Sorry, haven't seen Palin's interview with Katie Couric from this week. I've heard she didn't exactly cover herself with glory. But unless she claimed that in 1929 president Roosevelt went on TV to address the depression (for those keeping score, Biden said that... and in 1929, Hoover was president and TV was science-fiction), she is not guilty of the dumbest thing said by a veep candidate this week.
And there are others--a claim that president Bush sent a negotiator to Tehran (he didn't), that his helicopter was "forced down" in Afghanistan (it was... by snow), and even that Biden's family was killed by a drunk driver (he was sober). But Joe makes so many gaffes, he doesn't get called dumb. If Palin (or Bush, or Dan Quayle) said the same stuff, they'd be crucified. If McCain did, he'd be called senile.
Look--nobody who supports Palin (including me) doesn't wish she had been governor for 10 years instead of two. And nobody should pretend that she has foreign policy experience. Neither did Reagan, or Clinton, or any other governor. And I don't recall anybody saying that Howard Dean (governor of Vermont, smaller than Alaska) was unqualified. Nor John Edwards, who actually got nominated for VP (but he did have excellent hair). All I know if that if there's going to be inexperience on the ticket, I want it in the veep slot, not the top slot. Obama has never run anything but his mouth.
Obviously, if a president McCain dies, she'll be president. But if he dies after even two years, she will have had two years as VP, with all that entails. And if she, God forbid, were to succeed to the presidency even earlier, she could always go out and get an old, wise, foreign-policy thinker as her VP. That's what we'll get if Obama wins, a rookie in the oval office with the experienced guy at the bottom of the ticket. Only I'll bet whoever she would pick is not the goofball Joe Biden is.
All that said, I still like Joe. And I still don't know why.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Trying to Unravel the Financial Mess
Everybody is talking about the big mess right now in the financial services sector, and how we need (or don't need) a $700 billion bailout to keep the entire US economy from slipping into a major catastrophe. But, as I have mentioned before about my no-doubt brilliant colleagues, we're all ignorant, just on different subjects. And the vast majority of us (including me, by the way) are not experts in big corporate finance--far from it! Therefore, we get lots of heat and very little light from all the talk.
If I may, let me share an article I came across that explains the current situation in very simple (indeed, overly-simple) terms. Don't let the fact that it comes from National Review trick you into thinking it's political in nature. It's a pretty fair breakdown of what's going on.
If you've digested that, let's add in a couple of other facts. First, the biggest root cause of this entire mess is the changes in the way home loans have been made for at least the last 15 years. Before that, the old joke was that a bank is a place that will give you a loan... if you can prove to them you don't need it. 20% down on a home loan was standard, and the rule was your payment couldn't be more than 28% of your gross pay, nor could your total indebtedness exceed 36% of gross pay. Getting turned down was common. But as far back as 1993, there was a move afoot to brand banks as racist or otherwise evil if they turned down too many applicants who were either minorities or lived in "redline" neighborhoods. It got harder and harder to turn people down for loans, even if they really didn't make much money or have much cash.
Then, to make matters more interesting, a great boom in housing prices began. I bought my first house under more-or-less the "old" rules (I had to pay a heft PMI premium to allow me to put down only 5%, but the ratios were the old ones). Over the next nine years, that house doubled in value, as did most real estate. Any worries about lending were swept away... after all, the loans were secured by rapidly-appreciating assets. If a loan went south, the bank could still foreclose, drop the price, and still recoup even a 100% note. At the top of this cycle, I sold a house after two years and made $70,000. Shows like "flip this house" began to go on the air. People began taking out no-money-down, interest-only, adjustable-rate loans. Any monkey could make money in real estate.
Meanwhile, the banks that had made these loans were selling them to the likes of Fannie Mae, who bundled them into mortgage-backed securities, what looked like a sweet deal. And then the housing bubble burst.
To make matters worse, after the bankruptcy of Enron a few years ago (and their criminal cooking of the books), congress wrote seemingly-sensible new rules that required assets to be "marked to market," or regularly re-evaluated based on current selling prices... even if they had no intention of selling and incurring an actual loss. Suddenly banks had big liabilities (these bad mortgages), secured by shrinking assets (the falling home values). Their balance sheets were out of balance, and otherwise "good" companies, like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, even Merrill Lynch, were in trouble.
As tempting as it is to blame the "fat cats" on Wall Street (and we all love to engage in a little schadenfreude when those guys get theirs), more blame belongs on those who didn't mind the store at Freddie and Fannie. That's government, particularly congress. It didn't help anything that the senate banking committee (which bottled up attempted reform 2 years ago)is chaired by Chris Dodd, the largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. But blame also belongs with all of us who thought we could get something for nothing.
A really wise fellow named Solomon wrote about 3000 years ago not to hurry after get-rich-quick schemes. He also had some words to say (not positive, btw) about guaranteeing bad loans (the Old Testament called that "surety"), and about borrowing money: "The borrower is slave to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7)
Now we're told that unless we give these same goofballs three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the wheels are going to come off. I don't find that very reassuring. And, of course, politics is never far behind. For example, right now, there are plenty of votes to pass exactly the bill that the President, his Treasury Secretary, and the Democrats in congress want. But they won't do it unless they can get the conservatives (folks like me) to give them cover, so they won't own the whole kit and kaboodle when it blows up.
Meanwhile, I'm just happy that I have little use for credit. When it all shakes out, those of us who followed the good old biblical model will be the best off. (Or least screwed!)
If I may, let me share an article I came across that explains the current situation in very simple (indeed, overly-simple) terms. Don't let the fact that it comes from National Review trick you into thinking it's political in nature. It's a pretty fair breakdown of what's going on.
If you've digested that, let's add in a couple of other facts. First, the biggest root cause of this entire mess is the changes in the way home loans have been made for at least the last 15 years. Before that, the old joke was that a bank is a place that will give you a loan... if you can prove to them you don't need it. 20% down on a home loan was standard, and the rule was your payment couldn't be more than 28% of your gross pay, nor could your total indebtedness exceed 36% of gross pay. Getting turned down was common. But as far back as 1993, there was a move afoot to brand banks as racist or otherwise evil if they turned down too many applicants who were either minorities or lived in "redline" neighborhoods. It got harder and harder to turn people down for loans, even if they really didn't make much money or have much cash.
Then, to make matters more interesting, a great boom in housing prices began. I bought my first house under more-or-less the "old" rules (I had to pay a heft PMI premium to allow me to put down only 5%, but the ratios were the old ones). Over the next nine years, that house doubled in value, as did most real estate. Any worries about lending were swept away... after all, the loans were secured by rapidly-appreciating assets. If a loan went south, the bank could still foreclose, drop the price, and still recoup even a 100% note. At the top of this cycle, I sold a house after two years and made $70,000. Shows like "flip this house" began to go on the air. People began taking out no-money-down, interest-only, adjustable-rate loans. Any monkey could make money in real estate.
Meanwhile, the banks that had made these loans were selling them to the likes of Fannie Mae, who bundled them into mortgage-backed securities, what looked like a sweet deal. And then the housing bubble burst.
To make matters worse, after the bankruptcy of Enron a few years ago (and their criminal cooking of the books), congress wrote seemingly-sensible new rules that required assets to be "marked to market," or regularly re-evaluated based on current selling prices... even if they had no intention of selling and incurring an actual loss. Suddenly banks had big liabilities (these bad mortgages), secured by shrinking assets (the falling home values). Their balance sheets were out of balance, and otherwise "good" companies, like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, even Merrill Lynch, were in trouble.
As tempting as it is to blame the "fat cats" on Wall Street (and we all love to engage in a little schadenfreude when those guys get theirs), more blame belongs on those who didn't mind the store at Freddie and Fannie. That's government, particularly congress. It didn't help anything that the senate banking committee (which bottled up attempted reform 2 years ago)is chaired by Chris Dodd, the largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. But blame also belongs with all of us who thought we could get something for nothing.
A really wise fellow named Solomon wrote about 3000 years ago not to hurry after get-rich-quick schemes. He also had some words to say (not positive, btw) about guaranteeing bad loans (the Old Testament called that "surety"), and about borrowing money: "The borrower is slave to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7)
Now we're told that unless we give these same goofballs three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the wheels are going to come off. I don't find that very reassuring. And, of course, politics is never far behind. For example, right now, there are plenty of votes to pass exactly the bill that the President, his Treasury Secretary, and the Democrats in congress want. But they won't do it unless they can get the conservatives (folks like me) to give them cover, so they won't own the whole kit and kaboodle when it blows up.
Meanwhile, I'm just happy that I have little use for credit. When it all shakes out, those of us who followed the good old biblical model will be the best off. (Or least screwed!)
Saturday, September 20, 2008
A backlog of random thoughts
Hello, blog world. Sorry I haven't had much to say in a while. I've thought of blogging a great deal, but never have seemed to find the time. Over the last 3 weeks, I've had numerous thoughts: some about the events of the day (Palin, Fannie, Freddie, AIG), some about my own life (faith, running, priorities, family). Some have been amusing, others probably intemperate. Here's a random taste, just so I can say I'm back online.
- My wife ran her first road race (2 miles) this morning. I'm really, really proud of her. Not so much for the race, but for transforming herself into an athlete.
- Along those same lines, I just want everybody to know, I married VERY well. I've been reminded several times recently that I have pretty much the best wife and family imaginable. I pray that I can live in such a way as to deserve them.
- A little politics, on Palin. Wow--the feeding frenzy against her has been amazing. I just don't get why she has to be demonized so. I suppose that the very things I like most about her (that she's conservative, religious, pro-life, and, well, normal) are things that cannot be tolerated. If I can say, "Obama's a liberal, I'm a conservative, and that's why I'm not voting for him" without devolving into hatred, why can't the other side do the same, in reverse?
- Speaking of Obama, I'm beginning to have misgivings about him based on race. No, not his race. That would, of course, be wrong. But it's his and/or his supporters' use of race that spooks me. This morning this article ran on my home page, about how if Obama loses, it'll be because he's black. It just got me thinking--would he even have gotten this far were it NOT for his race? Would a one-term senator be seen as so attractive and transformational if he were a white dude? I don't know. But I have two nagging fears: first, that if he loses, it's "proof" that we're too racist to elect a black man. Or, second, that he wins, and we spend the next 4 to 8 years seeing every principled opposition to his policies as prima facie evidence of racism. I sure hope not.
- Maybe I'm getting mellow in my old age. I just can't argue politics like I used to. I'm still passionate, but I have a hard time working up the level of rage so many of my colleagues do. I was at lunch yesterday, and found myself the only one at the table who wouldn't join in on Bush-McCain-Palin bashing. They knew I was the token conservative, and I think I let them down by not rising to the bait. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.
- Speaking of my colleagues, I become more and more convinced every day of the Will Rogers truism, "We're all ignorant, just on different subjects." I am surrounded by highly educated, brilliant people. And most of them couldn't run a lemonade stand.
- It finally happened: an irate parent complained about political bias in my history lectures last week. But it's funny--he thought I was LIBERAL. I guess I was a little too successful at being fair and evenhanded. I told my principal (a good-natured lefty), and he said, "Who called you liberal? Hitler or Attila the Hun?"
- My own running has been great this week. Last week I wussed out and only ran once, even though I had plenty of opportunity. This week, I have gotten back on track, and it feels GREAT to be in control of my life, at least a little.
- The mess in financial services right now is very complicated. It's amazing how little most people understand anything about it. Maybe I'll blog about that sometime... but the level of ignorant discourse on the topic is distressing.
- This is NOT the worst economy since the Great Depression. It's not even nearly as bad as the 1970s, or 1981. But saying that won't sell papers.
- My cross-country team is ranked in the top 25 state-wide, in all classifications. We're the smallest school ranked that high. Cool!
- Joe Biden says paying higher taxes is patriotism. Charlie Rangel, head of the house ways and means committee, cheats on his taxes. I guess that means Charlie's not a patriot.
- Oh, yeah. Speaking of Joe Biden (who I can't help liking on a gut level, but for the life of me I don't know why), his tax returns show that he only gives about $300 to charity a year. So it's OK to take somebody else's money and give it away to the poor as refundable tax credits, but not necessary to give more than 0.1% of your own income voluntarily?
That's all I've got. Brain now empty. Think I'll get a haircut--I look like a Q-tip.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
My Reaction to Palin
I’ve stayed away from blogging about politics for a while, basically because nothing had changed that much that I thought was worth harping on. I explained a long time ago why I tend to vote Republican (life, judges, and foreign policy), and I’ve taken great pains to not be one of those bloggers who every day picks apart the other guy—in this case Barack Obama—simply because I disagree with him. By way of disclaimer, let me also stipulate that I think that he’s a very likeable guy, and that it is a net positive for the country to have a minority candidate achieve what he has (although I still don’t want him appointing judges). I also have been less than enthused about John McCain. My favorite line about him (not original by any means) has been that McCain is “a great American, a pretty good senator, and a lousy Republican.” Although I respect his stance as a “maverick,” it has seemed like all too often the definition of “maverick” has been that he does things with which I disagree. I’m not a party guy, but I’m a conservative—and there has been plenty of reason to question whether McCain is truly conservative.
But yesterday—WOW! By picking Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, I think McCain really did something worth mentioning. As a short-term, tactical move, the pick had the effect of sucking all the media attention away from Obama’s historic acceptance speech. As a long-term, strategic move, it really reassures conservatives like me that McCain is not taking our votes for granted. In the category of the super-obvious, she has the added advantage of being a woman. And I happen to think she is a fabulous pick.
By now, everybody who has seen a cable news show knows the compelling biography—hockey mom who married her high school sweetheart and came up from PTA to mayor to governor, 1980s beauty queen, state champion point guard, who hunts, fishes, is married to a part-Eskimo blue-collar snowmobile racer. She is the mom of 5, including a son bound for Iraq in the army and a baby born with Downs Syndrome. She is known (like McCain) as a maverick, having bucked the notoriously corrupt Alaska GOP, and as governor she has enjoyed approval ratings in the stratosphere. She is very good on the issue of energy (assuming, of course, you think “good” means in favor of increased production). She is staunchly pro-life, and a life member of the NRA. And unlike somebody like Mitt Romney, she didn’t spend the better part of the last year campaigning against John McCain, so there shouldn’t be any youtube videos of her out there claiming he’s too old, too grumpy, or too liberal.
Of course, it would be disingenuous to claim that it wouldn’t be even better if she had been governor for 10 years instead of less than two. The obvious rejoinder to the criticism that she lacks “experience” is that so does Obama, and that at least her inexperience is at the bottom, not the top of the ticket. And in terms of executive experience, she had more after her term as mayor of a small town than anybody else in the race (including 24-year senator McCain or 35-year senator Biden). As governor, she’s been commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard and run a state government. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson, senators run nothing but their mouths. I think any argument that McCain undercut his message about experience by picking her is balanced by the counter-argument that Obama did the exact same to his “change” message by picking uber-insider Joe Biden. One thing is for sure… it’s pretty hard to get more “outside” of DC than small-town Alaska!
I’ve done a lot of reading of reaction from various pundits in the past couple of days, and the trend among conservatives has been probably 20-1 in favor of the Palin pick. Just speaking for myself, my support for John McCain has gone from resignation that he was the lesser of two evils to outright enthusiasm. I may even get a bumper sticker! Of course, there’s a lot of time left, and anything can happen. But I’m more optimistic about this race and the future than I have been since before the primaries.
But yesterday—WOW! By picking Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, I think McCain really did something worth mentioning. As a short-term, tactical move, the pick had the effect of sucking all the media attention away from Obama’s historic acceptance speech. As a long-term, strategic move, it really reassures conservatives like me that McCain is not taking our votes for granted. In the category of the super-obvious, she has the added advantage of being a woman. And I happen to think she is a fabulous pick.
By now, everybody who has seen a cable news show knows the compelling biography—hockey mom who married her high school sweetheart and came up from PTA to mayor to governor, 1980s beauty queen, state champion point guard, who hunts, fishes, is married to a part-Eskimo blue-collar snowmobile racer. She is the mom of 5, including a son bound for Iraq in the army and a baby born with Downs Syndrome. She is known (like McCain) as a maverick, having bucked the notoriously corrupt Alaska GOP, and as governor she has enjoyed approval ratings in the stratosphere. She is very good on the issue of energy (assuming, of course, you think “good” means in favor of increased production). She is staunchly pro-life, and a life member of the NRA. And unlike somebody like Mitt Romney, she didn’t spend the better part of the last year campaigning against John McCain, so there shouldn’t be any youtube videos of her out there claiming he’s too old, too grumpy, or too liberal.
Of course, it would be disingenuous to claim that it wouldn’t be even better if she had been governor for 10 years instead of less than two. The obvious rejoinder to the criticism that she lacks “experience” is that so does Obama, and that at least her inexperience is at the bottom, not the top of the ticket. And in terms of executive experience, she had more after her term as mayor of a small town than anybody else in the race (including 24-year senator McCain or 35-year senator Biden). As governor, she’s been commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard and run a state government. To paraphrase Jesse Jackson, senators run nothing but their mouths. I think any argument that McCain undercut his message about experience by picking her is balanced by the counter-argument that Obama did the exact same to his “change” message by picking uber-insider Joe Biden. One thing is for sure… it’s pretty hard to get more “outside” of DC than small-town Alaska!
I’ve done a lot of reading of reaction from various pundits in the past couple of days, and the trend among conservatives has been probably 20-1 in favor of the Palin pick. Just speaking for myself, my support for John McCain has gone from resignation that he was the lesser of two evils to outright enthusiasm. I may even get a bumper sticker! Of course, there’s a lot of time left, and anything can happen. But I’m more optimistic about this race and the future than I have been since before the primaries.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Olympic Musings
Sorry I've been out of pocket for so long. What with political and track news, you'd think I'd be zapping out posts like crazy. But life has intervened--first week of school (which has gone fine, for those who might ask).
I'll probably think out loud about Joe Biden later (and no matter how wordy I am, it will be fitting, as he is one of the biggest bloviating gasbags in DC... but I like that!). But what's on my mind right now is a full week of Olympic track. It's the one time every 4 years that "my" sport takes center stage. And I LOVE it! So here are my thoughts, in no particular order:
I'll probably think out loud about Joe Biden later (and no matter how wordy I am, it will be fitting, as he is one of the biggest bloviating gasbags in DC... but I like that!). But what's on my mind right now is a full week of Olympic track. It's the one time every 4 years that "my" sport takes center stage. And I LOVE it! So here are my thoughts, in no particular order:
- Usain Bolt is a freak of nature. I think (and hope) he's drug-free. He just takes less steps with those long legs than all the other runners, and turns them over just as fast. Truly amazing. The fastest man on the planet. Ever. And we got to watch him. What a treat.
- Bolt had a better Olympics than Michael Phelps. I know that's heresy, and not what NBC has been pushing. But 3 golds with WR in sprints is superior to 8 golds with 7 WR in swimming. The events are physically more demanding (imagine having 2 sprint finals 25 minutes apart... couldn't happen. It does in swimming, because there's no pounding). Moreover, the WR's he broke were superior. Michael Johnson's 19.32 in the 200 was thought by some to be the most untouchable record on the track. The 4x100 record had stood since 1992. There have only been twelve WR performances in the 100 since they started using fully automatic timing in 1968. Compare that to swimming, where WR's are broken all the time. Finally, Phelps basically duplicated what Spitz did, plus one event. Bolt did what no one has ever done... not Jesse Owens, not Carl Lewis. Nobody has ever swept the sprints with 3 world-record golds.
- Jeremy Wariner fired his coach, Clyde Hart (of Baylor, formerly Michael Johnson's coach), last year. He thought he was too expensive. LaShawn Merritt hired Clyde. Merritt beat Wariner at the US trials, and beat the heck out of him at the Olympics. Yes, there is a great deal of natural talent at work in track. And when the more talented meets the harder worker, sorry to say, talent usually wins. But when talent is equal, technique, and COACHING, counts. I still am a huge Wariner fan, and would love to see him get the world record someday. But Merritt deserved this one.
- Do you know who Bubba Thornton is? He's the relay coach for the USA. And he should be fired, tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn, quartered, beheaded, flayed, and disemboweled... for starters. Both US 4x100 relay teams dropped the batons and failed to advance to the finals. Now, I'll bet the Bolt-led Jamaicans would have still won the men's race. But we should have at least medaled. Those passes would be inexcusable on my high school team. My boys' 4x100 team is currently the SCISA state record holders, and we have won several state titles in relays in my years coaching. And rule #1 is ALWAYS "get the stick around." You do that by practice, practice, practice. Obviously, the world-class athletes we had didn't put enough effort into teamwork and fundamentals. That lies squarely at the feet of the coach.
- The USA basketball team is much better this go around. Unlike our sprinters, they seem to have found some humility, and with it, the ability to play as a team. And so far, they have beaten every team they have played by 20+ points. My pick to replace Bubba Thornton is Coach K.
- Notice that China is leading in gold medals, even though USA leads overall. Why? China has 4 times the population, a state-run athletic system that takes kids away from home at a young age and puts them in "sports academies" (I need to work at a US track academy!), and is obviously willing to cheat at a national level (providing faked passports for their underage gymnasts). Yet the only reason they have so many golds is because they win in sports that... sorry... shouldn't even be in the Olympics. Come on! Ping-pong? Trampoline? Synchronized gymnastics? Air pistol? Badminton? I'll make a deal... drop our golds in fencing and rowing and other non-sports, and everybody else do the same. Then we'll compare. I guess since poker and spelling bee are now on ESPN, they'll be giving Olympic gold for them, soon. Bah!
- Lest I be accused of jingoism for saying the above, let me qualify by admitting that pound-for-pound, the UK and Jamaica are doing even better than the USA. I just have no love for the Chi-Coms. Free Tibet!
- Still 4 events left I care about... basketball gold medal game, men's 4x400, men's 5000, and men's marathon. This is a GREAT week!
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Olympic Fanfare
Is it just me, or is the Olympic Fanfare one of the coolest songs ever? You know, the one they play before every commercial break during the coverage on ABC. I have to admit it, I'm an Olympic junkie. Obviously, the biggest reason is that it's the most-watched track meet in the world. But this year's version leaves me a little cold. Having the ChiComs barbaric regime host (with all that entails, like the crackdown on dissidents and limiting of foreign reporters' access to the internet) kinda stinks. There is a little room for nostalgia, though... along with the Russians recently invading Georgia, it brings back a little cold war vibe of pulling hard against the Russkies and the Chinese. There's some hope that maybe the USA basketball team will not embarass us again this year (come on--if you have Kobe and Lebron, you had better stinkin' win). A couple of nights ago I had my boys sit down and watch a video of Dream Team I ('92) in their opener against Angola. Ah.... the classics.
Anyway, I grew up on Bruce Jenner, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Mary Lou Retton... who's it going to be this year?
Anyway, I grew up on Bruce Jenner, Carl Lewis, Michael Johnson, Mary Lou Retton... who's it going to be this year?
Time and Money, Part 2
Not a blog post; more of an illustration. Over 2 weeks ago I blogged that I was going to write a little about time management, before things got hectic again with the start of the new school year. Of course, I haven't written a word since. In the meantime, life has rushed in to fill the void. I have spent MANY days in my new classroom (I had to move to a new building after 8 years in the same spot... the new place is freshly renovated and bigger, but a move is NEVER fun), and the new cross-country season has begun, meaning daily practice. That practice involves not only a time commitment, but accompanying fatigue and dehydration that comes with the increase in intensity. So blogging (and even thinking deep thoughts about time) have taken a back seat. Maybe I'll come back to the topic later, but that ship seems to have sailed. I'm kinda looking forward to the new school year, if only for the structure and routine that allows "real" time management to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)