Six degrees of separation likely led me to this one... watch 'Chuck' on NBC and they made some jokes about the band Rush and the old Atari game of Missile Command (rather odd twist on the plot, I'm sure it'll re-run or show up online). Sure enough, gets me listening to the Rush on the iPod and their song New World Man. Some lyrics:
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know whats right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
With the election coming what's not to laugh or cry about, right? Oh, either politician could make their share of mistakes, but perhaps I'm more inclined to pick on Senator Obama as he retains a lead in the polls. The thing I'm most concerned about is that the media supposedly sent a few dozen reporters to Alaska to investigate Bristol Palin's boyfriend (fiance?) and yet we no nothing more about Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Twenty years Obama attended the church that Rev. Wright presided over. That's a fair amount of time to get to know someone -- many marriages don't last that long. Huntley Brown wrote a letter that put some information together on this. Read the whole letter here if you choose.
Brown is a Christian musician who's also Black and lives in the USA. He highlights some concerns that seem fair. He asks:
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a ...
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community.
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Obviously, Huntley is writing the opposite of the tenets of Obama's former church to draw a conclusion. What makes me nervous is the value system that would be connected to an organization with these goals for 20 years?
Certainly, the Reverend Wright stepped aside and no other questions have been asked about Senator Obama's 20 year relationship (Wright did marry the Obamas) with the value system of this church. When the church became a potential political liability, Obama was wise separate himself. But why did it take 20 years? Only now after some polls and surveys did the ideals of the church seemed out of touch with religion, main street America, or Christian faith?
I was also trying to consider some of these sermons that Rev Wright delivered. After 9/11 he suggested the attacks were America's fault -- almost as if we got what we deserved. After thousands of Americans died, perhaps something more comforting could be said by a clergyman? Obama remained on with the church -- no issues.
In 2003, Wright gave some of his opinions suggesting that God should not bless America, but the exact opposite. I truly don't think the government gives people the drugs, builds bigger prisons and is intentionally out to destroy the lives of anyone in the country. Certainly, systems have faults and poor individual decisions are made. I would imagine that a church of this size (8500 members) that people would talk. If the pastor of a church gave a message like that, wouldn't others in the church quickly hear about the message? How would you respond.
I know how I would. I'd quit the church. The first time.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Run-up to Election
It's always nice when the end of election season is upon us. I just grow tired of it. Yes, my liberal arts education in political science (even that!) is not enough for me to be tired of the rhetoric from the campaign trail. The end of the elections season the end of the half-truths that bombard us from every angle. It's always good to have closure around elections.
I still decry my dis-infatuation with political events to be greatly to the lack of one major element that I find lacking in the political sphere today: statesmanship. I don't know how the dictionary would define it, but when Steven Covey suggests "think win-win" he is suggesting for opposing ideas to share information and work to discover a third way (beyond what either originally had proposed) to achieve something better. In politics, the idea of discrediting the opposition is the primary goal.
Who hasn't watched a couple talking heads across the newsdesk or on opposite monitors from any TV news broadcast and seen this in plain display? When yielded 30 seconds to share an opinion, the viewer typically gets 25 seconds of insults followed by 5 seconds of insight. Then, the other opinion has to throw mud. It's truly amazing when the question is about tax policy and the opposing forces (can we call them "op-for"?) spend their whole allotment to talk about something totally different!
Let me shift gears to the positive. Abraham Lincoln was an amazing example of true statesmanship. Here is a guy leading an unpopular war with over 600,000 dead -- at the time nearly 2% of the nation's population (slave & free of all ages). 2% seems small, but 2% of today's US population would be near the 5.9M level today -- definitely a huge number that would be impacting lives everywhere in the union.
Lincoln looked like he was going to lose this election but signed a pledge that said he was going to do everything possible to win the war before he was removed from office. The pledge stated:
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards. (Basler, Roy P. (1955), Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)
Putting re-election aside to do what was needed to save the country? Ah, brilliant and bold statesmanship putting the needs of others ahead of his personal desires. Of course, after this, some major victories went the way for the Union and Lincoln ended up winning (with only the votes of the northern states of course) the election of 1864.
Where can we find a statesman like this to put in office? I'd rather have him working for my country than working for his own self-serving issues. No surprise that Abraham Lincoln is often at the top of the list for US Presidents that made significant impacts and influence.
I still decry my dis-infatuation with political events to be greatly to the lack of one major element that I find lacking in the political sphere today: statesmanship. I don't know how the dictionary would define it, but when Steven Covey suggests "think win-win" he is suggesting for opposing ideas to share information and work to discover a third way (beyond what either originally had proposed) to achieve something better. In politics, the idea of discrediting the opposition is the primary goal.
Who hasn't watched a couple talking heads across the newsdesk or on opposite monitors from any TV news broadcast and seen this in plain display? When yielded 30 seconds to share an opinion, the viewer typically gets 25 seconds of insults followed by 5 seconds of insight. Then, the other opinion has to throw mud. It's truly amazing when the question is about tax policy and the opposing forces (can we call them "op-for"?) spend their whole allotment to talk about something totally different!
Let me shift gears to the positive. Abraham Lincoln was an amazing example of true statesmanship. Here is a guy leading an unpopular war with over 600,000 dead -- at the time nearly 2% of the nation's population (slave & free of all ages). 2% seems small, but 2% of today's US population would be near the 5.9M level today -- definitely a huge number that would be impacting lives everywhere in the union.
Lincoln looked like he was going to lose this election but signed a pledge that said he was going to do everything possible to win the war before he was removed from office. The pledge stated:
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards. (Basler, Roy P. (1955), Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press)
Putting re-election aside to do what was needed to save the country? Ah, brilliant and bold statesmanship putting the needs of others ahead of his personal desires. Of course, after this, some major victories went the way for the Union and Lincoln ended up winning (with only the votes of the northern states of course) the election of 1864.
Where can we find a statesman like this to put in office? I'd rather have him working for my country than working for his own self-serving issues. No surprise that Abraham Lincoln is often at the top of the list for US Presidents that made significant impacts and influence.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
$2.99
Election season drones on in the States with large amounts of political advertisements that bake half-truths and sugar coat them for the American public. Few good questions are asked at this time as the "what can you do for me?" question is asked in heads across the land as they gaze on two political figures that don't have a lot of answers. It's all about perception though, and being a friend of George Bush or a friend of Bill Ayers could be the mark of the beast to some voters.
The market has had a terrible couple past weeks with a small bounce finally coming yesterday in a 932 point DJIA rally (11% !!) yesterday. Friday afternoon showed a little promise in the last hour of trading and it continued. Perhaps this just a "dead cat bounce" that will get people excited for a day (or a week) and then give it all back again to more tears. Maybe load up on KMB (Kimberly-Clark) stock with all the Kleenex tissues we'd be using.
One thing not to shed tears over is the first sign in Manassas boasting $2.99/gallon for regular 87 octane gasoline. I saw this on a morning run and it was refreshing. Our friends at Gasbuddy.com have even identified a couple stations at $2.89/gallon. This should bode well for American consumers.
Perhaps my ignorance toward the political campaigns has left me missing if either candidate is personally claiming responsibility for the change in prices. I'm sure it's a matter of time. However, the "what next?" question will stay on my mind. Gas at $4/gallon (at least locally) is a level that really got people mad. A few ruffled feathers had people driving less, looking at alternatives, thinking about their local errands more.... it had them yelling about a possible electric car, wind power, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, etc.
I'm for a lot of alternative ideas because I just believe Americans can do those better than anywhere else in the world. And I believe in global supply & demand -- if we're demanding, someone will be supplying. The answer then becomes "how about us!" Looking at the $2.99 pivot point, will we lose our focus or are we going to still remember and demand that something is done?
The market has had a terrible couple past weeks with a small bounce finally coming yesterday in a 932 point DJIA rally (11% !!) yesterday. Friday afternoon showed a little promise in the last hour of trading and it continued. Perhaps this just a "dead cat bounce" that will get people excited for a day (or a week) and then give it all back again to more tears. Maybe load up on KMB (Kimberly-Clark) stock with all the Kleenex tissues we'd be using.
One thing not to shed tears over is the first sign in Manassas boasting $2.99/gallon for regular 87 octane gasoline. I saw this on a morning run and it was refreshing. Our friends at Gasbuddy.com have even identified a couple stations at $2.89/gallon. This should bode well for American consumers.
Perhaps my ignorance toward the political campaigns has left me missing if either candidate is personally claiming responsibility for the change in prices. I'm sure it's a matter of time. However, the "what next?" question will stay on my mind. Gas at $4/gallon (at least locally) is a level that really got people mad. A few ruffled feathers had people driving less, looking at alternatives, thinking about their local errands more.... it had them yelling about a possible electric car, wind power, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, etc.
I'm for a lot of alternative ideas because I just believe Americans can do those better than anywhere else in the world. And I believe in global supply & demand -- if we're demanding, someone will be supplying. The answer then becomes "how about us!" Looking at the $2.99 pivot point, will we lose our focus or are we going to still remember and demand that something is done?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Smart, Inc.
As the federal government takes some time and enacts debate on what's been called historical financial rescue this past week, the American citizens got to enjoy politics at the core of the debate. When will partisan presidential politics stop trumping the business of the nation? Many true statesmen (& women) that would be able to contribute to the general welfare of helping direct national policy are seemingly missing in the US Congress.
Naturally, the spending and tax programs that were inserted into the legislation the first round -- dare I call it "Bailout One"? The Chicago Tribute reported "Arrows, rum, wool and NASCAR" as some of the things that were inserted as amendments & riders to the bill that should have been the focus of an up or down vote.
Ah, but then the aftermath -- the vote goes through the market goes down at just about the minute it was announced. I had C-Span in one browser with the vote pending & then matched the response in a minute chart (watching the ProShares Ultra Dow ticker: DDM & updating every 60 seconds) in my trading account with Interactive Brokers. The market quickly responds to actions and laws created on the federal level (the DDM went down as the Dow Jones Index dropped after the vote). Market traders and investors recognize that corporations are going to respond to the laws that are on the books -- either present or futures.
Which (finally) gets me to the title of the post -- corporations are smart. They are going to do what's in their best interest to make their revenues and deliver to 'The Street' what is expected. Maybe this is something for the two aspiring US Presidential candidates to read and remember: Corporations will respond to tax law imposed on them and they will act accordingly to their best interest. Tax rates will determine where hiring is done. Regulation will determine the countries where workers are hired, licenses are paid, employees are trained, business travel will be conducted -- the list goes on.
Today's Washington Post reports this -- "After Change in Tax Law, Wells Fargo Swoops In" resides above the fold on the front page. How big is the change? Citigroup had put a $2.2 billion bid together to win Wachovia that originally had been agreed by both parties. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp) had promised to limit Citigroup's losses in the deal since Wachovia has some troubled loans in their holdings. Seemed like maybe a good deal for both Citigroup & Wachovia...
But Wells Fargo comes in and offers $15.4 billion. Nice premium to the original, and to boot, the Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich said, "This agreement won't require even a penny from the FDIC." Great -- no cost or government involvement? What could be better!? Reading down the article, it seems Wells Fargo has suggested they might be able to shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation. The former law would have limited the benefit to around $20 billion (cap of $1 billion/year over a 20 year period). New law? $74 billion.
Again, corporations are smart. They give guys with good business sense, experience, attorneys, and accountants money to know and understand this and lay a framework for the corporate financial activities of the company -- raising money in the capital markets, mergers & acquisitions, and especially tax laws. Favorable or unfavorable changes in the tax laws are going to be acted on appropriately.
Those in politics need to recognize and remember that their actions will be responded in the best interest of those in the businesses that are affected. It might mean to off-shore employees, or add a call-center in India and not Ohio. It also might mean to bid an extra $13.2 billion to gain a $74 billion tax write-off.
Naturally, the spending and tax programs that were inserted into the legislation the first round -- dare I call it "Bailout One"? The Chicago Tribute reported "Arrows, rum, wool and NASCAR" as some of the things that were inserted as amendments & riders to the bill that should have been the focus of an up or down vote.
Ah, but then the aftermath -- the vote goes through the market goes down at just about the minute it was announced. I had C-Span in one browser with the vote pending & then matched the response in a minute chart (watching the ProShares Ultra Dow ticker: DDM & updating every 60 seconds) in my trading account with Interactive Brokers. The market quickly responds to actions and laws created on the federal level (the DDM went down as the Dow Jones Index dropped after the vote). Market traders and investors recognize that corporations are going to respond to the laws that are on the books -- either present or futures.
Which (finally) gets me to the title of the post -- corporations are smart. They are going to do what's in their best interest to make their revenues and deliver to 'The Street' what is expected. Maybe this is something for the two aspiring US Presidential candidates to read and remember: Corporations will respond to tax law imposed on them and they will act accordingly to their best interest. Tax rates will determine where hiring is done. Regulation will determine the countries where workers are hired, licenses are paid, employees are trained, business travel will be conducted -- the list goes on.
Today's Washington Post reports this -- "After Change in Tax Law, Wells Fargo Swoops In" resides above the fold on the front page. How big is the change? Citigroup had put a $2.2 billion bid together to win Wachovia that originally had been agreed by both parties. The FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp) had promised to limit Citigroup's losses in the deal since Wachovia has some troubled loans in their holdings. Seemed like maybe a good deal for both Citigroup & Wachovia...
But Wells Fargo comes in and offers $15.4 billion. Nice premium to the original, and to boot, the Wells Fargo chairman Richard Kovacevich said, "This agreement won't require even a penny from the FDIC." Great -- no cost or government involvement? What could be better!? Reading down the article, it seems Wells Fargo has suggested they might be able to shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation. The former law would have limited the benefit to around $20 billion (cap of $1 billion/year over a 20 year period). New law? $74 billion.
Again, corporations are smart. They give guys with good business sense, experience, attorneys, and accountants money to know and understand this and lay a framework for the corporate financial activities of the company -- raising money in the capital markets, mergers & acquisitions, and especially tax laws. Favorable or unfavorable changes in the tax laws are going to be acted on appropriately.
Those in politics need to recognize and remember that their actions will be responded in the best interest of those in the businesses that are affected. It might mean to off-shore employees, or add a call-center in India and not Ohio. It also might mean to bid an extra $13.2 billion to gain a $74 billion tax write-off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
