Right is wrong

On immigration, most talking heads on the right got it wrong.

"They steal our jobs": How exactly does one steal a job? By being ready to work harder and at a price point that works for the employer. It is called competition, no different than when everyone else competes for a well paying job. Employers look for the most talented resource at the most competitive price they can afford. Most of the stolen jobs are in farms, meat packing and janitors, all requiring low skill levels, but a lot of hard work. And they are willing to take those up. "They bring down the wages": Relative wages are revised constantly during economic swings. Private employers always have to find cost savings. Or else, the very employment is threatened. Only way some one will steal your job is when you are unwilling to work harder. If you are not learning a new skill or work harder, no employer will pay you more than the market rate.

When you prevent able, willing labor to take up these jobs, the employers are forced to take difficult positions. In certain fields, outsourcing is the most common phenomenon. Whereas insourcing creates additional economic activity, outsourcing is a net loss to the country. In other areas, costs go up for the consumers. And fewer such consumers can enjoy the benefits.

"They come here for freebies": Only a small number of them do. The 'American Dream' is well known around the world. But equally when known is the difficulty of making it here. And for a lot of folks coming from south of the border, even getting here is treacherous. To think that they go through it for freebies is outright demeaning. If emergency room care is all the freebies you are worried about, we can really move on to a different topic.

"What legal means exist?": Americans know about one federal agency, the IRS, the most efficient. Do you know which is the worst? ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) (and INS before that), it is inefficient, arbitrary and the laws it is supposed to enforce vague. This is the same agency that sent a green card (permanent residency) to Mohd. Atta a week after he crashed his plane into the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Legal means to emigrate to the US from host countries takes many, many years. And even those here legally, either come here to work or study, aren't guaranteed citizenship and at the current rate takes about a decade or more, during which time they are not allowed to switch jobs or relocate within US. And their (highly qualified) spouses aren't allowed to work.

"Let's deport them": The very best estimates of how many 'illegal aliens' there are is just that, an estimate; no one knows for sure. So, how exactly are we going to find out who they are? Certain racial profiling would be involved. And then you are going to ask population at large to show their documents, without any probable cause. I can guarantee that a great number of our citizens won't have the necessary papers in their position, not because they are illegal, but because they aren't required to possess them. You will have to turn each neighbor against the other to turn them in. It has been done in Nazi Germany. Is that what you really want?

"Demographics": With the aging baby boomers  and falling birth rates, how can you guarantee a replacement rate that is required to assure our quality of living? With the replacement rate in US at 2.06, our economy is destined to be moribund like Europe (1.57) or Japan (1.3). Legal immigration from countries with a replacement rate higher than our own is our only hope. We need at least 3 kids per family.You can't simply deny the facts.

"They are illegal": Yes, they did not follow the most arduous process of entering this country legally. And as a result of that illegal activity, they need to continue  certain activities - such as working and paying taxes - illegally. But beyond that, the vast majority of them don't do anything else illegal. By bringing these folks into the legal fold, you can bring in significant revenue from the shadowy places. By giving them licenses, we can better track them.. Do you obey every law of the land? Do you know a basic, in your face law the majority of the Americans ignore? It is the speed limit, it is posted everywhere. Have you always driven at or below that posted speed? Aren't you illegal too?

Bipartisanship

Bipartisanship - media talks about it all the time, rather lack of it.

What exactly is bipartisanship? Simply put, when the two parties agree on something. And media likes it when they agree on everything. At which point, why do we need the two parties?

What is the history of bipartisanship? At the beginning of American democracy, there were no parties. The elder statesmen of different view points had all gotten together for the singular purpose of gaining independence. They brought their divergent view points to bear on the Constitution of the new nation that they had ratified. Would today's media consider that bipartisanship? I doubt it.

During George Washington's second term as President, his bitter critic was none other than Thomas Jefferson who wrote under a pen name that the President had become senile and pompous like King George. It was in fact Thomas Jefferson who started a 'party' system in United States to counter the Federalists of Adams/Hamilton ideology. There was no comity among these elder statesmen. There was absolutely no 'bipartisanship' during those days.

In 1859, a Southern senator had savagely beat up an abolitionist on the senate floor. Must be some bipartisanship.

Other democracies around the world have multiple parties and factions. They all present regional biases and constant coalitions are formed around issues. And the expression "Politics make for strange bed fellows" is so apt - look no further than Israel or India.

And the two party system in US has been fairly stable and kept the pendulum from swinging widely in either direction.

As a citizen, you want these two parties to bring different view points on any given subject so that each is given due consideration and a complete review before a compromise position can be reached.

Typically, whenever there is bipartisanship, you can be assured that they have just agreed to spend your money on something you really don't care about.

Don't let the media fool you. You do not want bipartisanship - it only means one thing, bad law gets made. They have to fight and compromises have to be made in the narrowest terms.

So, who is "rich"

So, who is rich? Do you know?

In this debate about taxing the rich, so, who are the rich that politicians claim to want to tax. And a majority of the country agrees.

Instinctively, most people think of Rockerfellers and Vanderbilts. Those are historic figures, none that exist in our current midst. And the one we can think of then would be Warren Buffet. But he is the one advocating higher taxes on the rich. Clearly something else is going on.

Let's engage in a thought experiment. How do you know which of your neighbors is rich? Most of us do not know how much someone makes. Let's be honest - we all guess someone must be making based solely on their lifestyle. If someone is spending a lot, then by extension, they must be making a lot of money and hence 'rich'. US personal bankruptcy rate tells us a different story.

So, how is taxing your 'spending' neighbor going to make it better? Lack of any empirical evidence, let's say that you and your neighbor make the same amount of money. And let's also say that your needs are about the same. The net difference is that your neighbor is spending on his 'wants', and you are saving it. Now, taxes are levied on known 'income'. We have established that you and your neighbor have the same income. When you advocate higher taxes on him, you are also going to be taxed the same. Since he is spending his surplus, he is not going to be taxed any further (ignoring sales tax in this exercise). Your savings will generate a tiny sum of income that the government then proceeds to tax. So, who did your tax the rich proposal really affect - because you based it on your perception and jealousy of the other persons spending habit? And when your neighbor has a little less disposable income, if he spends less, the economy is going to suffer. And you get to save less.

This happens at work too. Most employees think that their managers make more money. This isn't always the case. In private companies, what you make is based on what you contribute and your special skills. Managers are dime a dozen, skilled technicians are hard to come by. So, most managers reward their talented resources generously than their own paycheck. When Jack Welch was CEO at GE, he wasn't the most paid - Katie Curic was.

Jealousy should not substitute for a sound tax policy. Or being a good neighbor. What your neighbor makes and keeps is none of your business. Let's worry about our income, how to improve it and how to preserve it from the eyes of the taxman.

United States of Socialist America (U.S.S.A.)

On January 20th, 2009, Marx, Lenin and Stalin must all have turned in their graves - for United States has finally elected and sworn in a true socialist to be its President.

Mr. Obama's margin of victory, while respectable, is not a landslide. However, combined with the Congressional elections and the state house elections, a large majority of the Americans have chosen committed socialists into the government. This represents a watershed moment in American society.

Why is this significant? For 230 years, Americans have been entrepreneurial. A majority of the people believed in the American dream - that hard work and dedication combined with perseverance and a little luck would be rightly rewarded with riches. And it has been true. A great many innovations have been richly rewarded. What separates America from the rest of the world is that most of its rich have earned it the hard way. And it was not just a privileged few who could find the riches.

This also mean that risk taking is richly rewarded. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Michael Dell are all examples of that. And there are many more. And not just in the technology sector alone. And it is also true that they are many more entrepreneurial people in America than any other country in the world. It is not a slight to the rest of the world, but it is a product of the American system.

Many, if not all of these entrepreneurs originated in the academics. But they left the academics to pursue their dreams and were richly rewarded. And this led to some of the also-ran academics to be jealous, denouncing their very success. And these tend to view it as an injustice. They want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity - aka, socialism.

Out of this disgruntled academia and the New Deal emerged a political class that embraced socialism - especially because it gave them enormous power over the lives of people. Despite the most spectacular failure of socialism in the former Soviet Union, most of the Academics and the socialist politicians think that if only if they had the chance, the would do it differently and better than the soviets.

***********

I wrote this 4 years ago and never published. And the day after the 2012 elections, it is still fit to be published.

Majority of Americans have chosen government handouts to individual effort and betterment. America has suffered irreparable damage, it is going to hurt future generations.

Greece, here we come - America joins your path.

Pro Choice - what's that?

Over the years, the media has come up with many monikers for different issues. Some are catchy, while others have been duds. But none is as controversial as Pro Choice.

Pro-Choice: a woman's right to choose. Not just anything, only her right to choose an abortion.

So, what's the other side of this debate portrayed as: Pro-Life.

In the realm of opposites, some one who is opposed to Pro-Life is anti-life, right!? I can't imagine anyone admitting to that. But in the fiercest of debates, many pro-choice supporters have expressed anti-life views. This is tragic.

The central issue is abortion. It is neither pro-choice or pro-life. It is not one's opinion or faith, it simply is a medical necessity. Like all medical procedures, it should only be performed when absolutely necessary and no other options exist.

Left media's arch enemy, Former President George W. Bush had put it elegantly - Abortion should be safe, legal & rare. Can any rational person argue with that?

Apparently, they can. And they have - through many law suits to such basic requirements as parental consent for under-aged minors, guidance counseling, etc. This is quite a travesty.

So, if a woman wants to say since it is my choice, I want to abort any pregnancy any time I want, I think we have a larger social dysfunction in place.

Pro-Choice is probably the worst moniker there is.

Big Bird

It has become a campaign issue. We are all supposed to be outraged by Romney's position on funding for public broadcasting. Really?

As we all know, commercial media reacts to financial incentives. Viewer preferences are conveyed through two means - ad revenues and Nielsen media survey. Discounting the small sampling of the survey compared to the ad revenues, we can be pretty sure that media execs know which shows are selling and which are not. We see this in action all the time as many shows fall bathe way side - if something is not watched, so are the ads not generating the revenue.

PBS has many quality shows. I watch them all the time. But we all are paying for it in entirely different fashion - forced through our tax dollars. Some are implying that that is the only way to have quality shows. That tells us something else about the society at large - that our priorities are misplaced.

And that is also the crux of this election year - our core values. This is about 2 very different paths we could choose. If we are too dumb to pick quality TV shows for our kids, are we smart enough to vote?

Energy Independence: Why should I care?

It is a hobby horse of both political parties and media of both persuasions. But why should I as a customer really care?

Globalization and free trade, the defining traits of American capitalism - why do these not apply to oil?

What ever the product, it is best to produce where ever it is cheapest to produce. Consumers benefit from it and the source countries benefit from an overall uplift. Yes, there are too many barbarians as rulers out there, but even there, rising tide lifts all boats - not as fast, but certainly does.

When it comes to oil, US imports majority from its North American neighbors - Canada and Mexico, followed by Saudi Arabia, not the most despicable of all the rulers. So, why does this topic poll well? Ignorance has got to be the first order. The concern is that in the event of a war with the oil producing nations,  we will have a shortage. We use international markets and international pricing, and our oil companies are privately owned and operated with global operations, not government entities.

National security experts have argued over the years that our fight with Islamists is due to our dependence on Mideast oil. Boy, if that were true, it shouldn't be too hard to find another source that can source the 18% that we currently import from Saudi Arabia. What they argue about is world energy security? That has nothing to do with energy independence.

The thought that one of our adversaries would cut off our oil supply during the time of war - either a direct conflict or due to an alignment of forces. Once again, unlike many other nations, we get our supplies from a fairly wide number of nations. Besides, this is perceived risk than a real possibility.

The left berates us on our dependency on oil, foreign or domestic. And the right belly aches about oil imports. Neither concern is about the consumer. So, why do consumers care? And why does this poll so well?

Senile of Omaha

He was once known as 'The Oracle of Omaha'. His reputation as the best stock picker is still very much intact and almost legendary. And yet I am not sure if the rest of his thinking is still as sharp as it used to be. Has senility kicked in?

He claims his 'class' is not taxed enough. I do not quite think there is a cohesive 'class' that can be identified. He and a few other mega rich are very philanthropic. So, by his own admission, he would rather give to private charity than to public spending. If he ever wanted, he had every opportunity to write a check to pay down the debt. And yet he has not chosen to do so - that would have been quite a drummed up event, if he did.

He didn't object to low taxes when he was building out his Berkshire empire. Now that his empire is high flying, he is proposing this taxation. Doesn't it look like he does not want others to catch up to his empire? It seems obvious to me.

There are really only a handful of people in his league. So, when he is proposing this taxation, he is obviously proposing it for a whole lot of people that make a lot less than him. Taxation that he is proposing is not significant to him, but everyone else it affects.

Now, on cue, the President wants to implement the 'Buffet Rule'. And by and large it is going to impact everyone - not just the mega rich. And here is why.

First of all, there aren't enough of them to generate $1.5 trillion. So, this billionaire rule is going to hit everyone who makes more than $200,000.

Next, they claim that the dividend tax rate is not high enough. We have 2 classes of dividends and it is really the 'qualified dividends' that get the lower rate. And the qualified dividends are issued primarily by stable, domestic companies - that either manufacture domestically or in the services sector state side. By increasing the tax rate, you are encouraging investors to find instruments that are either in the speculative growth sector or foreign companies. Smart move, Mr. President.

And then the capital gains tax rate. Short term capital gains is taxed as regular income - so, it gets progressively worse. Long term capital gains get the lower tax rate. These are the gains that I reap from investing in our economy to grow with an upfront investment - with my disposable income that has already been taxed to the hilt. Sounds like yet another smart move, Mr. President.

Mr. Warren Buffet has essentially turned into 'Senile of Omaha' and a mouth piece for Obama Socialism.

9/11/11

I watched the 10 year anniversary at Ground Zero on TV. Quite a dignified and somber service dedicating the memorial. Wish they did not squabble in the early years and completed the construction of all the towers. That would have shown the real resolve of American psyche.

It was good to see George W and Laura Bush along with the President and the First Lady. For the Bushes, it was quite an emotional stage fighting back the tears.

None of my family was lost in that tragedy 10 years ago. And yet I feel violated for so many of my country men died that day. As I watched the reading of the names and listened to the memories of loved ones lost that day, I did not hold back the tears. In the confines of my living room, I let my tears run down.

It was cathartic.

'Faceless' Corporations

Naderites are convinced that all corporations are faceless - that they are run by heartless boards and chief executives driven by profits and personal greed. And this narrative is regurgitated by our willful Left media ad-naseum. And I know that a vast swaths of the population believes that.

The current administration loves this. From the day of the inauguration, the administration has mounted a massive offensive against the 'faceless' corporations. They want to replace these with the friendly faces of your government. Well, if you want to believe that, I have a unicorn that I want to sell to you.

A majority of Americans work for a corporation. And a majority of the decisions within these corporations are made by fairly low level staff. Yes, major decisions that affect fundamental operations and growth of these companies are done at very high levels. This happens to be the case even at our homes. Do you always get your way at home? Of course, not. If you do, either you are single or a tyrant household.

So, first let us look at profits and greed. Are we all so altruistic that we are not driven by greed? Greed is what has led to man's progress. Why do each of us want to be paid more than our needs? Isn't that a 'profit'? Whether it is a corporation or a person, a profit and a little greed is what is essential to do better. When people refer to excessive profits and excessive greed, they are being very subjective. It is all very relative. However, if the profit and greed leads to illegal activities, that is when our laws should be enforced. But merely engaging in a 'profitable' activity and satisfying one's greed is not criminal or detrimental to the society.

Let's illustrate a few examples from my 'faceless' corporation.

I have a colleague who supervises a team. Over the years, her team's responsibilities have shrunk. Naturally, the management expects her group to shrink. Her choice for the reduction was not her, but rather a grumpy, nasty old fellow. And being of a liberal persuasion, she is convinced it is the 'faceless' corporation that made her do it. Not seeing that she had a choice - she could have been the one to go. Yes, she has responsibilities for herself and her family. She also has responsibilities towards her 'staff' - which has performed admirably over the years, but still could not improve this fellow's disposition (well, the guy was a good worker despite a nasty attitude). She also failed to grasp the need for the 'faceless' corporation's well being of within the expense limits afforded by its profits.

Next example illustrates the emotional issues: One department served its purpose admirably over the years when we were a large company requiring centralized training. However, as the company divested and became a more nimble and smaller company, it was becoming a luxury. At this point, the company decided to eliminate this department. There were only a supervisor and a staff. At crunch time, the supervisor switched to another team and saved her job. So, the company had to eliminate the other person's position. Interestingly enough this supervisor went around telling anyone who would listen what a heartless the corporation was to let go of that staff member as his spouse was battling a terminal illness and needed a job and healthcare to support it. It feels wrong. But the supervisor could have saved that job instead of hers - if she were that compassionate. I do not know her own circumstances. However, it is wrong of this person to paint the company as heartless. Doesn't the company have to live within its limits as to what we can afford and not maintain a department it no longer needs?

And last, this is pure self-centered thinking. We had a system that evolved over the last 40-years, still runs on the good old IBM mainframe. And many of its features still remind you of the old punch card days. Supporting this system is a group of 6 people (much reduced from its glory days) and 5 of those would retire in the next 5 years, have been around for 30+ years. Over the last 7+ years we have sought to replace this system with a more modern fit for our company. Almost every single attempt has come up empty. And finally this year, we found a system that would work. And seeking cooperation from this group to get the new system up and running has been extremely difficult. As to how stupid we were to attempt to replace such a complex system. And what would happen to them. Never did it occur to this group as to what would happen to the company if they retire and we do not have competent staff to support the old system. But they all want to ensure they have a comfortable retirement, I fully understand that. What about the company's interests? Don't they count?

I am not a key decision maker, but I am a key 'influencer'. I do take my job seriously and deliberately. I also take my individual responsibility seriously towards my coworkers, myself and the company. If the company lives beyond its means, unlike the Federal government, the company cannot raise its debt ceiling - which means an ultimate end of the company as we know it. In whose larger interest is to see the company progress in the most optimal fashion. It belongs to each and every one of us the employees. Even the senior executive team is an 'employee' and ultimately answerable to the share holders. Without proper stewardship at every level, the companies do not last for long.

I believe we are the faces of these 'faceless' corporations. We must show individual responsibility towards every single one of our decisions - however small and insignificant we might think they are.

I must agree with Mitt Romney - Corporations are people. Do not demonize them. For a large number of us, these corporations pay our bills.

Lobbyists

"Can you explain to me why we need lobbyists?" said a co-worker the other day over lunch.

I have been constructing further thoughts around my response that day "Go read your constitution".

So, what exactly did I mean by that. Looking up the 1st Amendment, here is the relevant passage:

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Many would take umbrage to this expansive use of 1st Amendment in support of lobbyists. No, I don't either.

How exactly do you petition your Government? It is not what it used to be. Back at the creation, the Federal government only had enumerated powers. All others were vested in the various State governments and further delegated to your local government at the town and county level. It is a whole lot easier to petition your local government.

Today, how exactly do you petition your Federal government?

Well, we elect them don't we? Yes, we do. Electing our House of Representatives is still the closest to our 'will'. And recent election cycles have confirmed that - it is still dynamic. As geographically diverse as our nation is, each of our reps is able to tackle a few issues of local interest into the deliberations of the federal government. As they deliberate more, they have far less chance of meeting with their constituents. Technology may yet change this dynamic. Not sure Twitter alone can solve this problem.

And now let's focus on ourselves. In our lives, we have competing priorities. And most of us struggle to balance those. There are priorities of the heart and the priorities of reality. Which ones do you want your representative attend to. Do we always know what is good for us? (Few amongst us care about and active about only the priorities of the heart. Most of us cannot afford to do that.)

Even if we want to lobby for our causes or priorities, we have limited opportunities to do that. Ultimately, we have to get on with our lives. The act of lobbying in itself is not our daily life. it is someone else's.

"Lobbyist"

ORIGIN mid-16th century

The verb sense derives from the practice of frequenting the lobby of a house of legislature to influence its members into supporting a cause.

 The best interest is self-interest. There is no altruistic motive in our existence. We express our self-interest when we vote; only that our choice is limited to available candidates representing a basket of those interests. To influence your 'best possible candidate' to weigh-in a legislation of your interest, you have to lobby. I bet there were lobbyists even in the days of the Caesars.

Now a days, every cause has a lobbyist. (Media tells us and) most of us think lobbying is done by big corporations. Biggest, monolithic lobbyist is in fact the AARP. Followed by the AFP and other trade unions. In fact, all corporations face expense pressure to reduce all expenses, including their lobbying expenses.

What is that corporations need to lobby? Well, tax laws, environment laws, etc. Every single one of these laws have a direct impact on a company's profitability. And by extension its ability to hire or keep its employees. Yes, ultimately it affects us.

More often than not, majority tend to display an animosity towards their employer. When media tells us that the big, faceless corporation is lobbying, we agree - they must be working against us.

It is funny, that majority don't object if United Auto Workers lobby or if the Spotted Owl Society lobbies. It is just the big corporations that we loath. And the last time I checked, an awful lot of people work for these big corporations. (Our hatred towards the employer we so depend on to make ends meet - that's just another topic for a different day).

I don't think a common man has any net gain from the lobbying activities. Since every one gains something, it costs us the tax payers an awful lot of money to satisfy all these lobbyist and the interests they support. And that is a net negative.

Lobbying excesses have to be punished by law. We have seen great example of that - Jack Abramoff. And many others.

However, we have to be cautious about restrictions on lobbying. It is about really the only way you can lobby your government for redress of your grievances. Eliminate that, we would loose a great deal.

Most of us don't know what it is to not have the freedom of speech. Most of the world is only now getting its liberties.

You have to zealously protect freedom of speech even if it requires us to tolerate lobbying.

And he turns out to be a RINO

It did not take him long. He claimed he was going to be the 41st vote against the healthcare reform debate. And they made sure (Dems, that is) that he would not cast that vote. But they had nothing to fear.

Turns out, he is a RINO. Of course, you know who I am talking about - Senator Scott Brown. He is obviously looking for his re-election in 2 years. And of course all the union and special interest negative ads. He announces that he is going to vote FOR the 2,000 page monstrosity called 'financial services reform'. Really, Scott!

This is a big let down. Well, he can count on at least one vote he is not going to have next time around.

Gates Gate - a year hence

Gates gate - the fracas about arresting Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA by a white police officer. They took almost a year to complete their investigation - like there was much to investigate. And the report is an example of the hollow-ness of the Cambridge elite.

We have become a nation of wusses. According to the investigating committee - "there were missed opportunities on both sides". Apparently, the police have the burden of explaining what they are doing. Well, a police officer responding to a 911 call about a burglary should "arrest" the burglar - he can check the credentials after that and read the miranda rights.

Media portrays this as a teachable moment about 'race relations'. Really. In 2009, in a nation (predominantly white) that elected its first black President, in a state with its first black Governor, in a(n elite) city with a black mayor, a routine arrest some how has racial overtones. Come on, isn't there any limit to this nonsense.

Law abiding - only some of the time

Most Americans consider themselves Law abiding citizens. But that is really not the case. There is one law they routinely break - the Speed Limit.

100% of everyone I know, speeds. It does not seem to enter into anyone's conscience that the speed limit is part of the local law and statutes. Speeding clearly violates the local law.

And there is a real consequence of this brazen violation of the law - too many accidents and at times, innocent lives lost.

I have written about this before. Most people, decent people, routinely make fun of speed limits and driving within those limits. I do not quite understand how trivial it is for some of them.

You can not be a law abiding citizen if you choose which laws you want to abide by.

We live in a democracy. And the laws are made on our behalf by the representatives we elect. If we do not like the law, use the political process to change the law. But not break the law.

Shipping & Handling

What exactly does 'Shipping & Handling' constitute? Shipping is quite understandable - cost of shipping via UPS or FedEx or even USPS. But what exactly is 'Handling'? What do they 'handle'?

When majority of the businesses were brick and mortar and you wanted something packed and shipped to your home, I can understand the 'handling' aspect of it - since it is not their usual thing to do. But how are 'Online retailers - e-tailers' justified in charging its customer 'handling'?

Would you pay Dell a separate 'handling' cost to put that computer of yours in a box and send it to you from Texas? Of course not. That is Dell's business model and the 'handling' is factored into the price.

Amazon offers the ultimate - Free Saver Shipping. If you are not in a rush, your item is shipped to you for free.

Contrast this with some really outrageous e-tailers: ProFlowers (or any of the flower delivery companies for that matter), L.L.Bean. Their merchandise is already higher priced than a department store. And you end up 'shipping & handling' on top of their exorbitant prices. This is a total rip-off.

Quite frankly, your grocery store flowers are more fresh and better than anything you can order online with these guys. And L.L.Bean's merchandise is also mostly 'Made in China' stuff that you can buy anywhere else. And to have to pay 'handling' for a vendor whose business model is mail-order - is simply unacceptable in today's world.

Red Pill, Blue Pill

Over this summer, our President used the red pill, blue pill analogy to bolster his healthcare plan.

I have personally been involved in evaluating these considerations for my own health a few years ago. In fact, I had three choices.

Faced with highly active Crohn's disease, ended up in the hospital with bloody diarrhea 4 times in 6 weeks. My doctor who was treating me for years wanted to perform yet another resection - which may have worked.

I sought a second opinion. And this doctor wanted to treat me just with steroids - the blue pill, would cost just pennies per daily dose and the insurance does not have to pay any of it, as these are fairly cheap.

Frustrated with those options, I sought yet another opinion. And this doctor thought I was too young to resect away my intestine or treat with steroids. He decided to put me on Remicade - the red pill, costs upwards of $5,000 every 8 weeks and administered at the hospital or physician's office.

In all of this, my insurance company did not get between me and my doctors. And the improvement in the quality of life has been incredible.

Under state-run healthcare like the British system, NICE (the agency that sets these thresholds) would have denied this treatment option since it exceeded their arbitrary $20,000 limit for six months.


And now, anyone with basic understanding of how market works knows that, if the blue pill can do everything that the red pill does at a lower cost, there never will be a red pill.


If there is anything that red pill does the blue pill does not, there are probably patients out there who need it, regardless of the cost.


When you paint with such broad strokes as the President and the democrats are doing, the individuals such as me get the stick. The reason the nation is animated over this subject is because when individual rights are threatened for collectivist dogmas, are we still a free country and free people?

Why we are in Afghanistan

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Drunk Driving

Found out that a co-worker was killed in a head-on collision by a drunk driver over this weekend.

I drink. I drive. But never together in that order - because I know why I drink and that would not go well with the driving part. And for that reason, I limit my drinking to one of 2 places: at home (I do not have to drive at all) or at a restaurant with my family, when I have someone who could drive me home, safely.

May be I am a bit anti-social. I stay out of all after-work drink parties co-workers arrange, primarily because I would have to drive after that and would not want to drink - that would defeat the purpose of the whole party to begin with.

Why this much is not clear to vast majority of the folks out there is a mystery to me. A lot of folks that I know do this as well as speeding - I guess it is the culture.

Ironic that in a liberal state such as Massachusetts, there are no harsh penalties for drunk driving - if it all enforced by the cops. This is not the first such tragedy in the state. Nor is it likely to be the last.

By the way, that drunk driver (in the case of my co-worker) was also high on drugs - survived. And he will live on and drink and drive to kill a few more innocent folks. What a travesty?

Smart Choice

I have been wondering about the explosion of small cars on American roads and started wondering if all these wonderful folks who think they are "green" simply because they are driving these small cars are being taken for a ride. Now I am convinced they are. Look at the chart below: (apologize for the format)

City Highway Length Height Width Weight HP

Honda

Civic 25 36 177 56 69 2630 140

Fit 28 35 162 60 68 2489 117

Civic Hybrid 40 45 177 56 69 2877 110

Toyota

Corolla 26 34 179 58 69 2822 132

Yaris 29 36 151 60 68 2295 106

Prius 51 48 176 59 69 3042 98

Smart 33 41 106 61 61 1808 70

Mini Cooper 28 37 146 55 66 2546 118

Given a choice between Civic and Fit, there is no "green" reason to choose Fit. It is kind-a attractive compared to very plain look of a Civic. But then again I have seen not so hip people driving 'Fit'.

Likewise, in the Toyota space, Yaris is not that much better than Corolla, but that much smaller.

Mini Cooper is cute, but that is not that much "greener".

Smart simply isn't smart choice for American roads - not practical as you sometime or the other have to get on a highway alongside those 18-wheelers. And for that big trade off, what do you get - almost a pittance.

Civic Hybrid is 1st generation hybrid technology. It is obvious that it delivers similar gas mileage pattern as a gas engine.

Prius is the most sensible "green" car. I do not own one, although I considered buying one. And then my cousin drove me 45 miles on a highway - in the greenbelt (I was in the backseat) and it felt terrible. And it is not very clear of the environmental impact when one has to dispose off the battery in 10 years.

So, I think the Smart Choice would be to pick a gas powered mid-sized car like Civic or Corolla and still feel "green".

And ultimately your driving pattern helps with mileage.

Talking heads, including our President, talk about Small Fuel Efficient cars. Shouldn't it simply be Fuel Efficient Cars? As the above data shows small did not provide fuel efficiency. Small cars are practical for those tiny European nations with cramped cities - makes parking easier, getting around tight spots easier. In our fast expansive continent, we drive long distances on open roads and share those roads with massive trucks. I for one don't really like to be roadkill.

I am all for fuel efficient cars, not small cars.

He kept us safe

I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home - midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened - each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said "We Stand United". This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.

On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president - running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President - despite his father's foreign policy credentials.

Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.

And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.

People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President's record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this 'safety'. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 - same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.

Love him or hate him, this much is clear: "He kept us safe". And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.