Going, Going, Rogue

Going Rogue. The title of Sarah Palin’s new book conjures up images of an individual that has thrown off the shackles of an ungrateful institution, and against all odds has taken the dark and dangerous path into the shadows towards an unknown destination. There is a real strength and beauty to the title, and then you see the picture on the cover and the whole thing dissolves into something incredibly painful and mind-numbing......reality.

There are three things that really stagger me about a book that could just as easily be named The Chronicles of an Inept Alaskan Governor and Socially Divisive Conservative Beauty Queen. In actuality, there are more than three things that bother me, but in the essence of time we will stick to the truncated list of concerns.

First and foremost, how does this book wind up on the New York Times Best Seller list? Not only does it top the list, but it tops the list before it is even in stores. What am I missing? What could possibly be the allure of this book? Is there some incredibly interesting back-story to the Presidential campaign that was not covered in sickening detail during the 14-months of non-stop political coverage during election season? Are we going to be told about the thousands of hours that were spent by Palin’s staff trying to cover up for her lack of social, geographical, economic, and political knowledge? Could there possibly be a 250-page account of how she is so roguish (and mavericky) that she is neither ultra conservative nor Republican, but still somehow manages to pull the conservative Republican party line at all times? Of course, this all begs the question: How can one be a rogue when someone else dictates your agenda? Something tells me that the liberal media will be blamed for that.

The liberal media can also be blamed (according to Palin) for another thing: her departure from office. Now that is truly rogue behavior. This is the second thing that gets to me. Why am I supporting a person who doesn’t support her voting base? Is the media giving you a hard time? No problem. Take your office and use it against the very people who you want to hurt most….Alaskans. Nothing shows more true grit than leaving your constituency in the lurch, your state finances in shambles, and your local government in a power vacuum. Rogues don’t play by the rules. Rogues don’t do interviews. Rogues don’t put up with media BS. Rogues face their problems head on; they quit. The only thing more roguish is to quit, then write a book about it.

Being rogue is hard work. No one likes a maverick, especially that liberal media. However, the liberal media label is a little confusing. Palin cited the media and its intrusion into her personal life as one of the primary reasons for her leaving office. Forget for a moment that she was in public office, or that there is no doubt that she will run for another public office. What I could never figure out is why she was surprised that she received so much media attention. She was the one who brought the media into her home to show the country how American she and Todd were. She was the one who literally paraded her pregnant daughter around the Republican National Convention to make a political statement on family values. She was the one who wanted the world to know about her kids’ hockey practices, learning disabilities, wardrobes, travel plans, etc. Is there any surprise that the media gave her what she wanted? Now, just to keep from stoking the fire too much, she publishes a book further intruding on her own privacy. Damn that media.

The point that this article is trying to make is that this book is as much of a political stunt as anything Sarah Palin has done in the past. The bottom line is that she is using this book, and all the media attention that goes with it, as a platform to run for an office that she is unqualified to hold. You can make all the arguments you want about other politicians who hold offices with equally little experience (political or otherwise). Those people are just as bad. Sarah Palin is good at one thing, and that is making people believe that she is some independent force in the political universe, unencumbered by the political morass that is Washington. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is a creation of the GOP and will always function in line with its goals. Therefore, the title of her book is oddly fitting. A rogue is not just a person who acts outside of the normal standard. A rogue also is typically defined as an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person. Great, just what American politics needs.

Terrorists Go Into Hiding....Under New Noun

The world can breathe a sigh of relief. Terrorists have infiltrated a new proper noun, Freedom Fighter. Two of the worlds forerunners of human rights Hugo Chavez and Moammar Gadhafi have redefined terrorism so that the world is now a safer place. Last week the two leaders came together to issue a statement that Venezuela and Libya, "reject intentions to link the legitimate struggle of the people for liberty and self-determination" with terrorism, but also adds that they "reiterate the importance of countering terrorism in all its forms." Under the new terrorism guidelines people will no longer be considered terrorists as long as they kill innocent bystanders under the veil of religious freedom or political insurrection.

This is especially good news for the former Libyan leader. Luckily for Gadhafi his 40 years as a terrorist and state sponsor of terrorism are now considered past the statute of limitations under the new definition. The timing of the announcement has been questioned by some internal factions as incredibly self-serving, but most of the protestors were liquidated well before the new mandate was put in place.

Hugo Chavez knows first hand how to define legitimate struggles for liberty and self-determination. When asked how to make the distinction between terrorism and the pursuit of freedom Chavez smiled and reponded, "That is easy." When probed a little further he elaborated by saying, "It is easy in the sense that I make the rules." That is in fact true in Venezuela where Chavez used money he siphoned off from expropriated Western companies, the national treasury, and oil contracts with Russia to buy votes within Venezuela for the purpose of passing an amendment to the Venezuelan constitution to remain in power forever while simultaneously killing, exiling, or imprisoning all of his political opponents. When questioned as to whether he was one of the world's biggest hyppocrites Chavez laughed and said, "Under me Venezuela is free, and anyone who does not agree with that is obviously a terrorist."

Gadhafi echoed those sentiments days later in a dynomite factory outside of Tripoli. "I for one am simply trying to rid the world of people who do not share my beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the people who want to keep you from blowing up buildings and civilians that are the real terrorists. Who are they to prevent anyone from pursuing their goals? What happened to freedom?"

Some people do not share Mr. Gadhafi's unique perspective. In a recent BBC poll, 99.9% of responders, excluding residents of Libya and Venezuela, agreed that nothing Mr. Chavez or Mr. Gadhafi says carries any credibility. The remaining .1% abstained. Only time will tell how terrorism will react to its new name. At least for now, according to two ruthless world leaders, the world is a safer place.

Not So Well Endowed

Read this article, then read below:

Reuters: 9/10/09

In case you did not read the article that I just told you to read, here is a summary:

"Harvard and Yale, America's two richest universities, said on Thursday their endowments lost roughly 30 percent of their value last year, showing how severely the financial crisis battered even the world's best managers."

Does anything seem wrong with this statement? Let me assist. There is no way an endowment fund should lose 30% of its portfolio in any given year. Let me say this again, an endowment fund (think similar thoughts for pension funds, retirement funds, college trusts, or any other fiduciary account) should never lose 30% in any given year. If this does happen, the people managing the fund should be fired and they should be investigated for dereliction of fiduciary duties. What is a fiduciary relationship? According to the legal definition, a fiduciary obligation exists whenever the relationship with the client involves a special trust, confidence, and reliance on ithe fiduciary to exercise his discretion or expertise in acting for the client. In this case the university, and ultimately the students, are the clients. Why should this matter? Because what I am indirectly saying is that they are gambling your money. Sound familiar?

Not convinced that they were gambling college funds?

"In recent years Harvard and Yale invested heavily in hedge funds, private equity funds and timber, relying on these alternative asset classes to add billions to their endowments."

or

"Additionally, Harvard is reducing its exposure to real assets, such as real estate, timber and commodities, and is investing its future commitments in private equity funds and other investment funds. Harvard will also have a bigger cash buffer, keeping roughly 2 percent of the portfolio, instead of having it fully invested."

Think about the fact that none of the endowment fund was being held in cash or ultra short-term securities. Also, consider the sheer size of the investments held in private equities, real estate, and other illiquid assets. These kinds of investments can not be bought and sold on short notice, nor is there a daily market price. Essentially what those "smart people" at Harvard and Yale were doing were acting like they were Wall St. investment bankers rather than professionals hired to safeguard university assets. There is no other way to put it; they were in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities. That is criminal, literally.

What is most disturbing about reading an article like this is that the article is completely missing the point. In fact, the article actually gives some support to the fund managers' behavior by citing how the funds' performance have historically been above market average. These funds should never have above market average returns since that implies that they are riskier than the markets themselves. These funds should be boring in their approach to investments and should focus on preservation of principal.

The role of journalism is to ask why things are the way they are and not to roll over and say, "Those smart guys lost money, so I don't feel so bad about losing mine." Does anyone perhaps think that we as a country should start actually taking a step back from our most basic assumptions and think, "Wait a second, are these people really that smart after all?" Probably, the more pertinent question is how do my incentives align with the incentives of the people managing my money? This is especially relevant here, since in reality these people were criminally negligent, but were rewarded for taking huge risks. The scary thing is that the same can be said about virtually every pension fund in America, government or otherwise.

The bottom line is that the only thing that should be shocking about this article is that nothing is being done to prevent this exact behavior in the future. When this does happen again, please just read this article again.

Texas' Least Favorite Class: Social Studies

Last week most Texas schools decided that they would not allow President Obama's speech to be aired in their schools. Why not? The most predominant answer out of Texas: I don't want my child brainwashed by a Socialist. Of course, there were other excuses. Personally, my favorite was, "I don't want my child wasting class time." Now we all know that the first day of school is a universal waste of time, but a valid point could have been made if these same parents didn't elect to keep their children at home in order to evade the President's speech.

In my opinion this is a new low point in our society, and especially for Texas. Forget that the President of the United States is the President of the United States for a minute. Politics is clouding the bigger issue here. Instead, consider the fact that the lesson being taught here is: If you do not agree with someone's opinion, don't listen to anything that they have to say.

So, let me address the main Texan argument (since I listened to what they said).............Socialism. Of course, we all know that Socialism is the root of all evil and as un-American as South America, or is it? I hate lowering myself to defining things as a way to make an argument, but here it goes.

Socialism: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

In other words, the state (i.e. the government) controls the entire show from A to Z. We all know that there is a backlash right now against a national healthcare system. Why? Because allegedly that would be a socialist idea. This is not exactly true since what is being proposed would neither eliminate private health care companies, nor would it centralize medicine in the US. If people think a national healthcare option is a socialist idea, why then is there a national requirement that part of every paycheck in America goes towards Medicare and Medicaid? How has this flown under the radar? These programs already exist, and certainly are closer to the definition of socialism.

Other government programs could also be compared to the definition of socialism. Social security is an obvious one. After all, the program has "social" in the name. Here are some others:

Oil Subsidies
Energy Pricing Controls
Farm Subsidies
INS / Border Patrol
Military
Public Schools

Since this whole article started with schools in mind, let's come full circle on this whole socialism thing. Do any of us remember the crown jewel of domestic programs by our former Texan Republican President? No Child Left Behind. Under this program public schools have their federal funding cut if they fail to meet state mandated standards. Just to review our handy definition of socialism:

A system or condition of society (No Child Left Behind) in which the means of production (federal funding) are owned and controlled by the state (state test standards).

This program is socialist in concept at its very core. Therefore, if it was logical to keep your child home from school in order to avoid the President's socialist brainwashing speech, why would you ever send them back to socialist boot camp for the next 12 years? I guess we can all look forward to a generation of non-socialist dropouts. What a relief! Take that France. What are you looking at Canada? Any questions Britain?

I think it would be naive of me to think that I will be spared from more inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric in the coming weeks and months. What I do sincerely hope is that people will take the fingers out of their ears and listen. If they don't you can count on a new national program: All People Left Behind.

Alcohol Charged with 2,437,017 Counts of Abuse

Alcohol may finally need to sober up. A judge in New York's federal superior court held a formal arraignment hearing for Ethanol (alcohol's real name) during a special court proceeding on Labor Day. Ethanol has been accused of physically abusing millions of people worldwide, and the sheer size of the indictment that has been handed down is an indication of just how extensive the alleged abuse was. Witnesses are still being vetted, but over 400,000 testimonials have been collected so far, and that number is bound to increase. No one really knows just how much abuse may have happened. Additional indictments may be handed down if more people continue to come forward.

For some, the abuse has lasted for years. Court documents indicate that police believe that Ethanol managed to hide the alleged abuse by convincing its victims to consume itself. Once inside the helpless target Ethanol would use its unique chemical properties to torment its host. Due to the fact that Ethanol was hidden within an individual, there were virtually no external signs of abuse. Any slurred speech or random acts of stupidly were generally considered to be the fault of the individual. Typically, to avoid detection after the abuse took place, Ethanol would convince the abused to help it escape through their mouth while hiding itself in piles of late night burritos or onion rings. Ethanol has also been accused of sneaking out of its victims' urethras while the victims were distracted in the bathroom or while they were sleeping.

How did this kind of abuse go on for so long? "The problem is that we always blamed the people, and not the ethanol itself," says medical expert Joseph Snider. "Ethanol's real social coup was that it convinced us to think that it was being abused and not the other way around." If these allegations prove to be true, Ethanol could be looking at over 20,000,000 million years in prison.

The federal prosecution team has a difficult job even though it literally has tens of thousands of witnesses. The main problem is that Ethanol is technically a chemical compound, and its defense attorney Ima Blitzed will inevitably argue that hier client lacks the cognitive powers to be responsible for any abuse that may have happened. Disputing these claims could prove difficult. Ethanol does lack a brain, and clearly is incapable of operating any kind of machinery. Therefore, some of the more serious claims of vehicular misconduct will be especially hard to prove.

Federal officials are also concerned that if convicted, the current prison system will be incapable of effectively containing Ethanol. Federal penal code 237.44.r21 explicitly states that federal inmates must be allowed a minimum of 25 square feet of space while incarcerated. As a result, it would be illegal to restrain Ethanol using a bottle or other container while in prison. This could prove to be a very unwelcome distraction for the government as the defense will no doubt try to have the case dismissed on the grounds of inhumanity. That in itself is ironic since Ethanol is not human.

This case has certainly been groundbreaking on several different levels. Undoubtably more questions will surface over the next few weeks as federal prosecutors lay out their case against Ethanol. To be certain, the thousands, if not millions, of victims around the world will be following this case. For them, the scars of abuse will remain forever. A small golden lining is that most of them can not remember much about it.

California Fired Up Over New Proposition

In an unorthodox move, California has announced today that it will set fire to all flammable objects in the state. Proposition XXV has drawn significant backlash by environmental activists in recent days. However, support is growing for the bill as governor Schwarzenegger positions it as a preemptive move to avoid next year's inevitable wildfires.

"Californians are sick and tired of having to worry if their houses or their forests are going to burn down. They want to know that their state and their government are taking steps to avoid these kinds of disasters in the future," said the governor from the steps of City Hall on Friday. Some say that the governor is bowing down to pressure from Washington to reduce what some say is waste of taxpayer dollars and local resources battling wildfires each and every summer.

Recent years have seen a flurry of forest fires spread across the hillsides of southern California. Most of these fires have ultimately been attributed to arsonists, campers, or smokers. As a result, Proposition XXV tackles the human element of the problem by beating other humans to the punch.

"You have to admit it, if there is nothing to burn, there can't be a fire, said Schwarzenegger. "It is time for Californians to take back its state from the careless, the reckless, and the flammable."

Although incredibly naive, and totally reckless, the governor's proposition is at the same time ingeniously simple, and support is growing in national polls. A recent survey of people living outside of California support Proposition XXV 4 to 1. Asked why he supported the new legislation one man responded, "I would burn Oregon too if I didn't have to watch the same thing play out year after year without end. "

In fact, Oregonians are both nervous and excited. "I am scared as hell they are going to burn down everything West of the Rockies," said Ted Williamson an owner of a small hotel near the northern border of California. "However, burning down California should be good for business." Good for business is right if all goes according to plan. Estimates of tourism revenues range from 3 to 5 billion for states surrounding California.

For those wondering what is in it for California; how about 20 billion in reconstruction dollars saved each year. That is a hefty price tag to keep a couple of acres of trees and a few thousand homes in the hills. If Proposition XXV passes through the state government all people within California will temporarily moved to Las Vegas for the duration of the inferno as a symbolic gesture towards the huge risk the state is undertaking. Once the state is made safe from future fires, people will be allowed to move back to their patch of scorched earth to start again. Some parts of the state are projected to fare better than others. Los Angeles is predicted to survive the fire relatively unharmed. This is due to the fact that the level of smog hovering over the city drives down oxygen levels too far for the fire to sustain itself.

What will not be in short supply is media coverage for the next couple of weeks as the bill is finalized by the governor and his staff. Only time will tell if Propisition XXV will go up in smoke or not. We will all have to stay tuned.

Liar, Liar, Healthcare on Fire

We have all been assaulted lately with dramatic scenes from “Town Hall Meetings” across the country. What stands out to me more than the violence, finger-pointing, shouting, tears, utter despair, sweaty politicians, and foul language is the sheer volume of lies being spread by the Republican Party. Why am I blaming the Republicans and not the Democrats for rumor mongering? Ahh, it probably has something to do with the fact that Democrats would not start a rumor that their own healthcare initiative would euthanize the elderly. That was the first tip-off. If you need more proof (you shouldn’t) try to find one article that has a Democrat saying that a public healthcare system will:

1. Eliminate healthcare for the disabled (and subsequently kill old people)
2. Cover healthcare for illegal immigrants (FYI this already happens under the current system)
   
3. Pay for abortions
   
4. Steal money from programs used to equip our troops overseas
   
5. Socialize America (aka make us France or Canada or UK or Russia or _____)
   
6. Give government control over everyone’s personal bank accounts (huh?)
   
7. Allow the government to spy on you
   
8. Destroy all small businesses
   
9. Raise taxes
10. Bankrupt private healthcare

Does anyone see a pattern in this list? Does this list seem to reflect the value set of a certain political party (i.e. anti big-government, religiously conservative, domestically-centered, non-immigrant friendly, etc.)? Just as a side-note here, pretty much every item on this list (except for 10 and 3) have been happening for years under Republican administrations. However, I have to give credit where credit is due, and Republicans you deserve some credit. It was an ingenious strategy to basically use lobbying groups as rumor mills to forward your non-progressive agenda. And why not? The US has a collective educational level of a 9th grader, so why wouldn’t high school antics succeed in the “adult” world. Diabolically brilliant.

The truth of the matter is that I would never have started this article if the national healthcare debate had not been reduced to a bullshitting match. In fact, I support rigorous national debates on all the issues. However, the issues have been so intentionally clouded that I am afraid that the Republicans have willingly sacrificed any form of meaningful healthcare reform. That in itself is shameful. Enriching the lives of Americans through proper healthcare should be the real goal, not enriching the profitability of healthcare companies through politics. Maintaining the status quo due to unfounded rumors and meaningless innuendos is downright pitiful.

Of course, spreading rumors to start a public panic is nothing new. We are all intimately familiar with Swine flu, Ebola, Bird flu, SARS, shoe bombs, pirates, John & Kate, oil, TARP, the words Depression and Recession, Pokemon, etc. And of course we all remember when Al-Queda was lurking behind every corner laden with dirty bombs demanding that we invade Iraq. That one worked out well, so why not go back to the old stand-by? Republicans know something that the rest of us just can not come to terms with: most people are simply too lazy, too stupid, or too biased to ever educate themselves on the issues (i.e. read, question, analyze). If people actually did this, these types of rumors would never work on either side of a debate. People would stop themselves and say, “You know something, let me look into your claim that a national healthcare system would turn all doctors into patient eating cannibals.” That day will sadly never come.

Therefore, it is with extreme loathing that I will now lower myself to the depths of the GOP. It occurred to me the other day that an effective way to stop Republicans from planting people in the audiences of Town Hall meetings (or any forum really) in the future was to fight fire with fire. The idea is simple: Spread outrageous lies about what people have to do in order to register as a Republican. The implication here is that if the lies are effective, people will never again want to raise their hand and say, "Yes, I am a Republican, and those are my values."

There are some ground rules to this new fight. First, any claim has to incite anger so as to veil the real issue in a cloud of ambiguity. Second, be the first one to point the finger. Latecomers to the party are always put on the defensive. Third, never stop lying. Never admitting to lying is just as important, but feel free to lie about that too. In fact, when cornered on an issue, tell another more inflammatory lie.

The strategy for such a social coup should use the bedrock political items of the GOP and twist them into some warped sense of patriotism. This way the strategy will have roots in reality that will make our claims more believable. For example, most Republicans want all illegal immigrants physically removed from our country. Therefore, one rumor we could spread is that all Republicans must go through an initiation process in which they literally kill an illegal alien. Imagine the quandry Rush Limbaugh would find himself in when people started calling his show to find out how many immigrants he killed to be a Republican.

Here is a list of rumors that might serve as a good starting point for this new campaign. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it should touch on enough salient points to flatline incoming membership figures and to pulverize public opinion polls:

1) One fifth of all Republican campaign funds go to the KKK

2) John Edwards was really a Republican plant meant to divide public favor amongst Democrats

3) Half of all Republican Senators own sweatshops overseas

4) Republican membership hazing features an annual trip to Alaska for seal clubbing and whale harpooning paid for with taxpayer money

5) The Republican National Convention is always staffed by prostitutes (both male and female)

6) A leaked Republican membership oath will reveal the phrase, "I will view the Republican Party as a religion, and consider all other forms of worship irrelvant and gay."

7) Membership requires gene testing to verify that new applicants have both X and Y chromosomes. Women must have either XXY chromosomes or a hairiness index factor of 7, and must never express an original thought to qualify for membership.

8) All members must carry guns at all times regardless of age

9) Members can not travel to foreign countries ever, for any reason, unless travel is for the expressed purpose of killing terrorists or destroying terrorist training camps

10) Membership to the Republican Party comes with a guidebook on how to evade taxes using overseas bank accounts and shell corporations (a copy of this guidebook should be created and circulated)

If all the steps and lies are implemented as outlined, there is no reason that Republicans can not be marginalized for certainly the foreseeable future. My real hope is that these lies serve a higher purpose; one that will once again allow the country to engage in real discussions on change without the need for lies. That would be an accomplishment all by itself. That being said, the Democrats will probably find a way to screw that up as well. Let me just say that my hopes are not really high.

If you want to actually sift through some of the lies current being spread visit: http://www.healthcarereformmyths.org/HealthcareReformMyths.php