Bernanke, Quantitative Easing, and The Debt

In 1913 the US, in response to several economic panics, created our central bank, the Federal Reserve.  As most of you are aware the President and Congress do not determine US monetary policy or interest rates; that is the function of the Federal Reserve.  And although the US Treasury actually controls the printing presses, the Federal Reserve actually determines the amount of money available in the economy, by various means, and ultimately can “buy” dollars from the US Treasury for the cost of printing, about 6 cents per bill printed.

Ben Bernanke is the current chairman of the Fed, and as you are no doubt aware he has taken two critical actions since our economy headed south several years ago.  First, he lowered the federal funds rate to essentially zero.  That means banks can borrow money from the Fed for zero percent interest, which has the net effect of keeping interest rates very low throughout the economy.  That is why your savings account pays you nothing, and that is also why mortgage rates are at historical lows.

The second thing Mr. Bernanke has done is to expand the money supply through a mechanism they like to call “quantitative easing”, or QE as it is called.  This has been done more than once and so we now have labels such as QE1, QE2, etc. to describe Fed programs that essentially put more money into the economy.  Currently the Fed is buying $85 billion dollars worth of US Treasury bonds each month, with money it has the US Treasury print.  When they buy those bonds they introduce more actual US currency into the system, and also create demand for the Treasury notes, allowing the US to “borrow” more money and go deeper in debt.  When the US Government sells it’s bonds, or “debt”, someone has to buy it, and they hold auctions to sell them.  When the Fed buys back $85 billion per month they enhance the demand and the price the government gets when it sells bonds, which helps the government and allows them to keep selling their debt.

So far Mr. Bernanke’s strategy has worked.  Despite concerns voiced by people such as Larry Kudlow that such a policy would send inflation soaring, Larry recently admitted that things have not turned out that way.  Inflation remains low, the stock market has more than doubled, and the economy is improving.  Indeed, housing prices are on the rise, and although there are still housing concerns, the market has improved dramatically and many markets are seeing better prices and not as many homeowners are upside down.  Likewise the industrial sector is doing better, with a pretty good earnings season and healthy profits in many areas.  Despite concerns about a weaker dollar, the dollar has actually done well compared to other currencies.  And unemployment has declined somewhat and although not at healthy levels is not a grim as it has been.  So far, so good.

When you listen to the pundits on CNBC, Bloomberg, or Fox Business, they describe the Fed’s QE programs as “the punch bowl”.  Many people think that all of the good news above is a result of Mr. Bernanke’s actions, and they all worry about what will happen when the Fed removes the punch bowl.  In fact, as is usual with any Fed chairman, they search for subtle clues in the language and tone the chairman uses with every speech, to see if there is any hint that they may cut back on QE or “take away the punch bowl”.  That happened this week, and markets reacted immediately, only to pare some of the losses later in the day.  You see, with interest rates this low, putting your money someplace usually safe, like bonds, is actually a risky thing to do.  That is because if you are holding a bond that pays 1% and suddenly interest rates go up and bonds then pay 5%, nobody will want to buy your 1% bond and the price, or value, of your bond will go down.  If you are invested in a bond fund when rates drop, you will lose money.  Likewise, if you have had your money under a mattress, not only are you risking inflation losses, but you have missed out on fantastic gains in the stock market, which if you ever want to retire you simply cannot do.  When the market goes up you need to be invested or it does you no good.

And so the lament of everyone involved in the investment world is, “if you pull your money out of the market, where else are you going to put it?”  And as a result, everyone keeps buying stocks, driving up stock prices and even preventing a healthy “correction”, because every dip is a buying opportunity.  This is exactly what Mr. Bernanke was counting on, because when the stock market goes up real wealth is created, and people use that wealth to buy things, and the economy improves.

However….and you knew the however was coming….all of this misses a couple of critical points.  First, the fact that inflation has not risen does not mean it is not going to.  We can examine the technical factors ad infinitum, but in the end more dollars means dollars are going to be worth less.  There are some reasons for the strong dollar and lack of inflation, for example other governments are inflating their own money supply (Japan on purpose), and eventually these factors will not overcome the fact that we have printing presses belching out currency at a phenomenal rate.   

Second, when the Fed removes the punch bowl there will be an immediate and strong reaction.  The market will drop, perhaps precipitously.  I think initially there will be a correction and then people will see a buying opportunity, but you had better be able to ride it out and be in for the long haul.  As I pointed out earlier, bonds and bond funds will also take a massive hit, and that means everyone will take a hit, as there is really no safe haven.  I think the underlying economy is stronger, and so people will realize that and get back in, but the psychology of the market is beyond anyone to predict or understand, so these are guesses.  I hope there is not some world event that coincides, as then all bets are off.

These are concerns, but here is the real concern; currently the largest debtor in the world is enjoying a huge savings from the lowest interest rates in history.  The US government is SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS in debt, and the fact that interest rates are low is helping to dramatically lower the amount we pay every year for interest on the national debt.  Bernanke is aware of this, but at some point he will have to battle inflation, and take away the punch bowl.  When inflation rises, it will hurt the home buyer, or anyone who must refinance, but the biggest concern will be the interest paid by the federal government on our national debt.  When we have to pay higher interest on seventeen trillion dollars worth of debt, we are going to be in trouble and balancing the federal budget may become nearly impossible.  Sequestration has merely slowed the rate of borrowing, but we are still borrowing money.  Most corporations have slashed costs and are buying back their own stock, and even the states are doing much better at managing their budgets, for the most part.  But the federal government in it’s arrogance has barely begun to get it’s house in order.  We must address entitlements, and do so now.  The punch bowl will only be around so long, and instead of using this opportunity to get our house in order, we just keep borrowing more money.

Climate Change

I often hear people say, and I have said it myself, “wow, it’s awfully cold for May, so much for global warming”.  Of course I recognize the logical fallacy there.  Weather and climate are separate things, and as a meteorologist described it, weather is your mood, and climate is your personality.  Single days or weeks of weather, or single weather phenomena, do not describe climate, or changes to it.

For example, the Oklahoma tornado, or Hurricane Sandy, do not “prove” climate change, any more than cold weather in the northeast disproves it.  To connect them is not a sound logical argument, and given that they are tragedies where humans lost their lives, we should keep political discussions out of it, which for the most part we all did.

So I suggest we look at data.  The weather people have been collecting data for some time and CO2 levels have risen from the low 300’s ppm to crossing the 400 ppm just recently.  Likewise global temperatures have risen 1.5 degrees, I think they said in the last few decades.  I do not argue with people who have sound empirical data.  Global temperatures and CO2 levels are rising.  Likewise, glaciers are melting and sea levels are rising.  Again, we should not argue with facts.  And as one of the meteorologists put it, 1.5 degrees doesn’t seem like much but your body responds when your temperature rises that much, and so does our climate.

I have heard people claim that these changes are entirely due to man and his activities, and I have heard people claim that they are not due to man and his activities.  Both sides often seem to be quite sure and they are strident, and want to convince you of the correctness of their assertion.  Most of the time these people are not scientists, do not present data, and are not convincing.  If you listen to the real scientists, the pointy headed meteorologists, they are much more careful with their language.  They will point to data, and they will always say that lots of factors go into the climate, such as man burning carbon fuels to raise CO2 levels but they are careful to point out that volcanoes, forest fires, sunspots, and even the gas emitted by cows can have an effect.

I will not list it here but there is certainly data being collected that supports the idea that our burning of fossil fuels contributes to the rise in global temperature.  It is at the very least one factor.  There is also ample evidence that all of our efforts in this area are paying off, at least a little.  Increased mileage standards for automobiles, better technology for coal plants to create electricity, and changes to things like the solvents that can be used in paints have all made a difference in US carbon emissions.

I do know a little about the last one.  Through things like the HAPS list and various regulations, industrial painting has become much more eco-friendly over the past few decades.  We have reduced the level of solvents in our paints dramatically.  As a side note, there are always unintended consequences.  Three decades ago we never worried about bacteria growth in paint systems but as we lowered solvent levels this became an issue and we had to start using biocides to control bacteria, and then we had to refine the biocides we were using and how we used them so we did not wipe out local water treatment plants when sending liquids to drain.  We now send almost nothing to drain that has any solvents in it.  Progress has been made, but we have challenges to overcome along the way.

With the discovery of fracking we have opened up new sources of energy, and also new concerns.  Certainly we have all heard the stories of people turning on a water faucet and getting, well, not water from their faucet.  This is a problem, but one to be overcome, not an excuse to abandon fracking.  Likewise nuclear energy has problems to be overcome but that is not an excuse to not build any nuclear plants for 20 years.  Remember, electric cars are great but electricity is produced by and large by burning COAL.  In my opinion everyone needs to have an open mind and realize every solution comes with it’s own set of unintended consequences, but the greatness of our country lies in the plentiful number of smart people who can overcome these challenges.

So, it is in this context that I introduce one Al Gore, supposed champion for all things green.  Mr. Gore presents himself as the champion of reducing carbon emissions, but I would like to make the claim that Al Gore has set back his own movement more than anyone else in history.  I say that because most of the opposition to moving forward with change was generated by the former Vice President’s rather unique approach to the problem.  He set up a corporation and introduced the idea of Carbon Credits, which involve people being charged for their personal use of carbon fuels, and his little company was poised to have a role in the scheme, which would make Al Gore a lot of money.

Rightly so, those who saw climate change as a hoax saw right through Al Gore and declared the whole thing phoney baloney.  Obviously Rush Limbaugh being the chief among them.  And I think the criticism of Al Gore’s plan was justified.  It involved being able to purchase credits from someone else who had a smaller carbon footprint for money, or selling those same credits if you did not need them.  I must say this is bizarre and self serving, and Al Gore does not deserve my respect for this ridiculous plan.  Lots and lots of people just clicked off their brains at that point.  As I said, he set back his own movement with an obviously self serving plan.

Rational people agree that belching smoke from a factory is a bad idea, and rational people are already making changes.  We need more changes, whether climate change is primarily man made or not.  Some things that make sense: Oklahomans should build storm shelters.  People should consider whether to build their homes right on the beach.  Californians should clear a safe-zone around their homes to help prevent wildfire damage.  We should build more nuclear power plants.  Everyone should buy more fuel efficient vehicles, if nothing else to save money.  And companies, like for example paint companies, should tout their eco-friendly products when selling them, which they certainly are already doing.

And we should talk to the Chinese, who are, sadly, going the wrong way and increasing their carbon emissions at an alarming rate.  Just don’t send Al Gore over there, we don’t need any more setbacks.

Francis, Franklin, Bill, Barak, and Religous Tolerance

This has been quite a week.  I will step away from the scandals for a moment to offend everyone regarding religion.  In the news we have the Muslim man who beheaded a British soldier.  Barak Obama gave a speech where he noted that we are not at war with Islam.  Pope Francis commented that Catholics could find common ground with atheists.  Sweden is literally burning, as a result of riots by people the news can only refer to as “they”.  And Franklin Graham noted that it appeared the Billy Graham organization was targeted by the IRS for extra scrutiny.  He then was again in the news when his charitable organization, Samaritan’s purse, was heavily involved in the relief efforts in Oklahoma.

But I will begin with the Westboro Baptist Church, who once again are going to attend a funeral, this time that of a young boy, with signs that say things like “God hates Gays”.  I want to point out that everyone who has participated in these “protests” at funerals has been a Baptist, since they are all members of Westboro Baptist Church.  I also want to point out that I have yet to hear Franklin Graham condemn their actions.  Some people could conclude that all Baptists hate gays, and approve of what the Westboro Baptist church is doing.  They might use as their argument that the reason Billy Graham’s organization was targeted was their support of North Carolina’s proposed law that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Franklin Graham made that point in one of his television interviews.  He said he believes the Bible is God’s word cover to cover, and that is why he supported the law, and also why he was targeted by the IRS.

Clearly to profile all Baptists as a result of the actions of the Westboro church is ludicrous.  I am sure there are Baptists that don’t like gays, but I am equally certain that most condemn their actions completely.  The fact that I have not heard Franklin disavow them does not mean he has not.  But Bill O’Reilly went on The Daily Show and did the same thing to Islam this week.  All of the terrorist acts have been done by Islamic folks, and so Bill believes it is ok to profile them.  He has not heard a lot of outcry from Muslim leaders.  What is the difference?

The president made the point this week that the United States is not at war with Islam.  He said most Muslims are peaceful people who do not approve of these attacks.  We should note, however, that Christians and Muslims have been at war for over 1000 years.  That is what the Crusades were about.  That is why General “BlackJack” Pershing lined up a group of his enemies in North Africa and had his men dip there bullets in pig’s blood before shooting all but one of the men, and releasing him to tell the rest that they would not go to heaven and get virgins because they would die unclean.  Christianity and Islam have a long history of being at war with each other, and even if Christians wish to deny it, the war goes on, and that is what these attacks, this Jihad, is all about.  It goes back a LONG way.

But the United States, despite claims to the contrary, is not a “Christian nation”.  We are a nation that believes in freedom of religion, and there are lots of religions here, all practicing their faith pretty much peacefully.  Add to that that our president is arguable the most Muslim-friendly president ever, and one must wonder what sparks such hatred in these young Islamic men.  In an interview after the grisly killing in London, an Islamic public affairs officer condemned the atrocity but also noted that young Muslim men were at a virtual boiling point, and that his Muslim community needed to do a better job of mentoring them and teaching them.  He noted they are angry at all of the killing of their brothers in Afghanistan.  That killing was also one of the subjects that our president spoke of in his address, the use of drones and targeting of various people.  We should note that the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize early in his presidency is now involved in more conflicts in Muslim nations than any other president in history and there are more US soldiers in Afghanistan now than when he took office.

Sweden is on fire, literally, from young radical men who “refuse to assimilate”, who have moved to western countries but do not wish to adapt to the cultural norms of their new hosts.  Sweden is apparently the most multi-cultural country in the west, and has welcomed their new visitors with open arms.  Let’s be clear once again, “they” refers to young Muslim men, and they are currently rioting and burning Sweden to the ground.  Officials there have now noted, “multiculturalism has been a massive failure”.

And what of the new Pontiff?  He seems to have gone completely off-script by claiming that Christians and Atheists can find common ground.   He said that, “if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much.  We must meet one another doing good”.  He went on to say “even the atheists” are “redeemed” through the “blood of Christ”.  Off-script, indeed.  I dare say Franklin Graham might counter that the only requirement for salvation is “that you believe in Jesus Christ”, which invites the conclusion that if you do not believe you will not be saved.  Which is in contradiction to what Francis said this week.

I have been following the pope’s tweets, and this morning he tweeted “we all have in our hearts some areas of disbelief. “  He is in good company as Mother Theresa had written about her struggles with faith, she who spent her life helping the poor in Calcutta.  He is also in good company in going off script.  There once was a young devout Jewish guy that went completely off script.  And later a man named Martin Luther who did the same.  Perhaps we will even question “indulgences” and the sin of masturbation.  I had a good friend confide in me this week that his kid had informed him that he was no longer a believer.  He wondered if there were books he could suggest that would “prove” that Christianity was real.  I think people who end up with true faith always question what they have been taught, and nothing is more powerful than seeing the quiet and consistent practice of one’s faith.  The doing of good that comes from the heart and not a book.  A simple integrity that speaks for itself.

What is the point here?  First, I am not a Catholic or Baptist or Muslim or Atheist.  I have my own thoughts and feelings on the matter but I am not sure they are captured by any organized religion.  Having said that, it seems that the folks doing the most damage in this world are those most certain (and vocal) of their positions.  The morons at Westboro, the morons in Sweden, the morons who are cutting off heads, and yes, the morons who don’t think gay people should be cohabitating.  I respect all of those who post about their faith, and I am happy that you have your faith, and respectful of it.  Let me add another group of morons; those that respond to the pope’s tweets with hateful disgusting vitriol.  Why are you paying attention?  Why do you care?  And lastly the atheists, who are equally certain of their position.  You are all entitled to your faith, thoughts and positions.  I applaud your freedom of speech and expression of faith.  But somewhere along the line we got to the point where the most faithful amongst us are also the least tolerant, and the most angry, and the most likely to want to curtail the rights of others or chop off their heads.  In the name of religion.

Grow a little tolerance, a little humility, and don’t buy into everything you are taught.  Realize you cannot all be correct and even if you are, you need to reach out to those you disagree with, and as the pope says, “meet one another doing good”.  Like we are doing in Oklahoma.

Drones, Guantanamo, and Rights

I am getting a little sick of people complaining that “President Obama is going to give people from other countries the same rights as Americans”.  Let me remind you, President Obama does not have the right to “give” rights to anyone.  Our rights as Americans do not come from President Obama, or Congress, or even from our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.  Those who think that way do not agree with what is actually the bedrock of our society, that “ALL men are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If a president can “give” those rights to someone from another country, then he can withhold them from any of us.  He has no such power.  Our rights do not come from Barak Obama, they are inalienable.  Sadly, this is often inconvenient.  And they chose, appropriately, to use the term “ALL MEN”, which for clarity includes all women and all blacks, despite the language about slaves that was included at the time.

If ALL MEN have rights that were not granted by government, but simply acknowledged by government, then someone will have to explain to me how that means “Americans only”.  The right to freedom of speech and religion and peaceable assembly are not granted by government to some groups but not others.

Of course, government has always been able to take away rights for just cause and after due process.  If you commit murder and are convicted your liberty is forfeited.  If you are a German soldier in World War 2, then we recognize that our soldiers have the right to take your life.  If someone breaks into your house to kill your children, your right to self defense trumps his right to live.  So drone strikes on enemy combatants, since we have indeed authorized war against the Taliban and insurgents in Afghanistan, is not a violation of our principles since they are enemy combatants, and this applies whether they are US citizens or not.  If a SWAT team could have taken out Timothy McVeigh and prevented the Oklahoma City tragedy then that would have been justified.

When we detain people in Guantanamo without charges or due process, we cheapen our own system.  We spit on our core principles.  ALL MEN means ALL MEN.  Those rights do not stop at our borders.

I do think I know where the confusion comes from.  The confusion comes when we do not understand the nature of God-given rights.  For example, the right to an education, or the right to health care, are not enumerated anywhere in our founding documents.  These things are not and can never be inalienable, and do not come from God or nature, nor for that matter do they  flow logically.  It is absurd to claim that someone from Afghanistan has a “right” to health care in the US, because NOBODY has the right to health care, period.  Education, health care, and housing are things that we all hope everyone has and they are good things, but they can never be guaranteed.  Our system, our philosophy of government and society never claimed or acknowledged such rights, because they cannot logically or morally do so.

These things that are so-called “rights” do and must come from government, and government must force one person to provide them for another person.  Whatever you call them, they are not inalienable, do not come naturally from God, and were not acknowledged by the founders.  And as such, there is no way to include the ALL MEN part when talking about health care.  Even those who tout health care as a human right have to acknowledge that the “right” only applies to Americans, not Mexicans or Afghans, because they realize we cannot afford to provide things for the whole world.  We should take that a step further and acknowledge that we cannot afford to provide them to all Americans either.

But true rights, the ones mentioned in our founding documents, which require no more than acknowledgement by our government and the freedom of people to live their lives in peace, those do not stop at any border and do indeed apply to all men, so stop talking about how non-Americans are not entitled to them.  They already have them, you just don’t wish to acknowledge it.

Immigration Reform

I have thought a lot recently about immigration reform, and the proposal by Marco Rubio and the "gang of eight" to reform our immigration laws.  I have listened to the arguments put forth by those on the right, for example Eric Bolling of Fox News' Five at Five.  The right argues, if I may simplify, that we should not reward those who "broke our laws" with a path to citizenship.  From a practical point of view, this would surely lead to more illegal immigrants, wanting to get the same deal, and diluting the American work force with "cheap labor" and swelling the welfare roles.  As you may have noticed, the practical matters usually take a secondary role for me, as what really matters is the philospohy or rational behind what we do.

One of the things that I struggle with is why we as Americans, (or myself as a white man lucky enough to be born in St. Louis Missouri) are entitled to things that my good friend Leticia Zepeda, born in Mexicali Mexico, are not.  She is a nice, very intelligent lady who works hard every day, rasies her kids and was just unlucky enough to be born there instead of here.  By the way, she is not an illegal alien, she is a Mexican, working in Mexico, perhaps harder than I do.  She has to deal with poor infrastructure and drug cartels,  She does not get paid what I do and to buy a car is much harder for her than it is for me.  Leticai is a happy lady.  She loves her kids, doesn't drink (like I do anyway), does a better job of running her paint system than most of her American counterparts, and I do not hear her complain.

By contrast, I have heard lots of Americans complain about things that they have no right to complain about.  I know a lot of Mexicans have crossed the border illegally to get to this country, and that is breaking our laws.  But I know for a certainty that were I living in Nogales or Reynosa, where one of my operators explained that on on the salary he was being paid (which is a set amount for everyone working in that area of Mexico, set by local unions, less than $1.50 an hour), buying a car is not possible for him, I would cross the border illegally.

How can I blame someone for doing the same thing I would do?  The drug cartel activity has been stifling (it has gotten a little better lately, but not much).  Many of these people, as you have no doubt noticed, will work hard and do a really good job for what we consider a pretty low wage.  By contrast, in my time in the automotive industry, I encountered a great number of folks who simply refused to work at all.  What is wrong with Detroit?  I could go on and on but I will offer one example; I used to have a paint operator who would get mad at me if I let him sleep through break, because that is when he ran his football pool.  A white anglo saxon male, for those of you that care.

I have always said that what matters (to quote Dr. King), is the content of your character.  You were born a certain skin color or size, and likewise you have no control over who your parents were or where they gave birth to you, or the shape or angle of your eyes.  But the opinions you hold, your approach to hard work, and the way you treat others, that is up to you.  In a perfect world the hardest working, most ethical people would be rewarded and the lazy people who feel entitled just because they exist would go hungry.

It means nothing to me that you were born in the United States.  That entitles you to nothing.  I struggle because I realize we have to have some control over our society or it will collapse under the wieght of too many people but someone will have to explain to me why the accident of your birth entitles you to more than the accident of someone else's birth.

The founders of this country established a system (the first time in history) where capitalism and democracy reigned, and men were judged by what they achieved rather than their status at birth.  We do not have a class system, we do not have kings, we have an open, free society where people are judged by their worth to other men and society, not by skin color or caste system.  Still today this is a rarity, compared to China, or India, or most places on earth.  As a result, everyone wants to come here.  They hunger for our SYSTEM, where they can prove themselves, while some (not all) of us take that for granted.

When Ms. Sebelius says we have a right to health care or whatever, just by virtue of being Americans, she undermines our system, and creates an environment where instead of wanting to come here for freedom and opportunity, people want to come here for goodies.  Our rights come from God, they are inalienable.  So it costs nothing for us to give illegal immigrants freedom of speech or religion.  What Eric Bolling is concerned about is people coming here for welfare or health care or other things that WE MUST PROVIDE.  If we were true to the principles this country was founded on, these immigrants would cost us nothing and conservatives would have nothing to fear but good men competing for their jobs.  I don't think we should fear people competeing for our jobs, that is survival of the fittest, and the best man should win.  But SOME of these immigrants are looking for handouts, and some politicians are looking to give out handouts to attract new voters.

And therein lies the problem.  I can't say that I have a solution to that, except for a return to our core values, the ones enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which give all men an equal footing to pursue thier own happiness.  Under that system it truly would not matter where you came from, everyone would compete on merit.

But I do not understand the word entitlement, as apparently it refers to recieveing something you did not earn from other people who must provide it for you, which is the root of this whole mess and the source of everyone's concern.  Entitlements will attract people that want stuff for free, and thus the stereotypes and fear.

Marco Rubio appears to understand this and he has taken a stab at fixing it.  While his plan is not perfect it is a start and we might as well collect taxes from those who are here working hard and making money.  And we should not fear the hard working largely moral folks in that group, who came here as any of us would to escape drug cartels and corruption.  As for the ones who came here for a handout they are no worse than Americans with the same attitude.

I say we support tough immigration reform but the real challenge to to support entitlement reform.

Family Tree

In the end we will all end up a name, a spot on a family tree. Your place on your family tree is already determined. What has yet to be decided is what story people you have not met will tell when someone says " tell me about great grandpa".

That is the story you are writing right now, and non participation is not an option. You will have a story of some kind, it's up to you what kind of life they will describe.

 

 My mom's dad was 65 when she was born. He was pretty famous earlier in his life for his bloodhounds which he used for tracking criminals. Later in life he had a fondness for alcohol. He once caught an ex-wife with another man and apparently chased the guy through town with a shotgun. But the part I did not know until last night, the part that really connected me on some level was that he loved baseball and would sit by the radio (he was in ill health) and he would listen to every game.

Barak

When we focus on the people involved, we can't help falling into political wrangling. What is obvious is that the system is broken here with the IRS, DOJ, and State department all embroiled in scandals. The military has a huge problem with sexual harassment. There have been admissions and apologies, and our president says he is angry over what happened and he understands our anger and feels it is ...justified.

I suggest the long term solution is to take power away from the federal government, regardless of which party is in power in the future. Give power back to the states, and back to the people themselves. We need a less powerful IRS and a department of Justice that would never seize AP phone records.

Having said that, if all of these things were happening at Caterpillar, or IBM, or the Kansas City Royals, what would everyone be saying about the leadership of those companies? It would be troubling to hear a CEO say they heard about it all at the same time as everyone else. Oh, but of course the federal government is much bigger than that.

The federal government is too large and powerful to be managed by anyone effectively. Although I will say Bill Clinton was much more on top of his administration (despite a few sex scandals) than Barak Obama is capable of being. Sometimes people just aren't good leaders/managers. It doesn't mean he ordered any of it, just that he did not manage it well.

If this were a company he would be gone by now.

Benghazi

When the war was going on in Libya the State department wanted to help the insurgents overthrow Gaddafi and so they secretly supplied them with weapons. Later they realized the people they gave weapons to were actually Al Qaeda.

Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to try and buy back the weapons from Al Qaeda. Obviously this is not something they wanted known, thus the secrecy and as a result the... lack of adequate security. And, perhaps, the lack of response as everyone wanted to downplay the situation.

The reaction to the video that HAD occurred in other places seemed like the perfect cover and, they thought, believable. Even when the Libyan president directly contradicted them they doubled down, thinking that repeating the lie more vigorously and attacking Fox News as rabid partisans would work, which it almost did, and may still.

That is the story they never wanted to come out. General David Petraeus was made CIA director by Barak Obama, after having been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Shortly after the Benghazi attacks he had a personal affair exposed and was forced to resign. We need David Petraeus under oath in front of Congress, and he needs to be asked the right questions. My guess is that the truth and honor still matter to the General, and there is no doubt he knows exactly what the truth is.

Abuse Of Power

Imagine it is the 1970's and you are in high school in Ballwin, Missouri. It is a Friday night and you meet your friends in the Central Hardware parking lot (they are closed) to talk and figure out what to do. You haven't decided yet and don't have any beer so you are really just hanging out, talking. The cops come by and tell you you cannot hang out there and have to move on.

You can't see why ...but you get in your car and start to leave. One of the cops is a jerk and pulls you over when you start to drive. He gives you a breath test and you pass and he is pissed. This guy is a jerk, and he breaks your headlight and writes you a ticket for a broken headlight and dares you to have an attitude so he can take you in. You know better and take it on the chin but you are angry.

When you get home your parents don't believe you and punish you for getting in trouble and ask you why they should believe you and not the cop.

If "we" are conservatives, and the police represent the administration, then understand that many of you are the parents who just don't think the cops can do any wrong.

You do not deserve to call yourselves liberals any more. That word does not describe your attitude or actions. Even with video of the cop breaking the headlight you just don't see how the cops could ever do any wrong.

I am an outraged teenager and I sleep well at night. My position has never changed.

CO2 Levels

Folks are concerned that CO2 levels have reached the 400 ppm level according to NOAA monitoring. The US has cut carbon emissions by 13%, and our use of coal is decreasing. China' use of coal has quadrupled in the same time period and they now burn more coal than all other countries combined. This is inconvenient if you are trying to make money off of a carbon credits thing. I think the Chinese are going to laugh at you, and charging Americans for some weird carbon credits scheme will not fix the problem now will it? Sorry Mr. Gore (oh that's right you are already filthy rich from your deal with Al Jazeera).

Mr. President

I don't think the president should worry about the IRS or the AP or Benghazi things, or the lost terrorists or whatever. Honestly. I think he should get up off his @ss and take care of all the stuff The Press Has Not Reported Yet. Go find out what we are doing before the press tells us. You are the president, you said you wanted to run things, not respond to them afterwards. You asked for the job, maybe you should go do it. Just once be proactive and actually run the government. Have meetings or something, you know, before things go wrong.

Susan Rice

The jurors in the Jodi Arias case kept asking her why they should believe her now, since she had lied for so long. She said she initially just wanted to avoid getting in trouble and it took her a while to get to the point where she could tell the truth. Not sure she ever told the truth. They convicted her.

Susan Rice lied to the media, she lied to me, she lied and lied to try and keep out of trou...ble. By lying I mean she looked everyone in the eye and declared facts that she knew to be false. She lied to the mother of a Navy seal directly to her face at the funeral.

If this does not bother you at all then I might suggest you yourself may have a problem with the truth. I have always mistrusted authority (perhaps my hippie streak), but the people lying to us ARE the government, the authorities who think we are too stupid to know the difference.

Lets just say this hippie isn't buying their crap. But of course many of you are meek conformers who don't like challenging authority. I understand. They may cut off your public assistance.

I wish I could go back and heckle Richard Nixon, our most famous liar. He got what he deserved.

Not caring about lying when it is YOUR team shows a lack of integrity in my opinion. I do not care what party they are from. They lied through their teeth thinking they could get away with it. Maybe they will.

Gay Basketball Player?

Is it just me? I think Jason Collins is just a basketball player, not a "gay" basketball player. I am not proud of his gayness, nor do I condemn it. I don't care. More power to you.

Excuse me but was I SUPPOSED to care? I also don't care if you are black or green or have three arms. You are not offensive to me but I also do not celebrate these qualities as you were simply born that way.

Feel ...free to be female, black, or gay but don't expect me to care. I care what thoughts are between your ears. THAT is the conservative point of view. It does not matter to me and never has. These are not things you have done but simply the way you were born. The people concerned about these traits are welcome to their bias but I am not one of them.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know, or why we believe what we believe. If your parents are Muslim, it is likely you are Muslim. Likewise if your parents were Catholic, you are likely a Catholic. Likewise with Jews and Muslims, and in fact Republican and Democrats, or whatever other label you think of, it is statistically likely that you believe what your parents believe, beca...use that is what you were taught at an early age.

Some people change that, of course, sometimes after careful consideration and sometimes to get back at Mom and Dad. Some people do believe the same things as their parents even after careful consideration.

Of course not all parents can be correct. I should note that Muslims and Jews and Catholics can't all be correct, because they believe vastly different things. Same with Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, capitalists and communists. Someone in the end is right and someone is wrong, and epistemology is the study of how we really can know and believe what we know and believe.

For my part, if you are one of the people that roots for your parents team because that is what you were told by Mommy and Daddy, and you have never really paused to give it much thought because you are "just not interested in those things", then please understand that your opinion has zero value in my world. You don't really hold opinions, you have faith in what your mother and father told you. That's fine but as I said holds no value for me.

If you find yourself rooting and voted and spouting your opinion and you realize you have never taken the time to figure out WHY you believe what you believe, then I might suggest you should be quiet. I love talking to those who hold different opinions than I do who have carefully considered why believe what they believe. Those folks tend to open my eyes about things and they are the only ones who ever end up changing my mind, because they have considered the reasons for what they are saying.

The rest, the "team players", often give confusing and irrational explanations that don't often even make sense to them.

It is humbling to look at why you believe what you believe, and it removes a lot of arrogance and mistrust of others, but if we don't all start looking at what we believe we are going to be fighting each other until there is nothing left to fight over. Even if it is as simple as saying a small phrase that frightens so many of us, please consider occasionally saying "I don't know", especially when that is the truth.

Founders versus health care

We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are endowed by their CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights, among them life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Our founders did not GIVE us rights, they acknowledged that we already had them.

How can I take away your inalienable rights simply by not going to work in the morning? If other people do not work for your benefit, they "ta...ke away" your right to health care, simply by doing nothing.

The founders were deep thinkers who not only considered their epistemology, they rejected the British notions they were taught as children, and created a most amazing document. After lots of great arguments and disagreements and bickering and THINKING.

Now, people who have not given so much thought to such things have decided they know better and that we have a "right" to material goods and services. Of course, someone else has to go to work to provide that but we don't want to "think" about that. We are smarter than the founders.

And since we know some people may disagree, we will need to "enforce", (not protect, as with freedom of speech), we must "enforce" this right by using agencies such as the IRS.

Tangled webs are created by lazy minds. Epistemology matters