Winston Spencer Churchill

Winston Churchill was born on this day in 1874. The twentieth century boasted more than a handful of truly outstanding statesmen and national leaders. Making the short list for the greatest statesmen of the last century are: (1) Theodore Roosevelt, who led America to become a true world power; (2) Franklin Roosevelt, who led a country out of isolationism to defeat Hitler's Germany; (3) Ronald Reagan, who never doubted that American virtue would triumph over the Evil Empire and thus led the way for what was the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The greatest statesman, however, was Winston Churchill. His stalwart leadership as Prime Minister during the early years of World War II kept Hitler at bay while Churchill was recruiting America to join the war against the Nazis. England was completely overpowered during the fall of 1940 when Germany was torridly air bombing London for weeks on end. Churchill kept his country, and the free world, in the game by imploring his military to fight with tenacity and by maintaining an erect, no-surrender attitude through his speeches and actions. The "Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat" speech, the "The Finest Hour" speech, the "The Few" speech, and the "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" speech will echo throughout time as clarion calls reminding us that evil cannot defeat an indomitable spirit. Through his words, Churchill turned the English language into a weapon of mass destruction.

The Churchill biography is gigantic even when measured only by his public service and military accomplishments. However, the prodigious Churchill created a vast body of work as an author. He wrote a total of 43 books in 72 volumes. To name a few of the best known books: The World Crisis (about WWI - 5 volumes); A History of the English Speaking People (4 volumes); The Second World War (6 volumes). His mode of relaxation was painting and Churchill even became an accomplished painter.

Winston Churchill was a truly remarkable man who possessed a fiery passion for charging forward into adversity for the sake of a Good. What made him exceedingly impressive was his ability to accomplish what he did despite some serious human obstacles. Churchill had a speech impediment that would have caused most people to withdraw from ever engaging in public speaking. Also, throughout his life, Churchill suffered bouts of major depression, calling his depressive states the "Black Dog". Undeterred, he rose above these drawbacks with a will and a drive and a talent that the human race rarely sees. 

When Churchill resigned as Prime Minister in 1955, he bade farewell to his Ministers leaving them with a message and a piece of advice. The message was: "Man is spirit". The advice was: "Never be separated from the Americans". The inimitable Winston Churchill was a savage gift to a world that was in peril.

Quick Notes:

Churchill's favorite cigar? Romeo y Julieta. He began cigar smoking while in Cuba in 1895.

Churchill's favorite drink? Whisky and Soda

Best Winston Churchill biography? Churchill, a Life by Martin Gilbert.

Churchill's Public Service Timeline:

1893: Enrolls in Royal Military Academy

1895: Visits Cuba while on leave during the Cuban War of Independence and comes under fire for the first time

1896: Cavalry officer Churchill is posted to India

1897: Volunteered to fight local tribesmen in Malakand (now part of Pakistan)

1898: Participates in a cavalry charge in Sudan

1899: Loses first attempt to be elected to parliament. Travels as journalist to the Boer War in South Africa. Is captured and escapes.

1900: Elected to parliament as a conservative

1904: Leaves the Conservatives to join the Liberals

1911: Is appointed First Lord of the Admiralty

1915: Blamed for Dardanelles disaster in WWI. Resigns. Rejoins the army and fights in France

1919: Secretary of State for War and Air

1924: Leaves Liberals and rejoins Conservatives. Is made Chancellor of the Exchequer

1930s: "The Wilderness Years". Churchill out of office but is a lone voice warning of the menace from Germany

1939: Britain declares war on Germany. Churchill is back as First Lord of the Admiralty

1940: Is made Prime Minister

1945: Loses PM re-election

1946: In a speech in Kansas, coins the term "Iron Curtain"

1951: Becomes Prime Minister again

1955: Resigns as PM

1964: Leaves the House of Commons

1965: Dies in London at age 90

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.” – Sir Winston Churchill

A Worthwhile Read

Walter Williams, a self-described conservative economist/commentator, wrote an interesting piece that aims to shed light on how money, as a medium of exchange, can camouflage coercive activities that we would otherwise view as intolerable. This obfuscation is exacerbated when it is combined with big, fungible pot of money whose sizable ante is the result of the millions of dollars gathered from government reaches into our pocketbooks to fund "social goods". 

Thankful For

A country whose promise of freedom makes it the best place to live in and whose democratic ideals makes it the most noble to die for.

Friends and loved ones who stick with you through thick and thin. No one can be forced to be a friend. It is this very freedom of choice that sublimates this relationship.

Parents who not only dedicated a lifetime of sacrifice to their children but who, in one shining and heroic moment, showed the wisdom to act with courage, conviction, and optimism to make a decision that forever bettered their children's lives.

Siblings whose company allows you to feel more comfortable than with anyone else. You can talk to them about anything and laugh about almost everything. New stories constantly enter our private history and old stories never grow stale.

Children who need not do anything else but look into your eyes for you to tremble at the magnificent splendor and power of unconditional love. Children exist as the means for God to share with us a glimpse of the extent of His love for us, His children.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Cut, Baby, Cut

President-elect Obama has signaled that he will not pursue the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, citing the dire financial markets and the worsening economic conditions. Barack Obama is to be applauded for heeding the advice of his economic advisors. His implied intention now is simply to allow the tax cuts to go away once they expire in 2011. At that time the previous higher tax rates would come back into effect. If keeping taxes low is the right medicine now, then what kind of economic quack would construct an argument that higher taxes would be good for the economy later? We will leave that for another day.

There is plenty of talk and maneuvering for a sizable financial stimulus package to coincide with Obama's inauguration. If you really want to see surge in consumer confidence, a curtailment of job loss, and an upward jolt in investment in both real estate and financial markets, all that Obama needs to do is to announce that he will immediately call for a tax cut. Lower personal income taxes for all income brackets, lower capital gains tax to spur investment activities, and lower corporate taxes to save jobs. This would, of course, require some gritty spending cuts at all levels of government as a show of fiscal discipline.

I don't think that the democrats will actually cut taxes across the board, or at all for that matter. However, such a move would be the ideal antidote for the economic ills that are dogging us. Cut, baby, cut.

Odd Committee Chairmanships

Henry Waxman (D), California recently ousted fellow Democrat John Dingell from Michigan to gain the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The problem is that Mr Waxman despises oil companies. The appropriateness of this assignment for Waxman could only be rivaled by naming an incurable couch potato to head the President's Council on Physical Fitness. This is the same Mr Waxman that opposed random drug testing of federal employees but was all over Barry Bonds' steroid use and endorsed establishing drug testing for major league sports. I'm no fan of Bonds, but how exactly does Mr Waxman conclude that Mr Bonds' drug habits pose a greater risk to our health than do possible acts by federal employees, such as airport security workers? 

Then there is Barney Frank (D), Massachusetts. Mr Frank chairs the House Financial Services Committee. The problem is that Mr Frank hates capitalism and desperately wants to spread the wealth around by sticking it to the "rich". A Financial Services Committee chair that is partial to socialism? Quite bizarre indeed. What next? A museum curator that is hostile to the arts?

Lastly, we come to Charles Rangel (D), New York. Mr Rangel is the House Ways and Means chair. A very big assignment for sure. Contrary to the others mentioned here, this chairmanship makes sense because Mr Rangel is enamored with taxes. Now, he doesn't like to pay his taxes but he wants to make sure that we are not deprived of our Biden-described patriotic duty to pay more taxes.

Brokaw's Spite

Yesterday Joe Lieberman appeared on Meet the Press, hosted by Tom Brokaw. Throughout the presidential campaign, Mr Brokaw would invariably ask tough questions and follow-ups to Republican advocates. However, he obsequiously performed verbal curtsies when interviewing Obama supporters. Like others at NBC/MSNBC, his unflagging devotion to an Obama victory was emetically evident throughout the campaign season and after. Mr Brokaw's cheerleading, mind you, did not reach the soaring heights of Chris Matthews' and Keith Olbermann's. Mr Olbermann must still be emotionally distraught with envy because he was not selected as the YouTube Obama Girl.

The Lieberman interview was more akin to an interrogation and amply displayed Mr Brokaw's irritation with Mr Lieberman's support for John McCain. Brokaw badgered Lieberman with a clip from the senator's Republican National Convention speech where Lieberman did praise Obama but remarked that McCain was more qualified. Lieberman's defense of his evaluation of the presidential candidates caused Brokaw to fulminate and ask Lieberman if he shouldn't apologize for bad-mouthing Obama.

Brokaw also showed a clip from the same speech where Lieberman affirmed his support for Sarah Palin as Vice President. Brokaw's eyes squinted, his bottom lip stiffened, and then he hectored Lieberman for believing that Palin was more prepared for VP than he, Lieberman, and Biden. 

Lieberman deflected Brokaw's insidious attacks and expressed an interest in focusing on today's issues. Then, Brokaw the Grand Inquisitor shifted into the fastidious Father Brokaw, asking Lieberman if he would like to apologize for all his wrong-doings during the campaign, remarking that Lieberman had used the word "regret" but not "apology" during the interview. Good grief.

Joe Lieberman carried himself with dignity throughout this ambush. Tom Brokaw was petty, partisan, and vindictive. 

The Politics of Selfishness

Suppose you had gone to a restaurant with five friends and you were under the impression that it was going to be more or less "dutch". You were hungry and consumed 22% of the food that was brought to the table. When the bill came you were asked to pay 40% of the tab. Seems unfair, correct? Now suppose that your same group intends to return to the restaurant and they will expect you to now pay even more, say 43%, of the tab even though you will consume the same proportion as last time. If you balk at this apportionment, you will be called selfish. "An outrage", you proclaim.

According to the IRS, in 2006, the top 1% of wage-earners paid 40% of income taxes while earning 22% of all income. The top 10% paid 71% of all income taxes and the top 50% paid 97%. The bottom 50% paid 3%. 

Being in the top 1% in 2006 meant that your adjusted gross income was $388 thousand or greater. To qualify for the top 50%, you needed $32 thousand in income.

Pre-Bush, in 2000, the top 1% paid 37%. The top 10% paid 66% and the top 50% paid 96%. The bottom 50% paid 4%.

Hence, despite the "tax cut for the rich" there was increased disproportionality in the tax burden distribution. That Bush guy, he really favored the rich. But how could this happen? Easy, the number of millionaire income taxpayers nearly doubled between 2003 and 2006 and these new "rich" entrants paid more in taxes because, while cut, the tax rate schedule remained progressive.

The next time you go to that restaurant with your friends, you should consume 20% but go ahead and pay 50%. The next three friends can pay another 60%. The remaining two pals will then receive a refund for the 10% that was overpaid even though there bellies will be plenty full. Then no one will call you selfish, at least not until your next restaurant rendezvous.

JFK and the Comparison Problem

Today marks forty-five years since the fateful day in Dallas. John Kennedy had been elected president at the age of 43, more than three years younger than our current President-elect. I mention their ages because of the simply inane likening of Obama with Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy. In particular, the Kennedy comparisons center on youthfulness, style, and swank. Here the media is behaving with the unhinged and irrational adoration that one would only expect from a teeny-bopper fan club. The fact is that JFK as a presidential nominee, whether you like him or not, presented credentials that far exceeded Mr Obama's abbreviated history of deeds.

In 1940 at age 23, Kennedy was slated for induction in the US Army. His poor health record was a problem, however, so he had his family pull strings to allow his induction into the Navy. Initially stationed in the United States, he asked and received sea duty. In 1943, as a commander of PT 109 in the South Pacific, Kennedy's boat was split in two by a Japanese destroyer. In what became a six-day ordeal, he displayed great courage in finding rescue for his crewmen, including a four hour swim to safety while hoisting a wounded crewman. At twenty-three, Obama was a community organizer in Chicago. Little to compare at this stage in their life.

After his military service, Kennedy went on to serve six years in the U.S. House followed by eight years as a U.S. Senator. This is national congressional experience that far outweighs Obama's four years in the Senate, two of which were dedicated to his presidential run. Not much of a comparison here.

As president, Kennedy bucked his own Democratic party when he pushed hard for a tax cut as part of the 1963 budget. He declared that to promote economic growth "one step, above all, is essential - the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes ... it is increasingly clear ... that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment". Apparently Kennedy was a bit partial to private purchasing power, he did not regard "profit" as a cardinal sin, and knew that lowering corporate taxes increases employment levels.

To combat temporary deficits from a tax cut, Kennedy proposed tightly controlling government expenditures. Close your eyes. Can you really imagine those words coming from a President Obama, the new Kennedy? No comparison to speak of. There is a night and day difference when it comes to going against one's own party and the merits of a tax cut.

Interestingly, in the tax cut debate, JFK's main opposition in the Senate came from Al Gore - senior that is. Seems that this Mr Gore feared that a Kennedy tax cut would only favor the rich, would not be good for social justice, and so on .. boring ... yawn. (Note: Gore Sr was so concerned about social justice that he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Who knows, perhaps Al, Sr. may have won the day had he convinced the nation that the planet would soon enter another ice age. Unfortunately for Senior, the precocious young Al was still a few years away from inventing the internet and developing a nifty powerpoint presentation to help drive home dad's argument.

JFK demonstrated at least one true act of courage and heroism. He did not necessarily heed the party line and he was certainly not labor's pushover. To be fair, Mr Obama will surely have his own opportunities to show his mettle. Although there is little in his past that points to deeds of valor or shows of individualism, he will have his chance.

Triumph

 Phoenix, the 770-pound spacecraft, landed on Mars in May. It studied things on Mar's north pole for a few months, and then called it a day on November 2nd. Among it's findings, Phoenix positively confirmed that water ice exists on the red planet. 

Where there is water, there is at least an infinitesimal possibility of life. Aside from water, they also found other stuff there that has scientists giddy and drinking Red Bull by the gallon. Last message sent by Phoenix's blackberry? "TRIUMPH". 

Bellweather and Anti-Bellweather

Missouri broke a streak of 12 consecutive presidential elections where the state voted with the winner. Missouri's polling result became official yesterday with McCain scoring a razor-thin victory. Not since favoring Adlai Stevenson over Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 has Missouri "gotten it wrong", thus gaining the well-deserved bellweather state reputation. Thirteen was just not a lucky number for Mr McCain.

So, I thought it would be interesting to poke around and see which state has sided with the loser the most over the same 1960-2008 period. The anti-bellweather states are: Washington, Mississippi and Alabama. Each of the three states has voted with the eventual loser in 6 of the last 13 opportunities. The two southern states supported a third party in both the 1960 and 1968 elections. 

Ohio is the new bellweather state, having voted with the winner since 1964.

Thinking of Thatcher

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried a book review titled "Never Wobbly". The book itself is "There is No Alternative". It is about Margaret Thatcher and was written by Claire Berlinski. Apparently, Ms Thatcher's resuscitation of free markets in Britain is highlighted in the book. 

The book review shares two anecdotes that serve as time-traveling charmers from the Thatcher years. One involves Prime Minister Thatcher being asked by David Frost (in 'tutorial style" we are told) about inconsistencies in the official version of the sinking of an Argentinean ship during the Falkland Wars. Mrs Thatcher satirical response was a gem: "Do you think, Mr Frost, that I spend my days prowling round the pigeonholes of the Ministry of Defense to look at the chart of each and every ship? If you do you must be bonkers." Perhaps he wasn't bonkers, but one can safely assume that the chastened Mr Frost must have shrunk a couple of inches when met by Mrs Thatcher's glaring eyes.

The second anecdote is classic Thatcher. To a visiting Congolese Marxist she tersely proclaimed: "I hate communists". That's it. That's Margaret Thatcher.

Good for the Goose; Horrible for the Gander

The United States labor movement is poised to push the Democrat-led congress to swiftly pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). A key feature of the EFCA is a "card check" system that allows a prospective union organizer to enter a shop, hand a worker a union sign-up card and then watch him or her vote "yes" or "no" for union formation. Without a secret ballot, the worker/voter is totally open to intimidation and threats.

Meanwhile, we shift to our nation's capital. Today, Democrats in the senate will cast a vote to determine if Sen. Joe Lieberman will be unceremoniously thumped from his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Seems that the Dems are a bit miffed that the senator from Connecticut supported the presidential run of his friend John McCain. To cast their votes, these senators will bravely use the secret ballot. Need to preserve dignity, you understand.

What makes this situation possibly delightful is that Lieberman may well indeed retain the chairmanship. This would be a direct rebuke to Harry Reid's thirst to punish the traitor. Even so, word is that Ried will get his pound of flesh one way or the other. Should Lieberman stay as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats may opt to strip him from the all-powerful subcommittee chairmanship on the Environment and Public Works Committee. That'll show him.

Not a bad way to start a book

10. If I am out of my mind, it's all right with me, thought Herzog. -- Saul Bellow, Herzog

9. He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty- four days now without taking a fish. -- Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and The Sea.

8. Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract.

7. " Who is John Galt?" -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

6. Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. -- Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

5. Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man. -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile

4. It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. -- George Orwell, 1984

3. Call me Ishmael -- Herman Melville, Moby Dick

2. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was  the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair. -- Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.

1. I have long believed that any man interested in either the mystic or the romantic aspects of life must sooner or later define his attitude concerning Spain. -- James A. Michener, Iberia

On Risk and Reward

Risk-taking is a fundamental imperative to the forward movement of civilization. Explorers and scientists that have engaged and continue to engage in risk-taking have brought us untold progress. To them we owe an endless list of new frontiers, comfort, medicine, transportation, and communication breakthroughs. The benefits from risk-taking activities in the world of commercial enterprise is equally abundant, bringing us expanded trade throughout the centuries, economic growth, jobs, etc... At the core is the uncontestable postulate that there is little that we can point to as progress that did not emanate from risk-taking. No risk-taking equals no progress.

The risk I am discussing is risk taken on a voluntary basis. Coercive risk-taking is not within the sphere of the "risk/reward=progress" equation. For example, being told to rob a bank when a gun is put to your head is certainly not voluntary nor intended to result in any benefit other than not losing your life. Likewise, running through a blazing fire to save a loved one falls in the coercive risk category as it is an action taken apart from a voluntary design.

There are two essentials needed to make risk-taking possible:

1. The ability to quantify, or assess, the level of risk being contemplated. Absent this calculation, one is unable to weigh the possible cost of failure. This uncertainty evaporates the desire to take risk.
2. Reaping a reward that is commensurate with the measured risk. The larger the risk, the more reward will be demanded.

In the realm of risk quantification, we can thank the advancements in mathematics ranging from Cardano the Renaissance Gambler (eminent 16th century physician and unmitigated gambler) to Harry Markowitz (portfolio selection theorist) and everything in-between and beyond. Without reliable risk measurements we would not have insurance companies, finance companies, medicinal innovations and a host of other disciplines that are forced to project possible outcomes in order to arrive at present-day decisions. The future needs to be somehow measurable, with known prognostication limitations taken into account.

To voluntarily agree to take a risk, you will expect a reward. Even Evel Knievel knew that. Do you think this daredevil took numerous death defying risks just for kicks? If there is no reward, then why take the risk? Most rewards are measured in monetary terms and the timing of the recompense can be expected now or in the future. However, monetary is not the only acceptable reward measure as patriotic, religious, social and family benefits are certainly legitimate reasons to accept risk.

A rational person will weigh risk and reward and determine whether the risk "is worth it". True, the spectrum of personality types can range from extremely risk-averse people to bonafide risk-lovers whose adrenaline-stimulant is risk. Everyone must decide, within their own personality make-up, whether or not a proposed action or venture is worth the risk. 

Let's look at investment risk. Should you buy a particular asset or not? There is risk that the investment's value may drop and you suffer a loss and there is the possibility that the value will rise and you will profit. When a government changes tax policy it serves to disrupt the risk-reward balance that we calculate. Let's assume an increase in capital gains taxes. If you invested wisely your reward is now less by the degree of the tax increase. However, the risk is unchanged. Clearly, this would cause many along the risk spectrum to decide that, at a lesser reward, the risk is not worth it. Progress is the victim. The more government intervenes in the risk-reward equation, the less pure the proposition becomes.

There is another way that government can be an undesired risk-reward party crasher. It can leave reward relatively untouched but, instead, lessen risk. This is also known as a bail-out. In the long run shielding risk is extremely dangerous because the risk has not disappeared. It has merely been "spread around" to the taxpayers who did not volunteer to take it in the first place and now, in an act or coercion, assume risk without hope for reward. To use a technical term -- it's a bummer. Furthermore, the reward side of this same equation will eventually get hammered down because a risk safety net is an unsustainable position to take in a free society. 

The freedom to decide to accept risk and enjoy the concomitant reward or punishment with minimal outside intervention is key to economic growth. Otherwise, we have a mess.

Our First Bail-Out

Our country's first bail-out has enchanting similarities to the present state of affairs. The year was 1790. The republic was young, merely one year separated from George Washington becoming our first president, having sworn the oath of office on the steps of Federal Hall in New York, overlooking Wall Street. 

The starring role then was also played by the Secretary of the Treasury, a fellow named Alexander Hamilton. The beneficiaries of the bail-out were the 13 original states themselves. The amount was $25 Million of debt incurred by the states as an outcome of fighting the revolutionary war. The titanic clash that ensued was a fight over whether the federal government should assume the states' debt. It was called the "assumption debate". As a side note, doesn't assumption sound so much less desperate than "bail-out"?

Hamilton saw assumption as an opportunity to forge a union of the states, a true United States. To Hamilton, it was akin to an act of patriotism. The chief assumption dissenter was James Madison, seconded by a fellow Virginian and Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. They argued that Virginia and other southern states had almost retired the debt and vehemently opposed the idea of now paying the other states' share. Plus, they didn't trust Hamilton and disliked his combative, take-no-prisoners style. 

As the rancorous debate raged in the summer of 1790, it became evident that Mr. Madison's side had the votes to reject assumption and that's exactly what they did. Alexander Hamilton did not relent. Knowing that the sites for both the temporary capital and the permanent capital were still undecided, the brilliant Mr. Hamilton saw an opportunity. 

Other than New Yorkers, and perhaps other northeasterners, there was not a wave of support for either a temporary or a permanent capital in New York City. The reasons for the "just say no to New York" were many: it was distant from the geographic center of the states; many desired an agrarian, rather than an urban, personality to the capital; New York City would be too close to commercial and financial interests. Nevertheless, New York was a distinct possibility for a temporary capital and there was fear that the temporary would become permanent.

Hamilton needed Pennsylvania congressmen to side with him and he needed Virginia to rescind its opposition. It went down like this: in exchange for assumption backing, Hamilton told the Pennsylvanians that he would support Philadelphia as the location for the temporary capital. To please the Virginians, he would lobby for a permanent capital on the Potomac. (the establishment of a ten square mile federal district for the capital had been agreed upon at the constitutional convention). The Pennsylvanians assented and Madison voted against assumption but encouraged four Virginians to vote for the measure.

There are two enduring consequences of our first bail-out: (1) Jefferson later intimated that this bitter division gave rise to two distinct factions, our first political parties that remain with us today if one accepts the "Republican Democrats" becoming just "Democrats" in the 1820s and the Whigs morphing into Republicans in the 1850s; and, (2) the federal government gained the power to tax. The second consequence was Hamilton's aim in his mission to create a strong federal government. Once gained, the power to tax would not be ceded.

Where was President Washington in all of this? He supported assumption but wanted to not appear partisan so he stayed out of the fray. 

A Billion Here, A Trillion There

These days you cannot get through the day without hearing or reading about multi-billion dollar bail-outs and trillion dollar debt. It can be numbing, and after awhile, desensitizing to the point that some may yawn when they hear a politician call for "only one billion dollars" to bail out the Bounty Hunters of America or some other budding interest group promising to deliver votes in a future election.

So, how much is a billion or a trillion dollars? Well, U.S. paper currency is six and one-eighth inches long. Let's round the length to six inches to make the math simple. Want to be a millionaire? Lining up one million dollar bills equates to almost 95 miles, or roughly the distance from New York City to Philadelphia. How about a billion end-to-end dollar bills? That would be 95,000 miles or just about enough to trace the circumference of Earth four times. Let's keep going and see how far a line of a trillion dollar bills takes us. From the Earth to the Sun with about three million miles to spare!

Not shocked yet? Okay then, let's bring back the one-eighth of an inch that we trimmed off of the length of the bill and apply that to the billion  dollar bill line. You get an extra 1,972 miles or nearly the distance between Boston and San Antonio. Small numbers add up big and big numbers add up huge.

For the Youth: Have a Plentiful Toolbox

There is an adage that says that "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". Considering the myriad of problems we encounter in our lives, it is best to acquire and become proficient in many, many tools. The more tools we possess, the better we can deal with all kinds of circumstances, whether good or bad.

The acquisition and command of tools is the best answer to the often-asked question posed by young people: "Why do I need to learn about (pick a subject, any subject) if I do not plan to ever do that in my life". The answer should be: "because you will acquire a tool that you may need at some point in your life". 

The tool itself may fit to clarify and inform on the manner in which a problem is sized-up and analyzed. Consider how a mathematician, a historian, and a biologist may each apply their learned discipline to to attack a problem. They would each come at it from a different angle. The more angles you can command, the likelier you are to penetrate to the core of the matter.

Tools are necessary beyond the act of analyzing a given situation and determining a course of action. The tools we gather over our lives can be used to persuade and communicate. Think of English majors, poetry students, language grads within the context of tools that aid in effective communication. 

In the not too distant past, the act of learning was not as remote from the critical reason for why learning was crucial. Learning used to be an essential for survival. The farmer needed to learn about crop harvesting and soil conditions to survive. Similarly, the mariner's need to master the ins and outs of weather and astronomy was a matter of life and death. Today, the need to learn may not be as dramatic as it was for the farmer and mariner, but tool-gathering continues to be the best way to prepare oneself for the marvelous twists and turns that life offers.

Growth in Ignorance as a Sign of Progress

We are becoming more ignorant. Pardon me, you ask. Me, more ignorant? No, not just you - we are all becoming more ignorant. Sure, we know a lot more things now thanks to the internet and the plethora of cable channels and radio outlets that inform us on thousands of varied topics. We can also add our own private learnings to our knowledge base. Still, and at the risk of taking another swipe at our self-perception, we know a lot less about how things work in the world. Here's the good news - this growth in ignorance, oxymoron aside, means that, as a whole (here you can define whole as a city or the planet) we are in a progressing civilization.  

Consider the typical hunter-gatherer society of eight thousand years ago. There was little that was not known. The members of the tribe knew who did what, when and how. They had no monetary system to fret over, no tough cell phone vendor choices to make, and little outside dependence on other tribes. The tribe was flat. There was minimal ignorance.

Shifting to today, who can fully explain the billions of actions that need to occur to bring to market all of the the products and services we consume? No one knows this. It involves an ever-increasing degree of human coordination where the actors themselves do not comprehend how their labor specialization contributes to the whole. Through generations upon generations of innovation, testing, executing, failing, re-inventing, re-testing, succeeding again and failing again, we have arrived at where we are. 

It is an accumulation of generational knowledge that we act upon without fully comprehending the total picture. And we are not even aware that this is what we are doing. The more complex, more specialized, and larger the "tribe", the less we know. (Want proof? Try to explain the global financial system as it exists today.) This is what freedom and a free marketplace engender. The freedom to try different methods of production and venture into the unknown with the chance for reward and failure alike. 

Adam Smith alluded to an invisible hand to describe how an individual's pursuit of self-interest produces a common good. Those that believe in a free market tend to hold a profound respect for this somewhat mysterious manner that we have progressed. We may not understand it, but we know there is a system of human coordination out there. And because we don't fully understand it, we should beware of abrupt changes to the system for fear that the consequences are equally unknown. The invisible hand system self-adjusts. The fact that we don't see the subtle self-adjustments should not overly concern us.

There are those that strongly believe in a government that should decide how things are for a wide-range of economic matters. Communism and other forms of totalitarian states are the more extreme forms of this hyper-control. Well-meaning socialists are also in this camp in a more benign way. Many who have socialist leanings are quite intelligent. It is this very premium that they place on the value of intelligence that makes them feel like they "know how things work and they know how to change them so that they can work better". They consider the human coordination that has evolved from the generational accumulated knowledge as hogwash because it cannot be explained to their satisfaction. It certainly cannot be explained in an appealing sound bite for sure. 

To socialists, the invisible hand is a silly superstition that should be thwarted and replaced with "rationalized" human design. They esteem their knowledge to be superior to that of the product of the many preceding generations. The free marketer would rather trust the masses of people that are free to make their own self-interested decisions than to trust a handful to devise a grand plan. The handful simply doesn't know what they think they know.

Socrates said that the recognition of our ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.

  

Respect and Gratitude

It was called Armistice Day for thirty-five years. Then in 1954 President Eisenhower signed legislation to rename the legal holiday. Now it is Veterans Day. November 11, 1918 marked the end of World War I hostilities, making today the 90th anniversary of the conclusion of this massive world conflict. The conflict ended on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

Today we honor the approximately 24 million living men and women that have donned the country's uniform. These are the citizens who answered a call of duty and by doing so gave more than just a passive meaning to the democratic principles upon which this great nation was founded. In a feat of role reversal, our veterans elevated our dignity by telling us through their sacrifice that our rights were worth defending. While in truth they are the ones most worthy of dignity.

Most of the living veterans served us in the Vietnam, Gulf, and Iraq Wars. Only about 4 million served in the Korean War and slightly less than 3 million served in World War II (many served in both wars). Our WWII veterans are in their eighth decade or beyond and are dying at a rapid rate.

There is an American named Frank Woodruff Buckles. He lives in Charles Town, West Virginia. Mr. Buckles is up in his years. He is 107 years old. He enlisted to serve in WWI in 1917 at age 16. Later in life, as a civilian working in the Philippines in 1942, he was captured by the Japanese and was held three years in a prison camp. Frank Buckles is the last known living WWI veteran. Raise a glass to Mr Buckles and be ever-thankful for the very best that our country has to offer - our veterans.

What is a Liberal?

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

Thomas Jefferson

The current political discourse is one where Republicans will frequently try to pin the "L" word on their Democrat opponents and the latter will vehemently deny the charge. Only occasionally will you hear someone proudly proclaim their liberal credentials. More often than not, these very credentials are quite unliberal. 

Books, documents, and other recorded events allows us the exquisite luxury of going back in time to see how things were before the modern mangling of terms of political philosophy. During the years of the birth of our nation, Liberalism was understood, and defined by its' Latin etymology, as being in opposition to a condition of slavery. It's definitional connection to freedom is undeniable.

The liberal thought that consumed and guided our Founding Fathers was passed down by the likes of John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith. The connection between economic freedom and political freedom was clear in their writings, especially in the case of Adam Smith. To John Locke, the right to own private property was the key liberal idea supporting his belief that free people are capable of building a stable society - to him it was a natural right. 

A citizen's economic liberty is compromised and limited to the extent that the government competes for the same dollars. The more the government takes, the less economic freedom (and political freedom) the citizen can exert. Consequently, by definition, the less distanced the citizen will be from a condition of slavery. You may have the right to own private property but if you cannot keep enough of your earned money to more readily purchase the property it becomes a diminished right.  

Modern Liberalism is understood as supportive of government intervention into private economic affairs to fund the general welfare. The modern liberal is a proponent of a wide range of government spending discretion. Unbridled spending in areas beyond the proper role of government enters the realm of coercion. To the true, or classic, liberal this is anathema with liberty and freedom. It is anti-liberal. 

Civilian National Security Force

President-elect Obama called for a Civilian National Security Force (CNSF).  He did this on July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs. What does this mean? What is a CNSF? Those that have lived or know of people that have lived in totalitarian regimes certainly know what this means. 

The very thought of a CNSF send chills down the spine and cause hairs to stand up on the back of the neck. It sounds eerily similar to community-volunteer police groups that a government may establish to suppress, identify, and punish dissent. At a minimum it pits one segment of the population against another. The community-volunteers of this ilk are typically mediocre types that see this as a means to attack the more successful, free-thinking citizens.

However, Mr. Obama did not call for a rag-tag neighborhood crime watch group. No, he spoke of creating a CNSF that was just as powerful and just as well-funded as our military forces. That would total almost $500 Billion a year. Is that what he means? If not, then why did he say it and what indeed does he mean? You can fund a KGB, a Gestapo, and a Stasi with that kind of money. Even at lower level funding, the proposal is alarming. Cubans, for example, know all too well that Castro's Committee for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) caused great damage and divided families.  

Barack Obama must explain the precise nature of the domestic danger that he sees that cannot be addressed by existing federal, state, and local police enforcement, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Otherwise, we can and should question his motives and repel any version of a CNSF.

Children of the '30s

The 1930s conjures images of bank runs and the prevalent unemployment lines of the Great Depression.  The face of FDR and the advent of the New Deal also come to mind.  To the collage we can add the Dust Bowl and gangsters such as Capone, Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde.  The '30s also witnessed the rise of Hitler.  

On the milder side, the decade is remembered for Babe Ruth's called World Series home run, the creation of Snow White and the epic Gone with the Wind. Polaroid photography, Monopoly, jet engines, drive-in theaters, the parking meter, and canned beer were all born in the '30s.  What was not born in the 1930s was a U.S. President.  John McCain's loss closed out that possibility.

Not having a president born in a given decade may not be significant but it is rare indeed.  It has happened only twice since the 1730s.  The only other decade to miss out was the 1810s. The most fertile? The 1800s and the 1910s - four presidents each. There is still a chance for those born in the 1950s and this was the first election where someone born in the 1970s was constitutionally eligible to achieve the presidency.

Here's the list. The Presidential order is noted in parenthesis for those who are obsessed with chronological skips (Reagan was skipped by four younger men) and leapfrogs (JFK jumped ahead of four older men):

1730s: Washington (1); Adams (2)

1740s: Jefferson (3)

1750s: Madison (4); Monroe (5)

1760s: Quincy Adams (6); Jackson (7)

1770s: W.H. Harrison (9)

1780s: Van Buren (8); Taylor (12)

1790s: Tyler (10); Buchanan (15); Polk (11)

1800s: Fillmore (13); Pierce (14); A. Johnson (17); Lincoln (16)

1810s: none

1820s: Grant (18); Hayes (19); Arthur (21)

1830s: Garfield (20); B. Harrison (23); Cleveland (22 and 24)

1840s: McKinley (25)

1850s: Wilson (28); Taft (27); TR (26)

1860s: Harding (29)

1870s: Coolidge (30); Hoover (31)

1880s: FRD (32); Truman (33)

1890s: Eisenhower (34)

1900s: LBJ (36)

1910s: Reagan (40); Nixon (37); Ford (38); JFK (35)

1920s: Carter (39); H.W. Bush (41)

1930s: none

1940s: Clinton (42); W. Bush (43)

1950s: not yet

1960s: Obama (44)

1970s: not yet 

Heard at Grant Park

Change.  It was the one-word theme of the Obama campaign. Lawns, buildings, bumper stickers displayed that word to show support for a presidential candidate and his tag line. There was no need to ponder annoying questions such as: what, how, why, where, when.  The who was always known and that was all you needed to know.

Change was the campaign theme and the throngs celebrating at Grant Park in Chicago on Tuesday night left no doubt that it worked.  Change won.  So, what exactly did Mr. Obama say about change that evening?  After all, it was the winning card, his fifth ace. He used the word precisely four times.  

Early during the extravaganza he said that "in this election change has come to America". Change already happened.  

Second, there was an "America can change" throwaway.

 

Then, referencing 106 year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, Obama offered the keen insight that Ms Cooper "knows how America can change".  Things have changed in 106 years. Really?  

Lastly, Obama wondered that if our children were to live as long as Ms. Cooper,  "what change will they see?" If you want to see change, it is best to invest in a time machine or a Hubble Space Telescope.

At Grant Park, the President-elect distanced himself from his twenty-one month campaign bluster, choosing it best to manage the expectations of the Obamistas.  To make sure his adoring fans don't expect too much from him, he equivocated:  "We may not get there in one year or even one term".  Not only is he not saying where he intends to go, he says that, wherever it is, we may not get there anytime soon.  Being wary of Obama's undeclared intended destination, that may not be so bad after all.  

"There will be setbacks and false starts", he confessed.  Interesting, that admittance for failure was not part of the "Yes we can" mantra and "fired up, ready to go" pep rallies.  However, to my relief, he did say "I will always be honest with you". 

A Center-Left Shift?

Does the Barack Obama victory signal that the United States has veered from a center-right political posture to center-left?  Mind you, I am referring to the population at large here, not the press, media, academia, or the intelligentsia - whatever intelligentsia means.  The answer is "no". The electorate has not shifted.  To be sure, President-elect Obama is certainly on the far left lane of the liberal highway.  The American voters are not on that toll road.

A look at economic and foreign policy campaign pronouncements by Obama elucidate the unchanged position of the voters.  An electorate that has true left leanings would have enthusiastically embraced a bevy of tax and spend promises.  Nothing produces a greater "thrill up the leg" of a leftist than a politician unabashedly promising to tax abundantly, gather the tax revenues in Washington, and then spend rabidly on programs that bear the liberal good housekeeping seal.  

Ah, but the perceptive Obama knew that if he campaigned as a "tax'em and spend it" guy he would get trounced.  So, what to do? Easy - run as a tax cutter with a class warfare edge and say that you will cut taxes on 95% of workers, taxpayers, world citizens, large farm animals -- whatever it takes.  He ran as a supply-sider in drag.  But that was not all.  

Obama also promised to "pay as you go", saying that he would reduce spending in tandem with tax cuts. He offered to personally go line-by-line on the budget and cut spending on programs that are not to his liking.  Yes, Barack himself will go line-by-line with a magnifying glass and a red flair pen.  A true fiscal hawk!  Doesn't sound like a leftist, correct?  To say what needs to be said to win means disguising your true impulses and intentions. 

On foreign policy, Mr. Obama continued to extend an  Iraq withdrawal deadline and heave fog on the conditions of a pull-out. In the gallery. the leftists pined for a "we're out in three months promise". However, he could not say what the left wanted to hear and have any chance of winning. He compounded his nod to the center-right by proclaiming that he intended to redeploy Iraq-stationed troops to Afghanistan rather than bring them home. Leftists were in a tizzy, but the polls moved in his favor. Obama even proffered the possibility of an uninvited military excursion into Pakistan (must pronounce pawh-kis-tan to be an Obamista in good standing) to ensnare Osama Bin Laden, perhaps allowing for the proper reading of Miranda rights and a court-paid attorney to keep the agitated leftists within his orbit.  You gotta say what you gotta say to get elected.

Obama moved to the political center to win.  That is totally different from having the country lurch to the left.  Assuredly, Obama wanted to stand atop the Sears Tower and scream out his leftist tenets with the fervor of a Red Sox fan trapped in a Yankees body.  Disciplined,  Obama held back because he knew that to achieve the changes he truly wants he must first be elected. To get elected meant accurately drawing a measure of the voters' political stance and, in turn, promising a vague definition of change in a non-threatening manner.

The Republicans can learn two things from all of this: (1) the party tent needs to expand;  (2) it would be a monumental error to believe that the electorate has moved left.  Republicans need to bury their claws deep into the tax issue as if their party's future depends on it - because it does.  By the way, did anyone catch what the new "middle-class" tax rate may be after Obama's tax cut?  If you didn't, it's because he did not say it.  Lamentably, no one in the media bothered to ask him.  

Why Did McCain Lose? Here are 10 reasons.

1. Eight years of one party control of the White House. Since 1952, only once has a party extended control of the executive branch beyond eight years, when George H. W. Bush succeeded eight years of Ronald Reagan.  The electorate's desire for "change" comes in eight years intervals when it comes to the presidency.
2. Presidents Bush's communication ineptness.  This only compounds reason #1. Immense credit is due to George W. Bush for keeping the homeland safe following the 9/11 attack. After all, protection of its citizens is the main reason for the existence of government. However, President Bush exhibited a profound communication deficiency, especially during his second term. He failed to effectively communicate the driving principles behind his worthwhile policies - and many of his economic policies were very worthwhile. He equally failed to better explain his administration's blunders, whether real or alleged. This made Bush wholly unpopular and far too easy to hang around McCain's neck.
3. Financial crisis.  To be clear, it may have been likelier for the Vatican to adopt the Origin of Species as core reading for its faithful than for an incumbent party to overcome the concussive effect of the mid-September financial market upheaval that descended upon the country.  It may seem a distant memory, but McCain was leading in many polls prior to the crisis. 
   
4. Failure to assign proper blame to the Democrats for the financial crisis.  Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and other democrats evaded much deserved criticism.  They were in bed with and actively protected the disastrous policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why were they able to evade?  The mainstream media, totally in the tank for Obama, preferred to join, nay lead, the anti-Republican chorus and McCain and his surrogates did not figure out a way to succinctly explain Democrat culpability to the nation.  
5. Right wing of the Republican Party was not politically smart.  Registered Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans.  This advantage is true in the so-called battleground states.  There is absolutely no way that, given the Bush drag factor, McCain could simultaneously please the outer 10% right wing of the party (the "social conservatives") and still convince sufficient Independents and moderate Democrats to vote Republican.   Whether or not one sympathizes with the social policies of the outer 10% is not the point.  The point is that, from a political astuteness point of view, they just need to grow up.  To win, McCain should have felt free to move to center, and even slightly left of center, to garner the votes he needed.  
6. McCain did not connect the Obama blemish dots. Wright, Ayers, Rezco are not isolated Obama encounters. Questioning Obama's judgement on this was a mistake. There was no error in judgement.  Despite his denials, Obama knew perfectly well who these individuals were and chose to associate with them.  Add to the list Frank Marshall Davis and Obama's affiliation with ACORN.  McCain simply failed to look into the camera and clearly explain Obama's disturbing closeness to Wright and Ayers, two radicals who have an axe to grind with the very essence of what makes this country great. This should have been done early in the campaign.
7. On foreign policy, insisting that Obama is naive.  Big mistake here.  There is nothing naive about what he plans to do. His desire to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejan, Chavez, Castro and other unsavory, if not criminal, leaders does not, repeat not, stem from naivete.  He knows who these people are, and frankly does not view them in the negative light that the adjective naive suggests.  Dangerous is the proper description. My belief is that Obama romanticizes Castro (as many liberals do), thinks Chavez has been demonized by Bush (many Hollywood types hold this view), and he thinks that the whacko from Iran will somehow fall under his spell.  Newsflash! - I don't think that Ahmadinejan fully buys into the Oprah "he's the One" rapture.
8. Fundraising.  This is a no-brainer.  Obama raised $670 Million to McCain's $350 Million. He did this by breaking his pledge to accept public funding, mumbling something about "raising, spending, and winning with big cash in order to gain power to then clean up the system".  I get it and so should you. This means that now that Obama is in power he will try to slam the door on anyone that dares raise big cash in 2012 to defeat him. "Let's close the loophole after I slip through it".  Nice touch. More on the "slammin' the door shut" tune when Warren Buffet is discussed in a future posting.
9. McCain should have placed greater focus on the political freedom tie to economic freedom.  This relationship will be the guiding theme of Freedom Watchtower. For now, I will just say that political freedom is inexorably linked with economic freedom.  Simply said, the more economic freedom we have, the more political freedom we will enjoy.  We lose economic freedom in direct proportion to the siphoning by government of our hard-earned dollars.  McCain improved in his messaging during the final two weeks of the campaign when he found his Joe the Plumber voice.  Truth is, many people sniffed out Obama's "spread the wealth around" ideology several months ago and the McCain campaign should have pounced on and hammered this all summer long. 
10. McCain did not upbraid Obama on his class warfare rhetoric.  This is among the most disturbing aspects of Obama's leftist hymnbook.  It pits one group of American against another group based on their 1040s.  So much for "unity".  Class warfare is dangerous and can exert major damage on the nation as we know it.  McCain should have calmly but tersely scolded Obama for this and made it a staple of his message.  Americans would have caught on.  McCain could have followed the chastise with an explanation to the people that he will be especially vigilant in making sure that all Americans enjoy equal opportunity and that he will not punish success as a matter of policy, or otherwise.