris Dodds, Barney Franks, Charlie Wrangles and Charles Schummers of the world. For God's sake, they employ Paul "comrade" Krugman, do they not know what they have been preaching?

This is a lovely quote ... if it was in National Review:

Americans have always lived at the new frontier, at least in their imaginations. It’s taken the death of the likes of the wonderful Pan Am to keep them contemplating the horizon rather than their navels.
The risk of saving the moribund is the demise of the vital — and the long-term cost of that is incalculable.

But wait, we voted in Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in '06, upped the number massively this year, and have an incoming president whose left leanings are only slightly diminished in power by the fact that he has no previous experience running anything at all. NOW the NYT wants to have 2nd thoughts about making the hard left turn, just because they got a teensy view of the fact that the edge of the road was a steep cliff rather than a comfy snow filled ditch? Pleeease !!!

The whole financial crisis is about the death of responsibility: the buck stopped nowhere. Everyone profited from toxic paper. Bernard Madoff, he of the alleged multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, is only the latest example.

Earth to Planet NYT, where were you when Slick Willie was dissembling on national TV? Talking about "responsibility"? I think not. How about when Chris Dodd and Barney Frank were getting sweetheart loans  and campaign donations from the credit industry they were supposed to be regulating? AWOL as charged. When BO was breaking direct promises to honor existing campaign finance law? "Gone Fishing". What is the use of being a liberal if one has to be "responsible"?

Is just a little peek into the maw of the abyss here making the "paper of record" a bit green about the gills? Oh come on, maybe you just need a nice bailout all of your own and you will get off this pining away for some form of a working economy! We need to actually get into the "BO Change" a bit more before we see what getting rid of those awful markets really does to the nation!

The Limit of BO Adoration?

Obama's inaugural choice sparks outrage - CNN.com

The left used to be outraged over campaign funding. There was too much money in politics, and MUCH more needed to be done about it. Anyone that voted for the "big money folks" was just being cynically manipulated by slick ads and barrage of television time that took them away from the "real issues". Then BO decided that he wasn't going to follow any campaign finance laws at all, started accepting contributions from anywhere with no record keeping, raised and spent more money by 3,4,?? times (nobody really knows), and the left was just fine with it. He is "their guy". They really don't care about campaign finance.

BO ran as an anti-war candidate, solidly against the surge up until the Democratic primaries were over. Now he has kept the Bush Sec Def and the withdrawal timetable is the same as the Bush timetable. Again, the left is silent, they really don't care about war.

BO said that one of the very first things he would do is "repeal the Bush tax give-aways for the rich". Now he is saying that he will likely just let them expire in '10 -- again, the left really doesn't care about even taxing the rich, "whatever".

We may have thought that "it was all about BO", but it turns out that Christ is ALWAYS the real issue. Selecting a guy that has written a book that has sold 20 million copies in the US is enough to get the first negative headline on BO that I've seen in the whole two years he has increasingly sucked the entire available positive news energy out of the MSM.

Warren sent a news letter that had this radical paragraph in it:

"For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women," Warren wrote in a newsletter to his congregation. "There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population."

Just 5 thousand years? I'm not an expert on evolution, but I'm thinking that homosexual pairings aren't the most productive relative to offspring, so therefore not exactly what one would call "adaptive" in the evolutionary sense. It would seem that the idea of sexual reproduction in the scientific sense has been around for significantly longer than 5 thousand years.

So does the idea of free speech in America extend far enough that someone can state their opinion on homosexual marriage? From the POV of the left, apparently not.

BO of the Year

Why History Can't Wait - Person of the Year 2008 - TIME

Now here was a big surprise, BO is Time's 2008 "Person of the Year". I was amazed to read that they had discovered that one of the things HE "overcame" was inexperience? When did they learn that? I thought it was just the Governor of Alaska that was "inexperienced", not the 2-years of sitting in the Senate doing nothing, two years of campaigning Jr Senator from Illinois. Who knows what the press might discover once they get all the reporters back from Wasilla and maybe look at Chicago a bit. You never know, maybe the politics there are corrupt? I've heard that since the election, but there are a lot of stories that say that BO managed to be involved for 15 years and apparently was completely uninvolved in much of anything, so therefore never really even knew about any corruption.

Wow, that must take some talent. I wonder how many things he will be able to be unaware of and uninvolved as President? There should be a lot of opportunity to ignore a lot of things in that role!