Random Predictions

McCain will defeat Obama by 6 % points. McCain will be propelled by significant reduction in troop deployments and successes in Iraq. Obama will suffer further setbacks after debates with McCain.

Oil will be below $100 per barrel in 6 months. High prices will deflate when market absorbs news of new supplies, and financially sound alternatives; particularly improvements in battery technology.

The mortgage banking debacle will bottom on the news of several consolidations and purchases of regional banks by larger players, one of them being Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway and its companies.

Food prices will spike on the Midwestern floods, but will recover quicker than the market expects and drops below current costs.

Interest rates will slowly but steadily climb as the dollar recovers strength, oil prices reverse their climb, and speculative premiums disappear in commodities.

The price of hybrids will fall as production increases to satisfy higher demand and the costs of better battery technologies are spread over the larger consumer base. New delivery systems and business models will also reduce the price of battery driven automobiles.

Democrats will cave on the energy front and support more domestic drilling, more refining capacity and more nuclear power plants. This will happen largely as a result of these energy issues becoming the forefront of the election, and will be seen as a major reason for Obama’s defeat.

Global warming will become a dead issue under new evidence and climate trends. It will quietly go away as every other environmental doomsday scenario has.

A new model for higher education will start to make current college institutional structures obsolete, as higher tuition costs do not translate into better educations and the college value paradigms collapse.

Foreign language education becomes a booming business.

Iran unseats Ahmadinejad and adopts a more pro western stance, but still out of pride does not want to reverse its progress on atomic energy. The political change will be viewed as the most successful application of an economic boycott in history.

Obama and Oliner on Energy Policy

Obama wanted to levy an excess profits tax on oil companies. Our last experience with this was with Jimmy Carter and it was a disaster.

He then proposed to crack down on speculators who are driving up the market. For a man whose financial disclosures showed few investment securities, how does he know that speculators are driving this market? What evidence exists? Can't speculators drive down a market as well? They may amplify a market direction, but they are usually prone to the boring forces of supply and demand.

I would propose that special tax breaks for the oil companies be allowed to expire or be eliminated, just as I would like to see the special breaks for the farmers expire. I see no problem with profits, but they do not require tax subsidies as well.

I would also like to see a requirement that all oil liscenced from federal properties be restricted for domestic consumption.

HKO

Polling Sites Added

Just a note that I added links to Zogby, Rasmussen and Gallup Polling sites to the Recommended list on the bottom left. They post regularly updated polls and news stories that are polling related. I also recommend that you view Intrade, which is a betting service that shows betting odds on many political races.

Inventory Profits

Let us imagine a time when I bought steel for $400 per ton and sold it for $500 a ton, making a $100 a ton profit or 20% ($100/ $500). The markup would be 25% ($100/ $400).

From that $100 I have to cover all of my payroll and expenses which, let’s imagine cost $90 per ton leaving me with a $10 per ton net profit. If I sell 20,000 tons I make $200,000 after all expenses.

Now suppose that the replacement cost just shot up to $600 per ton. If I continue to sell my old existing inventory at $500 a ton, I will be $100 per ton short when I have to replace that inventory. So in order to be sure I have the cash to replace my inventory I price based on the replacement cost. I add $100 per ton to the replacement cost of $600 per ton and now sell for $700 per ton.

But wait; that old inventory that I bought for $400 now gets a $300 margin, triple what I got before. My income goes up dramatically. This is called an 'inventory profit'; I benefited not by better selling or management, but by uncontrollable (by me) price increases. The additional $200 is needed pay the higher replacement cost but for a short time it is added to my bottom line.

Actually I need more than that $200 to cover the higher tax costs and interest costs.

Now some would accuse me of gouging or “excess profits” because they do not understand the economics of commodity products and pricing.

The reverse happens when prices fall. My cash flow improves but I will be selling product for below my costs and my profits will quickly become losses.

Explain that to your banker when it happens. You had better hope they understand basic economics much better than our elected officials, and certainly much better than the morons who report on the economy in much of our media.

Pricing mechanisms serve a clear function: keeping product available and suppliers viable. When the government with its populist stupidity tries to interfere with that function, the financial viability of the supplier and the consistency of the supply stands to suffer.

HKO

The Truth About Chuck Norris

Ian Spector was an undergraduate student at Brown University and noticed an Internet forum that mocked Vin Diesel's role in the Pacifier. Spector linked to the site and launched his own www.4Q.cc/vin and created a 'random quote generator' where visitors logged on and offered ridiculous made up quotes on the subject/victim. Stay with me here.

Spector placed a poll on his site asking who the next quote generator should be about and the response was "Chuck Norris". The site went live in mid 2005 and by early 2006 was getting 20,000,000 page views per month. It gets better.

The young computer geek was approached and pursuaded to publish a book and voila, I pick up "The Truth About Chuck Norris" at the Indiana University Bookstore, read it and start laughing so loudly that my daughter is embarrased; (a father's sacred resposnsibility). I read the passages out loud and my wife looks at me puzzled.

Off campus at the Urban Outfitters store, stacks of the book are on display and the trendy heavily tatooed staff tell me it is the biggest selling of the specialty books in their store.

Here are some of the excerpts from the book:

"Chuck Norris can stop time for up to two hours by thinking about pineapples."

"Chuck Norris once boned the Mona Lisa, which is why she smiles."

"Chuck Norris's poop is used as currency in Argentina."

"Chuck Norris once inhaled a seagull."

"At Chuck Norris's bachelor party, he ate the entire cake before his friends could tell him there was a stripper in it."

"Chuck Norris can eat a Rubik's Cube and poop it out solved."

"The only reason World War II occured was because Chuck Norris was taking a nap."

"The Virgin Mary saw Chuck Norris in her grilled cheese sandwich."

"Chuck Norris can speak Braille."

and this is my last example,

"Chuck Norris was the original Danny Tanner on the hit family sitcom Full House. He was replaced by Bob Saget after an unfortunate incident with one of the Olsen triplets."

I feel so educated when I hang around a college campus.

HKO

Obama's Promises

OBAMA VS. OSAMA
PROMISES AREN'T PLANS, BARACK
by Ralph Peters in the New York Post

read the entire article here

excerpts

This week, Obama claimed, again, that he'd promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven't been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can't just respond, "That's classified."

He also claimed that fighting terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military one (should we send the NYPD to Mosul and Kandahar?), and that the answer to terrorism is the approach taken after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, featuring conventional trials and prison terms.

That flaccid post-'93 response only encouraged terrorists - who are unfazed by the prospect of a US prison, where the quality of life's better than it was at home. The Clinton administration's hesitancy and softness gave us the subsequent attacks on the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia, on our embassies in East Africa, on the USS Cole and, ultimately, the events of 9/11.

The senator needs to tell us why it would be different now.

Obama has also said he'd send our troops into Pakistan, although he'll withdraw rapidly from Iraq. His unwillingness to discuss the consequences of a hasty retreat from Baghdad is one thing - but invading Pakistan would be an order of magnitude worse.

A substantial number of Iraq's 26 million citizens did welcome us. In Pakistan, with its 170 million Muslims and some of the most rugged terrain on earth, anti-Americanism prevails. Any US military incursion would be greeted with outrage and demands for a military response.

Nor does Obama appear to grasp that armies need fuel, ammunition, food, spare parts and other supplies. Nearly everything for our troops in landlocked Afghanistan, from bottled water to medical supplies, now comes via Pakistani ports, roads and railroads. If those long, difficult routes were cut, how would President Obama supply our troops? And no, it can't all be done by air.

Oh, Pakistan has nukes, too.

Obama appears out of his depth on all this, but the gushingly friendly media have given him a pass on every groundless claim or gaffe. It's time for journalists to start asking him tough questions - to press him when he doesn't give serious answers. Isn't that their job?

Those who knew Obama in his university days claim that he couldn't be persuaded to study history. It shows. And his lifelong lack of interest in the military is self-evident.

The response that "he has knowledgeable advisers" isn't enough. Obama's military and counterterror "experts" compose a unique collection of the dismissed, the discredited and the dysfunctional. Most appear to be out to settle personal grudges rather than to advance our nation's security.

Pogo Politics - Part Deux

I consider the greatest sign of psychological well being to be the understanding that you do have choices, and the ability to take repsonsibility for your own actions and mistakes. Likewise the greatest dysfunction is the inability to accept responsibility for your own mistakes and decisions.

Without facing responsibility you will take no action to change the course to correct a problem; you will instead choose to blame others for the predicament that you created.

Thus we blame oil companies and OPEC for our own failure to allow for the increase in supply, while demand continued to grow. We blame Wall Street and bankers for our own decisions to encourage people to buy houses they could not afford.

Victor Davis Hanson writes in:

June 4, 2008
All About Me

excerpts

Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don't drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.

There are never bad and worse choices, but only a Never Never Land of good and even-better alternatives. Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners.

When things don't go well, we always blame someone else. Why drill off Santa Barbara or Alaska when we can sue those terrible Saudis for not putting more oil platforms in their Persian Gulf?

And why accept that the conduct of all wars is flawed and victory goes usually to those who persevere in making the needed adjustments when we can just keep pointing fingers at the official who disbanded the Iraqi army or sent too few troops after the invasion?

read the complete Hanson article here.

How Important is Charisma?

“Demands on Political Leadership: Beware charisma”
by Peter F. Drucker from The Daily Drucker

Charisma is “hot” today. There is an enormous amount of talk about it, and an enormous number of books are written on the charismatic leader. But, the desire for charisma is a political death wish. No century has seen more leaders with more charisma than the twentieth century, and never have political leaders done greater damage than the four giant leaders of the twentieth century: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao. What matters is not charisma. What matters is whether the leader leads in the right direction or misleads. The constructive achievements of the twentieth century were the work of completely uncharismatic people. The two military men who guided the Allies to victory in World War II were Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. Both were high disciplined, highly competitive and deadly dull.

Perhaps the greatest cause for hope, for optimism is that the new majority, the knowledge workers, the old politics make no sense at all. But proven competence does.

Rumsfeld's Success in Afghanistan

I have been reading Doug Feith's book, War and Decision. Iraq has been so controversial that we have forgotten how successful we were in Afghanistan.

Less than a month after 9/11 we intiated the war in Afghanistan. There was no war plan in place before 9/11. The first Afghan city, Maza-e-Sharifa fell on Nov. 9, Kabul fell on Nov.13, Kandahar, a Taliban stronghold, fell on Dec. 7. By December Hamid Karzi was head of the provisional government.

This stunning success was accomplished with a U.S. force of less than 4,000.

Rumsfeld's strategy was brilliant.

• He aimed to oust the Taliban, not just Al Qaeda.
• He minimized the U.S. footprint to avoid beiung an 'occupation force.'
• He utilized the Northern Alliance and other native militias, using our precision strikes and special ops forces as critical support.

Rumsfeld was warned by the CIA against using the Northern Alliance since it could anger the Pushtins in the South. He felt the CIA assessment was wrong or avoidable and Rumsfeld was proven correct on the ground.

While the meetings at the time were highly confidential, leaks from the CIA made the press and gave a distorted picture of the strategy and planning that begat Rumsfeld's success in Afghanistan. Maureen Dowd and Zbigniew Brzenski were criticizing the operation as a Viet Nam style quagmire when the operation was only a few weeks old. They were proven wrong in very short order.

Avoiding Revolution

from Peter Drucker- The Daily Drucker

" We know that "revolution" is not achievement and the new dawn. It results from senile decay, from the bankruptcy of ideas and institutions, from a failure of self-renewal. The only way in which an institution-whether a government, a university, a business, a labor union, an army- can maintain continuity is by building systematic, organized innovation into its very structure. Institutions, systems, policies eventually outlive themselves, as do products, processes, and services. They do it when they accomplish their objectives, and they do it when they fail to accomplish their objectives. Innovation and entrepreneurship are thus needed in society as much as in the economy, in public service institutions as much as in business. The modern organization must be a destabilizer; it must be organized for innovation."

Winning the War on Terrorism

Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank have an article in The New Republic, The Jihadist Revolt Against Bin Laden. It describes how many clerics and previous supporters are turning against the violent Al Qaeda, primarily because of the actions taken against fellow Muslims and civilians in Jordan, Egypt and Iraq.

It is starting to hurt their recruiting. Some have been discouraged when attending the training camps and being sent into combat. Ideological commitment dissloves when you are treated like cannon fodder.

In a recent Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria noted the dramatic decline in terrorist incidents worldwide, especially when you discount the activities in Iraq. Zakaria also notes a disenchantment with the violence that has been directed against their own, but he also gives at least lip service to the impact that our sustained military effort has made in destroying the Al Qaeda infrastructure.

Yet at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) I heard Obama repeat what so many mindless Bush Bashers mindlessly recite; that we are less safe now than we were before 9/11.

Hogwash. Their political ideology blinds them to the most basic facts. The freedom from terrorism we have enjoyed since 2001 did not happen by accident.

The biggest liability to Obama's campaign is an American victory. What a terrible position for a presidential candidate to be in.

Benefits of Higher Prices

The sharp price increases in commodities and fuel will have some hidden benefits. With steel passing $900 per ton we invested in software to minimize scrap. It was very successful and will pay for itself in only a few months. The benefits will accrue even when prices fall.

Higher fuel prices have forced us to examine more efficient trucking options. We now focus on fuel costs per ton, forcing us to find ways to get more on a truck when it leaves. It is the equivalent of carpooling.

And our office workers are actively pursuing carpooling options; the inconvenience and independence is being offset by the consciousness of the weekly gasoline bill.

All of these efficiency improvements will last regardles of what happens to prices moving forward.

Two Components of Trust

If you remember the debate between Cheney and Edwards during the last campaign you may have a preview of what is coming.

Cheney was so experienced and comprehensive that any challenge from Edwards was dusted off without breaking a sweat or a smile. Cheney's attitude was so dismissive that Edwards was practically humiliated like an unprepared student in the Paper Chase. (old movie, check out IMBD)

Experience will count only if it is translated into understanding and clarity. Americans want a President they can trust, and trust has two components: competence and character.

A Fragile Lead

In the Gallup and Rasmussen surveys Obama is ahead by 4 points on a national scale. This is a small lead with four months to go and the conventions and vp choices still in the future.

This is a small enough lead that this campaign could hinge on a single discovery or mistake. It is not the size of the spread but the fragility of the candidates that makes this an open race. It is wide open.

Personally I believe Obama is subject to the "final straw" vulnerability. Because he is still new, yet has made several bad choices, many are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt ... to a point. But one mis statement or one more compromising realtionship and the house of cards will collapse.

Because Obama represents the openness and inclusion we value there are many who support him even if they disagree with him on critical issues. To some they just hate Bush and Republicans so bad that he is their only choice.

McCain will not beat him on experience or finesse; it will have to be on the issues. While there is much to admire about Obama I just can not find any issues on which I can agree with him .

Obama's Faustian Bargain

from Victor Davis Hanson

June 11, 2008
Gone, but Not Forgotten
Barack Obama and Rev. Wright.

Excerpt:

So here we have the Obama paradox: The more he poses, and is praised, as the post-racial healer, the more 25 years of his career belie the rhetoric. In short, he now talks far more humanely than most about race, but the way in which he started and nourished his career proves that he was also far more cynical and divisive than most.

As far as the rest of the campaign goes, I think we pretty much know the script and the Obama rules to come: as long as Obama stays ahead by 3-5 points, race will be framed in optimistic terms as irrelevant, or proof of Obama’s racial transcendence and statemanship. But if the race becomes dead even or Obama falls increasingly behind for questions having to do with inexperience or serial gaffes or fears over Carteresque doctrinaire liberalism, then we will hear that race, racial fears, etc. are largely to blame.All that is the legacy of Obama’s long ago Faustian bargain with Rev. Wright.

©2008 Victor Davis Hanson

read the article in full here

Who Is the Candidate of Change on Health Insurance?

Most people do not realize that the health insurance issue is largely a tax issue.

As an employer I get a tax deduction for buying health insurance for my employees. Yet if an individual buys his own health insurance, he gets no tax deduction. This probably originated in the days when tax rates were so high that paid benefits were a great tax avoidance policy.

By either eliminating the tax deduction for businesses or transferring the deduction to individuals it would encourage individuals to own their own policies and make their own decisions. It would also encourage wiser consumption and lower health care costs.

Health Savings Accounts or HSAs are a great step in this direction. It allows participants to choose bigger deductables and put pretax dollars in an account that they can spend on health care as they choose.

It would also eliminate the lobbying for coverage that medical groups like psychologists, chiropracters, and other specialists try to mandate that 'group' providers carry. Such mandates remove individual choice and raise insurance costs.

Individual should make their own choices just as they do with their car insurance. The result of the tax benefit and the control by a third party is that we are overinsured; we file claims for small costs instead of saving insurance for large claims. Imagine what your car insurance would cost if you filed a claim for oil changes, tune ups and new tires.

McCain proposes to shift the tax advantage and the choice to the individuals. The unions and Obama oppose this logical and effective measure. On this issue McCain is clearly the candidate offering change you can believe in.

Conspiracy Theories

I have always been suspect of conspiracy theories. The oil companies, the neocons, the trilateralists, the John Birch Society (that one seemed to die), the Elders of Zion, have all been blamed for hosts of political and social ills. But the accusers never seem to have definitive proof of the conspiracy.

A common rationalization of conspiracy is "follow the money", insinuating that if some one gained financially from a problem that that alone is proof that they must have caused the problem.

After 9/11 I speculated that tire sales would increase because of people's fear to fly. I bought shares of Cooper Tires and 'eureka' there was a surge in tire sales a few months later driving the stock price up. This does not mean that I caused 9/11. (I didn't, I swear.)

Another common deduction is that the theory makes historical events rational. It is similar to the "follow the money"rationale. Henry Ford's response to the absurd Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a persistent and ridiculous theory of a Jewish Conspiracy ) was that "it fits". This preposterous theory explained world events to his mind. Ford also said that "all history is bunk."
He reprinted and perpetuated the Protocols in his infamous article "the International Jew". Ford's portrait hung in Adolf Hitler's office.

Conspiracy theories relinquish the believer from facing the complex and the uncertain. Like blind adherence to ideology it eliminates the need for thinking and understanding, especially when it conforms to rigid biases.

Conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove. When the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was proven to be a forgery in a Swiss court in the 1930's it only proved (to the conspiracy junkies) that the Jews controlled the legal system.

Have you ever noticed that the conspiracy theories are only evil and nefarious? Has there ever been a group that conspired to rid the world of poverty or conflict?

I have never found two people who could keep a secret, much less thousands or millions. As ridiculous as these conspiracy theories are it is still amazing that otherwise intelligent and intellectual beings are still prone to accepting them if it confirms their established views.

Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark

I just got back from Cincinnati where I went to the Creationist Museum. (Actually it is in Hebron, KY.) I was expecting some hole in the wall attempt to promote the dismissal of evolution. This is a very substantial museum with a full staff, a big parking lot, and it was well attended. I would estimate the construction cost to easily be $5 million.

You can see a display of the ark under construction and see movies about the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. No I am not kidding. If the earth is only 6,000 years old and man was created in the first week, then dinosaurs must have been around at the time of Adam and Eve, which is also on display.

If you start with the premise that the bible is the word of God and must be taken literally then you end up bending every other discipline to fit that assumption or risk losing your faith.

Faith and science are like math and history; they can coexist without substantiating each other. Science explains the way things work and faith describes who we should be.

The United States has more people who accept creationism that any other industrialized country. Some find this of concern. I guess this is OK as long as there are enough free thinkers to keep scientific progress in play.

I think the museum is available for Bar and Bat Mitzvah receptions, but there are none booked yet.

Tips to David Cassesa for taking me.

Special Ops Panty Hose

When some of our special ops soldiers met up with the Northern Allaince in Afghanistan they had to quickly adapt to horseback to cover their operational territory. Saddles sores became so severe it became a disability. They requested hundreds of pounds of vaseline.

But the fine dust of the region mixed with the vaseline and turned it into an abrasive gel making the problem worse. The ever adaptable soldiers found the solution.

Panty hose. So much for 'don't ask, don't tell.'

from War and Decision by Doug Feith.

A Few Great Movies You May Have Missed

What's Eating Gilbert Grape was a sleeper of a movie that highlighted some of today's biggest stars. Johnny Depp plays the dedicated common little hero who sacrifices his life to care for his morbidly obese mother and mentally handicapped brother, played phenominally by a 19 year old Leonardo DiCaprio. John Reilly (Chicago, Boogie Nights, Walk Hard), Mary Steenburgen, and Juliette Lewis are all exceptional. (DiCaprio got best supporting actor for this role.)

Juliette Lewis also played a mentally handicapped young woman in The Other Sister, with Diane Keaton as her mom and Tom Skerrit as her dad.

Both are outstanding films that received little recognition at the time. They are dramatic and heartfelt. If you want a more obscure and mindless fare try Bubble Boy and Pootie Tang.

Tim Russert's Diversity

From the WSJ Opinion Journal

"I'm all for hiring women in the newsroom and minorities in the newsroom -- I'm all for it. It opens up our eyes and gives us a different perspective. But just as well, let's have people with military experience. Let's have people from all walks of life. People from the top echelon schools, but people from junior colleges and the so-called middling schools -- that's the rich pageantry of America. I'm a great believer in racial diversity and gender diversity, but you need cultural diversity, you need ideological diversity" -- the late Tim Russert, in an interview featured in Bernard Goldberg's 2003 book, "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite."

The Churches are Empty in Europe

At one of the Panel discussions at AIPAC gulag suvivor, Israeli leader and author Natan Sharansky noted two distinctions that the American and Israeli nations share, that lead them to their phenominal success.

One that I have already mentioned is that both are nations of immigrants, and that the confidence and courage that drives one to seek a new homeland also drives their economic success.

But secondly Sharansky noted the spiritual commitment common amongst their citizenry. He noted ( I am paraphrasing), " On Saturday the synagogues are full in Jerusalem. On Sunday the churches are filled in America. But the churches are empty in Europe."

Bringing Down The Price of Oil

Dr. Robert Zubrin, author of Energy Victory: Winning the War by Breaking Free of Oil, offered that single best idea to reduce the price of oil at one of the AIPAC break out sessions.

Congress should require that all new cars manufactured or sold in the United States must be flex fuel capable.

This would allow cars to accept gasoline, natural gas, biofuels or ethanol blends. Zurbin contends that it would add only $100 to the cost of a car. It may, however, add considerable costs to the fuel delivery systems.

By requiring foreign car manufacturers to comply it would quickly carry the flex fuel standard world wide.

This would create an enormous incentive for fuel stations to carry alternative fuels which would drive down the market demand for oil. Currently so few stations carry alternative fuels because so few vehicles can use them. People are hesitant to buy alternative fuel vehicles because there is no place to fuel it.

Brazil has half of their cars using domestically produced bio fuels. Israel plans to be totally oil independent in ten years.

A bonus benefit is that it would stimulate development of biofuels in the third world who could grow crops for biofuels conversion. It would be a much better source of revenue than foreign aid.

I would add to this great idea a tax credit to people or businesses who pay to convert their existing vehicles to flex fuel.

The Carter Axiom

Jimmy Carter rode to the White House on a wave of opportunity created by the disenchantment with the Viet Nam war, the disgrace of the Nixon White House, the rising fuel prices from the OPEC led oil embargo, the high inflation eminating from poor policies of Johnson and Nixon, and the weak response of Gerald Ford. (remeber the WIP- "Whip Inflation Now" buttons- you do not reverse the effects of reckless monetary policy with a PR campaign).

Then, as now, the Republican brand was as tarnished as it ever was. Carter was honest, and promised he would never lie to us. After Watergate that was what people wanted to hear.

Today Obama promises change. The Republican brand is tarnished again. But remember the Carter Axiom- just because things are really screwed up does not mean that some trustworthy fool can not make them a lot worse. Policies matter.

And Obama's policies to raise taxes, especially on dividends, capital gains, and social security; to raise taxes on oil producers; to increase government control of health care; and to increase federal spending on several initiatives are the wrong policies.

For many voters a vote for Obama is a vote against the Republican brand. I hope they get beyond his exciting charisma, actually consider his policies, and remember the Carter Axiom.

Leadership vs Personality

Because of the deep impact the media has made, the election process focuses more on personality than leadership.

A leader of a large organization, corporate or political, is often not a very exciting person. A leader must make decisions and inevitably some of them will not be popular. A leader must be able to take the blame and give the credit. In the corporate world or in the military leaders are not chosen by popular appeal but by other experienced and trained leaders.

Our election cycle impedes the process. Our elected officials must focus on the next election cycle like many corporate executives focus on the quarterly earnings. The difference is that short term and long term earnings are more compatable (often, but certainly not always), than short term and long term political and foreign policies.

Both politically and internationally some of our more admired short term successes have been our biggest long term disasters. The reverse is true and it may be true now in our Middle Eastern Policy.

Beating the Odds

At one of the break out sessions at AIPAC about the race for the White House a panel of celebrity political media panelists included Amy Walter- editor in Chief of The Hotline; Donna Brazile- Chair of the Voting Rights Institute of the DNC; Morton Kondracke, Executive Editor of Roll Call, Whit Ayres, President of Ayres, McHenry & Associates; and was moderated by Norman Ornstein- Resident Scholar of the American Enterprise Insititute.

If you are even a moderate political junkie you have seen these faces on political talk shows. They are common Sunday morning fare.

Ornstein opened with several comments focused on how bad the Republican brand has become. Surveys show that the public prefers the Democrats on about every issue by a strong margin, including the economy, foreign affairs, and the environment. The two parties are rated about even on immigration and national security.

Ornstein said that in all of his adult life he can not recall a time when the public sentiment was so tilted in favor of one party over the other.

Yet Whit Ayres acknowledged this and observed that the Republicans have apparently nominated the only candidate, McCain, who could possiby win in this environment; and the Democrats have nominated the only candidate from their midst who can possibly lose.

If the Democrats lose this election, and I think they will, they should take a long hard serious look at the structural causes of their failures. More likely they will lament the inherent racism and foolishness of the voters.

Leadership 101

Obama's judgement is questionable after his association with Rev Wright. We are supposed to ignore this as well as his host of advisors that have been hostile to American and Israeli interests. But his experience and his judgement has to come into question yet again with the appointment of his VP committee.

Less than 2 weeks after clinching the nomination he appoints three people, two of them, Jim Johnson and Eric Holder, have questionable backgrounds and Johnson has already resigned under the scrutiny.

From the LA Times- "Johnson, however, drew criticism over a report last week that he had received what may have been reduced rates on loans from Countrywide Financial Corp., a mortgage lender with business ties to Fannie Mae. "

"He also has been criticized for compensation and other perks he received as an official of mortgage giant Fannie Mae and for compensation decisions made while he was a board member of United HealthCare, one of the nation's biggest medical insurers."

A second committee member, Eric Holder was deeply involved in the pardoning of Marc Rich by Clinton. From the New York Post by Dick Morris, "As deputy attorney general, Holder was the key person who made the pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Now Obama will be stuck in the Marc Rich mess. "

"If ever there was a person who did not deserve a presidential pardon, it's Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire who renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, 51 counts of tax fraud, evading $48 million in taxes, and engaging in illegal trades with Iran in violation of the U.S. embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis."

HKO- if this is caliber of people Obama appoints early in the game after the questions raised about his judgement in his relationship with Wright, Ayers and others; how are we supposed to get comfortable with his selections of people for important cabinet posts and for the Supreme Court?

Obama has had no real organizational experience in a leading role. The most important function of such a leader is to appoint the right people to the critical positions to affect policy. Obama' s lack of this experience is alarming.

The Biggest Wealth Transfer in History

Some notes from a breakout session at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Conference in DC on June 1 ,08

- we import 87,000,000 barrels of oil per day. Only 3% is displaced by alternatives such as bio fuels. 97% is used in transportation. It would take 15% of the corn crop to displace 3% of the gasoline.

A change of supply anywhere affects the demand everywhere.

Big oil is small compared to “national” oil companies. Private oil companies like Exxon are only 8% of the market. 50% of the national oil companies are either hostile or unstable.

In addition to the problem of instability there are no new facilities being developed and the demand is exploding. It is a perfect storm.

Small propducers have marginal leverage with big impact.

In the short term we can do little but reduce wasteful consumption. Technology will solve the long term. Because the high oil prices is the largest transfer of wealth to the most hostile and unstable countries ever in history, we must focus on the medium term.

from Robert Zubrin- Author of Energy Victory

In 1972 we imported $4 billion worth of oil or 5% of our defense budget.
In 1999 we imported $40 billion worth of oil or 15% of our defense budget.
In 2007 we imported $347 billion worth of oil or 75% of our defense budget.
In 2008 we will import $650 billion worth of oil or 130% of our defense budget.
At one trillion dollars we are at 40% of the IRS revenues.

We are not only funding both sides of the war on terror, we are funding the enemy even more than our own forces.

At this rate of this vast wealth transfer, these Middle Eats Oil exporting nations would be able to buy controlling interest in all of the Fortune 500.

OPEC is producing the same number of barrels that it did on 1973. It is like putting a fixed collar on a growing dog, without adjusting it as the puppy grows.

We can not win this by conservation.

HKO- Obama's proposal to increase the taxes on America's oil producers is precisely the wrong policy. It would be better to increase production in the short term and require cars to be flex fuel capable to create an alternative to oil fuels. This would address the other 92% of producers that Obama can not 'punish' with his socialistic perversion of justice.

Perpetual Eighteen Year Olds

Men are vain enough to get calf implants, chin implants, even breast implants to get the body that they think will attract women. A relatively new procedure called high definistion liposuction can now deliver the six pack abs of your youth for a mere $16,000 to $20,000. Alfredo Hoyes, a Columbian plastic surgeon has perfected the technique using more precise instruments to get the "sacred centimeter" of fat around the abs down to hug the muscle tissues.

I also learned from the article in the July Men's Journal that the Mayo Clinic defines an abnormal penis as one that is less that 3" when erect, a condition called "micropenis". (not a very clever name) The surgical solutions have considerable risk, including erectile dysfunction.

Yet I am told that the most important sexual organ is the brain (the real source of perversion) and that the best aphrodisiac is attention. Some apparently find power, jewelry and alcohol effective as well.

HKO

Nations of Immigrants

There are more Israeli companies on the Nasdaq than any other country except the United States.

Israeli companies excel in computer development, medical technology and mostly currently green technologies. For Israel becoming oil independent is more than an economic objective, it is a matter of national security. The same objective is quickly becoming true for the United States.

While there are many cultural and political similarities between the two nations there is one less obvious, but more critical similarity: both are nations of immigrants.

While the Palestinian refugees have been showered with sympathy and aid (largely by the United States and Israel), the world has ignored the equal number of Jewish refugees who were expelled from the surrounding Arab nations, having billions of dollars of their property and wealth confiscated. Iraq was a Jewish population center since the destruction of the first Temple, a thousand years before there was a Muslim anywhere, but they were expelled after the 1948 War of Israeli Independence. Israel absorbed these refugees and continues to absorb them from Ethiopia, Russia and other nations.

The spirit that drove these people to create a new life from scratch is the same spirit that drives Israel's entreprenurial activity. A Russian scientist that immigrated to the United States, had a son with a gift of mathematics that started one of America's biggest successes, Google. Sergey Brin was born in Russia, but he succeeded in the United States.

The United States and Israel are filled with such success stories with a disproportionate amount having immigrant roots. The Palestinian refugees continue to generate poverty and hatred in spite of the huge oil profits and vast land mass that the Arab countires have that they refuse to deploy to help their brethren.

It is important that as we seek solutions to our current immigrant problems that we do not lose that spirit that has been critical to our success.

It's The Policies, Stupid

It is an interesting and noteworthy excercise to determine how the economy and stock prices responds to one party over another. We hear that the stock market on average repsonds better to a Democratic president than to a Republican president. This mirrors the higher rating the Democrats are currently getting on the economy. But such statistics are incomplete and often misleading.

The best returns come not from just a Democratic president, but from a Democratic President AND a Republican Congress. The second best combination comes from a Republican President with a Democratic Congress.

The timing of the study is critical. If it had been held before Clinton's two terms it would have been different, because it would have heavily weighted the Reagan adminsitration, which was a period of a booming market. Now it heavily weighs Clinton's terms, which was an even more prosperous boom.

It also underweighs the impact of the change. Reagan was particularly an improvement compared to Carter. It also ignores critical impacts such as the OPEC oil crunch of Nixon's term and 911 on Bush's term. The stock market has been relatively flat under W, but perhaps considering the compound effect of 911, the high tech bust, the Enron/ Worldcomm disasters, the mortgage debacle, and the War on terror this is not such a bad performance. This is not to excuse some bad economic decisions clearly associated with Bush and Republicans, but it is critical to the analysis to consider the environment the administration must operate in.

I do not believe the stock market measurements included the bond market. The dramatic drop in the record high interest rates of the disastrous Carter years yielded a bigger return in bonds that the outstanding return in stocks over the subsequent decade. Not including bonds also distorts the proposition.

There are so many other factors that influence the market that this study is relatively worthless. It also includes a sample size so small to render it statistically useless.

It is far more productive to study the effect of policies. The tax reductions of Kennedy, Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. has delivered results that can be verified regardless of the affiliation of the party in power.

Israel in One Word

A CNN reporter in Israel was interviewing an Israeli veteran of the 1967 War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War who was now a scholar and a distinguished member of the Knesset. Attempting a different approach the interviewer asked the wise statesman, "If you could use just one word to describe Israel what would it be?"

Irritated the elder statesman replied, "How foolish can you be? How can anyone describe the fulfillment of a 2000 year old dream in only one word? How can you surmise the suffering, the depth, the commitment to God in only one word? How can you assemble Jews from all over the world into this land of miracles and find one word to describe such a feat of history and human potential?"

Stubbornly the reporter persisted, "I know this is challenging, but if you could, what word would you choose?"

Impatiently the statesman replied simply, "Good."

Somewhat dissappointed and perplexed, the reporter asked, "What if you could use two words?"

He paused and replied, "Not good."

Tips to Bruce Tuchman

Science and Not Science

Renaissance law student, investment enthusiast, bicycle racing junkie and fellow blogger, Douglass Ott has a thoughtful article on science referencing a law school lecture. It is illuminating when you conisder how science is debased and manipulated to achieve political ends. Read the article here in his blog, Yes and Not Yes. (see recommended sites)

excerpts

Now that we have a definition of science, we can go into a little more detail about the factors that comprise "good" science. Good science is consistent meaning that it is built upon previous science. Good science is parsimonious - the more complicated an explanation the less likely it is to be true (think Occam's razor). It is empirically testable - if it can't be tested, its not science. Good science is also progressive, and useful.

These two factors are fairly obvious but still worth mentioning: (1) is there a lack of controlled experiments and (2) has the scientist refused to revise his findings despite being proven wrong?

Being Realistic in Israel

I just returned from my second AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) conference in DC. AIPAC is a lobbying group promoting a strong American Israel relationship.

It is clear that this group has real political clout. 7,500 advocates attended including 1200 college students. The conference is a collection of some of the best political, economic, scientific, academic, and business minds from both countries and the quality of the programs and information is absolutely unmatched.

I sat in the crowd and heard addresses from John McCain, Condoleeza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ehud Olmert, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama (the day after his delegate victory), Dennis Ross, Natan Sharansky, Michael Oren, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and a host of others who though less well known were often even more fascinating.

Break out sessions gave incredible insights into the regional politics, missile defense technology, and incredible new information on technology to lessen oil dependence. In fact there was very little new information coming from the political celebrities. They all seemed to agree that Israel is an important ally, that terrorism must be stopped, that Iran must not be allowed to create a nuclear weapon, that the captured Israeli soldiers must be returned. In spite of a few well mannered political swipes the Republicans and Democrats seemed to totally agree on the strength and importance of their commitment to Israel.

In fact I began to get a little frustrated, that in the face of such overwhelming support for Israel and against terrorism, that Hezbollah has tripled the number of missiles they had after their last attack against Israel, that 60 missiles a week from Gaza still fall on Sderot and Ashkelon, and that Iran is still denying one holocaust and threatening a second while moving closer to a nuclear bomb.

Yet in this climate Israel's economic growth is staggering and their technology development is second only to the United States. As the head of Israel's IBM office said, "In Israel, if you do not believe in miracles, then you are not being realistic."

Reactions to the Lack of Jewish Support

The greatest proponents for a pro Israel policy are the evangelical Christians and the Jews, in that order. It is a given that the evangelicals will have little influence in an Obama administration. The Jewish leverage is at risk if they do not support Obama and he wins. Many would question how much influence they would have if they supported him and he did win.

Carter wrote off his Jewish support early in his campaign. In this old article from Jason Maoz , Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem, he spoke of the politics and Carter's disdain for the Jewish voters.

Excerpts:

Speechwriter Bob Shrum quit the Carter campaign after just a few weeks, disgusted with what he described as Carter’s penchant for fudging the truth. He also related that Carter, convinced the Jewish vote in the Democratic primaries would go to Senator Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson, had instructed his staff not to issue any more statements on the Middle East.

“Jackson has all the Jews anyway,” Shrum quoted Carter as saying. “We get the Christians.”

Relations between Carter and Israel were tense from the outset of the Carter presidency. Carter’s hostility was evident to Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan, who in his memoir Breakthrough described a July 1977 White House meeting between Carter and Israeli officials. “You are more stubborn than the Arabs, and you put obstacles on the path to peace,’’ an angry Carter scolded Dayan and his colleagues.

“Our talk,” Dayan wrote, “lasted more than an hour and was most unpleasant. President Carter ... launched charge after charge against Israel.”

Former New York mayor Ed Koch, in his 1984 bestseller Mayor, recounted a conversation he had shortly before the 1980 election with Cyrus Vance, who’d recently resigned as Carter’s secretary of state. Koch told Vance that many Jews would not be voting for Carter because they feared “that if he is reelected he will sell them out.”

“Vance,” recalled Koch, “nodded and said, ‘He will.’ ”

In Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn revealed that during a March 1980 meeting with his senior political advisers, Carter, discussing his fading reelection prospects and his sinking approval rating in the Jewish community, snapped, “If I get back in, I’m going to [expletive] the Jews.”

Carter – such was the country’s good fortune – did not get back in. But as evidenced by his years of pro-Palestinian advocacy, reams of anti-Israel op-ed articles, and the release last week of his latest book/screed, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, he’s been trying to [expletive] the Jews ever since.

HKO comments- There is no assurance that Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, but given the number of advisors who hold similar views to Carter it not hard to understand Jewish reluctance if it occurs.

It is also worth noting that Carter got overwhelming support from the Jews for his first term , but substantially fewer Jewish votes for the attempt at his second. In 1976 Carter got 71% of the Jewish vote. In 1980 he got 45%; Reagan received 39% and Independent Party John Anderson got 14%. Go here for a history of Jewish voting patterns. Carter got the worst Jewish support of any Democratic nominee since the Depression.

Gasoline Economics

Senate Democrats failed to suspend the moratorium on shale oil development in Colorado. They still forbid oil development in Alaska and offshore. This restriction of supply for those who did not take economics 101 has the effect of increasing prices.

Their proposal is to suspend the gas tax which would lower the price by the amount of the tax. Again, for the economic neophytes, decreasing the price has the effect of stimulating demand, ecouraging more consumption.

The real demand of course is from two giant economies, China and India, who are entering their own industrial and consumer revolutions.

The Democrats promised to do something about oil prices when they took Congress. Their only action so far has served only to further increase prices. While they fail to increase production in the US, they want to pressure the Saudis to increase their production. Perhaps they feel we should become more economically dependent on the Middle East terrorist funders.

Perhaps they would like to lobby the Chinese to drive less so that we can keep our gas guzzling SUV's. It makes just as much sense.

The Zohan

The Zohan played by Adam Sandler is the new Israeli steroetype. A good hearted super human killer with a soft spot and a big heart. He only wishes to schtupp the bubbelahs until until their pupik tingles.

Yet he only seeks peace and falls for a beautiful Palestinian hairdresser and unites with his terrorist adversary played by John Turturro (of course he is the brother of his love interest) to take down the waspy evil real estate developer. Waspy Whitey just can not break through the sterotype.

Some may cringe at the oversexed Israeli killer/ hairdresser, but hey this is a comedy. If you can not understand that then you should ferstundt the fagellahs and just plotz.

I loved it, but I question how many viewers would appreciate how well Sandler plays the stereotype.

Oy.

HKO

Laffer Limits

If you study the Laffer Curve you know that there is a section of the curve where a reduction in the tax rate will increase the dollar revenues. It is a simple economic expression of increasing the demand (for income, profits or capital gains) by reducing the cost (taxes).

Yet there is a portion of the curve where additional reductions in taxes will not increase the tax revenue and will in fact reduce revenue. If taxes are 100% no one will produce and you will get no revenues; if taxes are zero percent, everyone will produce and you will get no tax revenues. The Laffer Curve explains what happens in between those extremes.

Personally I beleive we are close to an ideal point of maximizing tax revenue. If we increase rates (as Obama proposes) we will see revenues decline. But I would be less assured that a decrease would cause a substantial increase in revenues.

But there are two other perspectives. Our tax revenues are not just a factor of our changes in the tax rate but their change relative to competitive rates. If our rates stayed the same and other nations reduced their rates, we could lose revenues as investments sought a better investment climate.

Secondly a small repeated change (1% increase for ten consecutive years) may have less of an impact than a singler 10% increase in a single year (which Obama proposes). This second factor is simultaneously affected by competitive tax rates.

Bill Clinton and George W both cut capital gains and dividend tax RATEs and INCREASED the tax revenues from those sources. Obama seeks to reverse those tax policies.

HKO

What Obama Did Not Say at AIPAC

It speaks volumes about AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that Obama and Hillary came to address the group the momentous day after Obama secured the requisite number of delegates to effectively win the nomination.

Obama is a very effective speaker. He controlled the crowd like a real pro. I was there and it was hard not to be impressed. He assured the crowd that all of those e-mails scaring the Jewish community are not true, and that he is a friend of Israel. He repeated all of the same assurances that all of the other speakers addressing the conference gave: no nukes for Iran, the rockets fired into Sderot from Gaza must stop, terrorism must stop, the captured Israeli soldiers must be returned, etc, etc.

Yet all of his presecriptions for remolding the Midddle East and "fixing" Bush's mistakes are all currently being pursued and have been pursued since before Bush. Madeline Albright did negotiate with Iran- poorly. Our objective is to get a secure government established in Iraq, with them taking more repsonsibility for their own defense. He spoke as if no one thought of any of this before.

What he did not address was the number of advisors he has selected that are somewhat hostile to Israeli interests. We are supposed to ignore Reverend Wright and his praise of Farrakhan, who calls Jews 'parasites'. We are also supposed to think that Zbigniew Brzezinski is not a significant factor, although this leftover from the horrendous Carter foreign policy team pays homage to the discredited Walt and Mearsheimer canard "The Israel Lobby" and refers to pro Israel lobbyists as 'McCarthyites'.

We are also supposed to ignore the anti semitic statements of his other advisors like Tony McPeak, Robert Malley, or Samantha Power who had accused Israel of unfounded atrocities and war crimes in its campaign against the second intifada (she resigned from Obama's staff after calling Hillary a 'monster')

And most recently David Bonior represented Obama in Michigan. Bonior represents a largely Muslim section of Detroit and has opposed many pro Israel positions in the Congress.

I have been told that these are just advisors and that their history and positions do not reflect Obama's. What bullshit. These people were selected and approved by Obama, and I have a hard time believing it is because he disagrees with their viewpoint.

Each one of these asosciations can be 'explained' away or rationalized, but after enough of them it is hard to ignore a pattern, or at least a tolerance for viewpoints that many American Jews would find disturbing. Yet we are supposed to ignore these associations while AIPAC board member Lee Rosenberg and even Hillary Clinton, who spoke after Obama, assures us he will support Israel.

Obama remarks have concerned many anti Israeli constituencies and this may hurt him, but he realizes the importantance of the Jewish vote, particularly in critical blue states like Florida (Ok pink or purple maybe), Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey and New York.

What Jewish support that remains for Obama is very fragile. If during the coming months of getting to know Barak, we find that his (or his wife's) ties with the likes of Farakhan (rumors with no substance... yet) and other anti Semites are closer than we have been led to believe his Jewish support will evaporate and McCain will get more Jewish support than even Reagan. While only anecdotal I have heard from many Jews (some at the AIPAC conference), particularly elderly Jews, that is spite of being lifelong Democrats, they can not and will not vote for Obama.

HKO

PS- For another, yet similar view of the Obama speech from another AIPAC attendee read Peggy Shapiro's article in American Thinker , Obama at AIPAC:Too Much Room for Doubt.

The Oliner Media Axiom

I keep a journal on an Excel spreadsheet. Sounds a bit geeky, but everyday I list major activities, what I am reading, quotes, what movies I see, great restaurants, the Dow and more pertinent to this entry the major news story of the day.

It is often difficult to find what I would consider a major news story on many days. With 24 hour news it is often the sames stories repeated endlessly with only slightly different peripheral comments. Rarely is any real depth added to the story or event.

We have an exces of media. We need more depth and fewer stories.

This is my Oliner media axiom: 49% of the news is irrelevant, and 49% is factually inacurrate. It is barely worth filtering through the 98% waste to find the 2% that is both relevant and important.

This is how I rationalize the time spent watching Southpark and Family Guy.

Excuse Me, On What Isle Do I Find a Kick Ass Singer for a Killer Rock Band?

Tommy DeCarlo works at Home Depot and loves the awesome rock group Boston so much that his daughter Talia put a video of him kareoke singing Boston songs on his MySpace.

Lead singer Brad Delp committed suicide and Tom Scholtz, the Band's founder and creator of the magnificient Boston guitar sound, (that you could emulate with an audio device called a Rockman that I used to own) , was looking for a replacement. Scholtz's wife was searching the internet and discovered DeCarlo singing Delp's part. Scholtz was amazed at how close to Delp DeCarlo's vocal quality and power was.

So now the Home Depot manager is Boston's new lead singer. For Real!

Rock On!

article on ABC News- what a great story.

Selective Moral Outrage

With the rehash of the 2000 election in the HBO special "Recount", it is interesting to note how upset the Democrats were with votes not being counted in the final ballots.

Yet they are not seating the FL or MI delegates in their own primary (at least not half of them) and they impose Superdelegates to dilute the popular vote.

Seems like a sort of selective moral outrage.

HKO

We Have Found the Enemy and .....

....it is us.

I have long admired Mark Steyn's humorous writing style.

at National Review online (see recommended sites)

May 24, 2008, 8:00 a.m.
Fill Her Up with Hot Air
A massive suit for oil — now that’s the American way!
By Mark Steyn

Excerpts

I was watching the Big Oil execs testifying before Congress. That was my first mistake. If memory serves, there was lesbian mud wrestling over on Channel 137, and on the whole that’s less rigged. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew the routine: “I can’t say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not.”

Had I been in the hapless oil man’s expensive shoes, I’d have answered, “Hey, you first. I can’t say that there is evidence that you’re sleeping with barnyard animals, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence and prima facie evidence, lady? Do I have to file a U.N. complaint in Geneva that the House of Representatives is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?”

But, before we start suing distant sheikhs in exotic lands for violating the NOPEC act, why don’t we start by suing Congress? After all, who “limits the production or distribution of oil” right here in the United States by declaring that there’ll be no drilling in the Gulf of Florida or the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge?

More to the point, if the House of Representatives has now declared it “illegal” for the government of Saudi Arabia to restrict oil production, why is it still legal for the Government of the United States to restrict oil production? In fact, the government of the United States restricts pretty much every form of energy production other than the bizarre fetish du jour of federally mandated ethanol production.

Does a Free Press Make for Fair Elections?

"Recount" is a dramatization of the Florida vote of the Bush / Gore contest. Many liberals still contend that Bush "stole"the election. Many conservatives contend that they stopped Gore from "stealing " the election.

The miracle was that the transition still happened in the courts and not in the streets. Few countries in the world could have survived such a contentious and questionable conclusion to such a close election. The rule of law prevailed.

An aspect of the famous recount was often ignored at the time. Katherine Harris, the Florida Secretary of State, begged the media not to make any prediction until all of the polls closed. Florida is in two time zones; the conservative panhandle is on central time. By calling the election in favor of Gore (against Harris's wishes) several thousand voters in the panhandle, largely Bush country, were discouraged from voting. Otherwise Bush may have had a lead of thousands of points; still close but much less contestable. This why the recount would have been unfair unless it was done statewide.

In the interest of fair elections the media should be restricted in what they can report and how and when it is reported. It may be an intrusion of press freedom, but it is justified to keep our elections fair.

If the network media was 90% Republican instead of 90% Democrat I would bet these rules would already be in place.

The Key to Accurate Political Predictions

If Hillary is successful and pulls this thing off – she will have destroyed the party, alienated the blacks and the youth and as a result will likely lose. But I would still be impressed.

If Obama wins he will lose critical states, 30% of Hillary’s supporters (if you believe recent polls), and possibly 40% of the Jewish votes in critical blue states like Florida, PA, NY, OH, IL, NJ etc. I predict also that McCain will eat him alive in the debates, simply because of his aggressive manner and his unparalleled experience. Obama will go down like McGovern and for the same reason; way too far left.

This race is McCain’s to lose.

Furthermore if Obama is defeated as badly as I expect then Hillary will have that Cheshire Cat shit eating grin and will return in 4 years like a Churchill or a Sharon (two leaders whose careers was supposed to have ended long before their eventual zenith).

If my predictions are wrong then I will go back and delete this blog entry and pretend I never wrote it. If I am right I will gloat about my prescience, but I may still have to delete this last line.

Inevitable Uncertainty

I hear too many people (pundits on the left and right and politically astute opinionated consumers) swear that Obama's election is inevitable.

Six months ago I heard that Hillary's 'coronation' ....... I mean nomination and election was inevitable. Now the poor woman can't catch a break.

Obama's lead in SOME polls will grow during the Democratic nomination and decline during the Republican convention as they get more press coverage. Polls are pretty meaningless until 2 to 4 weeks before the election.

To win Obama will have to avoid losing Hillary's supporters and many of them are currently polling for McCain if Obama wins. He will also need the Jewish vote in the big blue states which is still questionable given the Reverend Wright episode and other previous comments. There are still myths (negative) about Obama that stubbornly survive. Hispanic and other immigrant voters are very questionable. I do not see that the overwhelming black support and youth vote will be enough to counter the other voters.

There is a lot that can happen between now and the election. His sucess in the final election is no more inevitable than Hillary's was 6 months ago.

HKO