Conservative EcoMOMics

Christmas Lights

2011-12-23T13:06:00.000-08:00

I love the Christmas season . . . I love the festivity, family, friends and food. I enjoy putting up our Christmas tree and hanging ornaments we’ve gathered over the years from various places we’ve lived or traveled. I especially enjoy the hand-made ornaments from our children. Touching them wraps warm memories around my heart. I love driving around to see decorated houses and twinkling lights in the early dusk. Nothing is too over-the-top for me at Christmastime!

I enjoy looking at pictures of family Christmas trees throughout the years of my growing up and of raising our own family. Some trees we harvested ourselves, some real ones were bought and some were artificial. There have been cedar, pine, fir, plastic and even aluminum! I remember the 70’s when aluminum trees were all the rage; they came with a rotating light disk that made them reflect changing colors. In 1975 someone gave us a silver tree . . . we kids thought it was the coolest tree! I later found out my mother really did not like it. When I look at the picture of all of the children around that silver tree, I have my memory of it, and now my mother’s. :) That tree came at a time when our family lived in a tiny two-bedroom house in the country . . . two parents, three children, an aunt, and four cousins. The little aluminum tree was just right.

What is light? In simple terms, light is “electromagnetic radiation visible to the human eye.” When we look around, what we “see” is light . . . reflected off objects in varying wavelengths which our brains interpret as color.

What is time? According to Wikipedia it‘s “. . . part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, . . . with respect to the transitory present (which is) continually changing.”

If you could travel back in time to “observe” . . . what would you “see?” Technically you would be observing light . . . in varying wavelengths . . . black and white, red, green, blue, and all the wonderful mixtures.

What is a photograph? It’s a capture of light wavelengths at a certain point in time (and place.) Every time you look at a photo, you are essentially traveling back in time to that place . . . as an observer.

Remember that next time you plan to go somewhere and think you don’t need your camera. Better yet, take photos of everyday happenings! I prefer looking at old photos that show what life is like, not what vacations were like. I want to see kids, parents, grandparents, extended family, friends, pets, clothing and hair styles, homes, schools, and workplaces. It’s better to have too many photos than not enough. You can’t time-travel backward to take a missing picture.

There’s no excuse for not taking lots of pictures these days . . . digital cameras are small and inexpensive, SD cards are cheap. Some cell phones have excellent cameras. Current computer hard drives are positively cavernous. And for about 50 bucks a year, you can back up everything online with Carbonite.

Time moves at the speed of light. The only way to stop it for observation is with a camera.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good light!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1960 is baby me, and the cat's name is "Cocoa."
1962 shows the minimalist style of early marriage with minimal money.
1975 displays the fad/favorite Silver Tree, given by Aunt Dian Kitchens Allen.
1983 is a tiny tree we put on a desk, out of reach of our 13-month-old.
1986 is a tree was harvested from the Montana mountains (with permit) and the two presents underneath are the most precious kind of gift.

Chicken Reporting

2011-12-13T15:46:00.000-08:00

A big part of my growing up was on a farm in East Texas. We had cows, horses, pigs and chickens, as well as ubiquitous cats and dogs. When we lived on the farm with the large chicken house, I learned a lot about raising chickens. These were “broilers” . . . chickens raised for meat. The technique is different for egg-layers, but . . . chickens are chickens.

Chickens are cute when they’re tiny, fluffy, yellow chicks . . . but when they get big they’re noisy, dirty, stinky, and mean. If one chicken has a few off-color feathers, or a dirty spot . . . the other chickens will literally peck it to death. If they just don’t *like* another chicken . . . they’ll peck it mercilessly. That’s where we get the term “pecking order.” And our chickens didn’t even grow big enough to become vicious roosters with razor sharp spurs.

One of our chores after school was to check the chickens and clean the watering troughs with a sponge dipped in disinfectant. We also had to wear boots and step in disinfectant before we entered the chicken house. If there were any water or food spills on the wood shavings, we had to and shovel it out. After the chicken house was converted to a research facility, we had to feed the chickens by hand - weighing each bucket of feed and documenting the amount fed to each pen. Our research helped determine which breed of chicken had the best feed conversion. This improved chicken farming efficiency, and reduced poultry costs for consumers. (I made a 4-H demonstration speech about it and won second place in a state contest :) Farming is an excellent way to learn a good work ethic, in addition to learning the truth about where our food comes from.

Recently, ABC News reporter Brian Ross did an “investigative report” on an egg farm in Illinois, family-owned Sparboe Farms. They took a video from an animal activist, and displayed it uncritically on national news, admitting “the fox with the undercover camera was . . . in the henhouse.” As a result of their yellow journalism, Sparboe Farms lost two of its biggest customers, McDonald’s and Target.

I'd never heard of Sparboe farms before this report, but as a business major, a former farm girl, and a budget-conscious mom, I’m furious! Take a look at some of their so-called issues.

The inside videos were taken by disgruntled employees and an activist . The video of “animal abuse” does not show the perpetrator’s face. Did the animal rights activist stage the video? How about a little deeper investigation, Mr. Ross? The goal of the disgruntled employee and the activist was to harm the farm . . . and ABC news helped them succeed. Watch for massive layoffs soon, and . . . if the farm goes bankrupt, thousands of chickens may be slaughtered prematurely.

“Workers cut the beaks of young chicks to prevent them from pecking others . . .” Re-read my second paragraph. Besides, young puppies get their ears or tails cut and kittens get de-clawed when they’re very young, and that’s much more painful than blunting the sharp end of a beak, which is made of keratin, just like your fingernails.

The reporter freaked out about finding a dead chicken that might have been there a day or two. Obviously the reporter had not been to many farms, much less worked on one. If a farm has thousands of chickens, some days there will be a dead one. Know what? “Free-range” chickens don’t live as long as caged ones! Free-range chickens get more diseases and parasites and are killed by predators, wild and "domestic."

Swedish researchers have discovered that . . . bacterial infections like E. coli can run rampant through free-range chicken flocks . . . Swedish farmers made the switch from cages . . . between 2001 and 2004. Around the same time, more dead hens started showing up at the Institute. . . . The researchers found that as many as 10 times more hens were submitted from litter-based and free-range setups than from caged systems . . . . free-ranging hens had more bacterial infections (the most common cause of death), more parasites, and more viruses. They were also more likely to become victims of violent pecking and cannibalistic attacks . . .” Does ABC News want shorter, sicker, more violent lives for chickens?

Laying hens are only productive when they are healthy and comfortable. If they are disturbed, they will stop laying temporarily . . . whether it’s from a big storm, nearby construction, or a cleaning crew. The video showed the chickens jumping around and squawking in their cages in a frantic manner . . . yeah, because the people walking through with the video camera were disturbing them! How about putting a camera in the henhouse to see what they do on a day-to-day basis? They eat, sleep, and lay eggs . . . exactly what hens do in the “wild,” only with less hunger and stress. Those chickens are fed all-you-can eat, scientifically formulated, nutritious food, housed in temperature controlled houses, protected from infections, and secured against bio-hazards. Visitors and workers have to wear clean suits (an improvement from our mere boot-dipping). Agricultural Science is taught in thousands of universities, and has millions of dollars and man-hours dedicated to it. Perhaps ABC News is anti-science.

They freaked out about one dead mouse! So what? Do you know how many mice, rats, voles, gophers, frogs, squirrels, rabbits, pheasants and birds are killed each year from soybean and grain farming? Animals are routinely killed by the thousands at every step . . . accidentally when planting and harvesting, and intentionally during transportation and storage with traps and poison.

Eggs are some of the cheapest complete proteins, at less than a penny per gram. For the consumer who needs to stretch a meager food budget, this is a fantastic bargain. Why would ABC try to make eggs more expensive by intentionally harming a productive, efficient, state-of-the-art, grower? If protein costs go up for everyone, it will disproportionately harm the poor who spend a larger percentage of their income on food.

Brian Ross pretends he’s helping to protect our food supply with this story. “I never heard anybody ask us to clean the feed trays.” . . . says the agenda-driven ACTIVIST. Sparboe farms has NEVER had a salmonella incident, although ABC uses guilt-by-association when they talk about a DIFFERENT farm and a tear-jerker story of a mom who was sickened. If they care about our food supply, ABC should investigate the organic food industry. In Germany this year, organic bean sprouts resulted in over 3,700 illnesses and 44 deaths.

The CDC says people who eat forganic and “natural” foods are 8 times as likely to be infected with a new deadly strain of E. coli (0d157:H7), which kills or causes permanent liver and kidney damage . . . to the tune of 250 deaths per year in the U.S. alone. Consumers of organic food are also more likely to be attacked by a new, more virulent, strain of salmonella. Organic food is more dangerous than conventionally grown produce because organic farmers use animal manure as the major source of fertilizer for their food crops. No shit!

The ABC media and other anti-business types are the Orren Boyle on the butt of our economy. Some REAL investigative journalism would check out the animal deaths per acre of plant farming . . . or human deaths from organic farming . . . if they TRULY care about people OR animals. It’s obvious they don’t care about jobs or the cost of food for poor people.

ABC news has been my favorite source of news . . . not any longer, thanks to stories like this.

If you wish to send your comments to ABC news, please do, here’s a link: Comments on Sparboe Farms story.

_____________
Photograph credits:
1. I took this photo when I was about 16. I was taking a picture of the calf with the heart on its forehead, and got the chicken house in the background.

2. The photo is our family unloading the hay bales into the barn. That's me on the top, lifting a bale. The kids on the fence include a sibling, foster children and some cousins.

3. Photo from the ABC news article on Sparboe farms.

Be Ever So Thankful

2011-11-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

Originally posted Thanksgiving 2010.

I’ve continued to enjoy my forays up the forebears’ trees through Ancestry.com. I've found stories I never heard, and relatives I never knew about. I’ve corresponded with a cousin who is doing the same thing, and she's uploaded a lot of information to the tree branch we share. One story she uploaded was about my “PawPaw” Kitchens’ first cousin, Willard Kitchens, who was killed on the Bataan Death March in the Philippines during WWII.

Tracing my ancestors back to the 1600’s and beyond makes me feel a connection to History I’ve never had before. This Thanksgiving I read about how our tradition started. Some of you may not know the FULL story of Thanksgiving.

It was incredibly brave (or foolish) to bring families across the ocean to a little-known land called the America . . . .

1619:

From the pilgrim William Bradford, “being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles . . . they had now no friends to welcome them nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less towns . . . . and for the season it was winter . . . sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown . . . . a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts . . . . For summer being done . . . the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hue. If they looked behind them . . . the mighty ocean . . . was now a . . . gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.“

1623:

After two years of communal living and near-starvation, with no word of when they might expect any supplies: “. . . they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery . . . . after much debate . . . the Governor . . . gave way that they should set corn every man for his own . . . and so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . . This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means . . . .The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

“The experience that was had . . . may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients . . . that the taking away of property and bringing . . . into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; . . . was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men . . . repined that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong . . . had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was . . . not able to do a quarter . . . was thought injustice. The . . . younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery . . . . it did . . . diminish . . . mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.”

There it is folks . . . socialism retards employment, breeds discontent, and feels like slavery. Free enterprise fosters creativity and industriousness, which generates MORE for everyone. Capitalism is to prosperity what CO2 is to plant growth.

George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Remember . . . and give thanks.
_____________________________________

“ That which is held most in common is least cared for” . . . think of public housing projects.

Read more about the “tragedy of the commons” at Wikipedia and in John Stossel’s blog.

Click here for Stossel’s comments on “public” parks.

Picture was a free download.

Momservation: America Under the Bus

2011-09-02T10:58:00.000-07:00

I was in favor of President Obama's bus tour, to meet-and-greet the American people. However, I found out that the buses were not made in the U.S., but in Canada, for a million dollars apiece. He's supposedly touring America's roads . . . to talk about American jobs?

And just recently, I just found out that he doesn't travel ON the bus(es)! He flies to the towns he wants to visit, and then rides them for a couple of miles. Now get this . . . they FLY the buses too!

Not only did they spend millions of American citizens' dollars creating jobs IN CANADA . . . that pile of money was wasted on unnecessary, unused vehicles, while transporting them in CO2 belching airplanes. Didn't President O. want us to cut down on carbon emissions, too?

American roads are not under the president's bus . . . the American people are.

Momservation: Doomsday Dunces

2011-05-23T18:28:00.000-07:00

Whatever happened to this doomsday prediction?

"There will be 50 million climate refugees by 2010."

Where is the media ridiculing THOSE pathetic prognosticators?

(The United Nations Environment Programme, 2005)

Appreciate Others, Especially Mothers

2011-05-07T18:02:00.000-07:00

In 1997, I saved a column in the Albuquerque Journal by Joan Beck, a syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She spelled out the value of motherhood in economic terms, and her words stuck with me. At the time, I was in the initial phase of my motherhood journey.

She quoted from a book by S.P. Burggraf titled “The Feminine Economy and Economic Man.” “The family is the primary engine of economic growth . . . (it) produces the workforce, the citizenry, the nation’s essential human capital, and it provides the workers who will be paying for our Social Security and caring for us in our old age. Parents, especially women, essentially pay the costs of raising the next generation. Non-parents get a free ride* at the expense of those who do invest in child rearing.”

That quote stuck in my mind as we raised our children. I believed in the value of family from the time I was a little girl. I had a delightful childhood, thanks to a mother who loved children and a father who took his responsibilities seriously. They were dedicated parents and hard workers, for which I am thankful.

However, as a girl child during the 60’s and 70’s, I became increasingly aware of the “women’s movement” and the backlash to traditional roles. I rejected the devaluation of motherhood, married my high school sweetheart, and we started our family within a few years. I relished my role as a mom, and my husband provided most of our income in the early years, which is how we both wanted it.

When all of our children were in school, I returned to college. I majored in business, and particularly enjoyed Economics. Then I worked in the private sector, in government, and in non-profit. I only changed jobs when my husband was transferred.

Our children are now in college. I see motherhood from a new perspective than I did when I first read Joan Beck’s article. I have an even GREATER appreciation for it now. I would like for you to have an appreciation for mothers, too.

Economics boils down to “Supply and Demand” and the balancing act between them (or tug-of-war). Economists talk about where supply comes from . . . the production of goods and services . . . manufacturing, farming, teaching, banking, entertainment. Demand comes from buyers and consumers of those goods and services. Low demand brings prices down (housing crisis, anyone?).

When we think about the economy, most of us don’t think about mothers as the foundation of BOTH supply AND demand. In the past, this was a “given” . . . but today? Women have a CHOICE. What does that choice entail . . . economically speaking?

First, the choice may require a commitment to either a marriage or a relationship and the emotional and financial investment required.

Next, a woman makes a commitment to a pregnancy. Sometimes there’s a long investment in expensive fertility efforts, other times a pregnancy may be unwanted, but a decision is made to go through with it. There’s also the burden of weight gain and the months of nausea that some suffer.

The third decision is whether to raise the baby or not (if the pregnancy was unwanted). It’s not just an 18 year commitment, it’s a lifetime! Attached to that decision is whether to stay home to care for baby, giving up some number of years in a paying job.

The estimated cost of raising one child to age 18 between $125,000 and $250,000, depending on income. Splitting the difference gives us almost $190,000, and that doesn’t include the cost of college. College costs (tuition, room & board) from $9,000 per year for public to over $30,000 per year for private.

Adding the basic costs plus the minimum college, makes raising a child cost over $200,000! Tax breaks per child don’t even START to help with those expenses.

If a woman makes the median income of $35,000 per year, has a couple of kids two years apart and stays home with them just until they are in school, she pays the opportunity cost** of sacrificing her income for about 8 years, $280,000.

The current per capita GDP is $47,400 per year. Over a working lifetime of over 40 years, that’s nearly TWO MILLION dollars to the economy by each person. Parents invest/sacrifice $200,000 or more of THEIR money (as well as, blood, sweat and tears), and the economy (society) benefits by TEN times as much. Since people usually spend most of what they make, that’s $2 million on both sides of the economic equation . . . production and consumption.

Those who choose NOT to “have a family” can spend their time and money on their own wants and needs, but they still NEED other people to raise children.

All business and their employees need “demand.” Home builders and sellers need home-owner wanna-bees. Car manufacturers need buyers. Newspapers need readers. TV shows need advertisers who need consumers.

All people need “supply.” Travelers need transportation. Drivers need road maintainers and fuel suppliers. Sick people need doctors and nurses.

And government needs income to tax.

Where do those consumers and producers come from? Mothers! The entire economy . . . the very fabric of our society . . . depends on women making the CHOICE*** to be mothers.

So . . . next time you see a mother struggling with her little ones, give her a smile and thank her for keeping the economy going! She has gifted all of us.

_________________________________________________

* As I understand the quote, “free ride” doesn’t mean non-parents are unproductive economically, but that they aren’t paying the full price for the economically essential next generation.

** Opportunity cost is the value of the next-best choice available to someone who has picked between several mutually exclusive choices. It is a key concept in economics.

*** CHOICE in this blog entry acknowledges the fact that women have reproductive choice to use birth control or not. It is not meant to be a pro-abortion article. However, the data could almost be interpreted either way, by recognizing the financial burden that raising children imposes on women, while also defining how society needs new economically productive adults on a continual basis. As a society, we must deal with the realities of the collective pressures on women and on the economy, and few of them are easy. If we want the best for women, and ourselves, we need to understand "the factors and the vectors," i.e., what is underneath it all, what it means, and where are we headed. I hope to address some of these additional issues in future blogs.

Special thanks to my sister and cousin for giving honest feedback on my first blog. Your comments are also welcome.

Originally posted 2/5/10

Momservation: The Mything Middle Class

2011-04-30T07:33:00.000-07:00

The middle-class IS shrinking, but only because more people are growing their incomes, in actual dollars AND adjusted for inflation.

"True, fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of “middle class”) than in 1979. But the number of people in households that bring in more than $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no increase in the percentage of people in households making less than $30,000. So the entire “decline” of the middle class came from people moving UP the income ladder."

You can make up your own mind about a matter, but you can't make up your own facts.

Best 3-D Show EVER!

2011-02-22T10:11:00.001-08:00

I went to this show the other day . . . you know how 3D gets better and better every year? I watched the Owls of Ga’Hoole and was amazed at the texture and movement of the feathers. In “How to Train your Dragon” you get to experience flying. With “Avatar” you felt like you were in another world.

Well . . . when saw this show the other day, I swear I could reach out and TOUCH the characters! I could see every hair in the fur cape of the king and every thread in the tapestries. The crown jewels sparkled. The pearls and beads shined like drops of dew. I could almost feel the weight of their studded leather armor.

The queen’s dress had layers of diaphanous, shiny, golden material, with cross-grain scarlet ribbons and beadwork that moved with her body like I’ve never seen in 3-D before! When she cried, I felt like I could literally reach out and take her tears into my hand and taste them.

The construction of the garment on one of the princes looked like squares of chocolate. The beautiful things (as well as the ugly) were up-close and REAL. You could count the pimples on one prince’s face!

You know how 3-D comes right at you! When they fought with knives and swords, I leaned back in my seat, afraid they might draw MY blood.

The castle walls seemed impermeable. The night sky scintillated with stars. The silent falling snow made me cold. I could literally smell the smoke from the candles and sconces.

And guess what? With THIS technology, I didn’t need clunky 3-D glasses! How did they make this 3-D seem so REAL?

It was live THEATRE!

Go . . . support your local theatres while we still have them. There’s nothing else like it!

Time in a Jar

2011-02-08T10:13:00.000-08:00

What is wealth? What is money? When my grandmother married my grandfather in the early 30’s, it was in the midst of the great depression. Their “honeymoon” was spent traveling around the East Texas, staying with various relatives and assisting with picking the gardens and canning. For their efforts, they were given a share of the canned goods.

For you younger folks . . . “canning” was sealing up food in glass jars . . . not “cans” made out of tin.

Back then, most people planted vegetable gardens in their back yards, or if they were lucky enough to have some land, they grew acres of corn and peas and raised chickens, pigs and cows.

Canning started mid-summer as soon as the first crops began to ripen . . . carrots, greens, cabbage, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers, beans, peas, peppers, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, and much more. The fruit of the land had to be picked, peeled, cut, and cooked. The jars and lids had to be washed and boiled for sterilization. Think about it . . . TEXAS . . . in JULY and AUGUST . . . in a hot kitchen . . . BEFORE air conditioning. This process was repeated day after day until enough food was stored for the winter, or the crops stopped bearing, whichever came first.

We would think “some way to spend a honeymoon!” . . . but they were HAPPY to have food on their empty shelves. Back in those days, people considered a full pantry a form of “savings” . . . if you had enough, you were content . . . if you had more than enough, you were wealthy.

That wealth consisted of . . . TIME plus WORK. For instance . . . if you cook a big batch of spaghetti (or stew or chili) and put it in the freezer, when you take it out . . . you have a meal without spending more time to make the meal. You have literally put TIME + WORK in the freezer.

That is what money is for us today . . . it’s a way to store our WORK plus TIME.

Economists will tell you money is a medium of exchange, for something of value . . . and that is true. What you’re doing in exchange for that money is . . . putting in WORK + TIME. We use money to trade our work/time for someone else's work/time. If we make shoes and want to buy food, but the farmer doesn't need new shoes . . . we trade by using money.

Many decisions come down to spending either time or money. If you can’t afford for someone to paint your house, you do it yourself . . . “spending” your time (and work) instead of spending money.

Money is interchangeable with time/work. What do people do when planning for retirement? They save money . . . they store up that work + time so they can “spend” it later.

This is why time-saving devices are so valuable! Time equals money. Businesses pay employees by the hour, if a machine can do a repetitive task faster, they can use that employee’s time for something requiring more skill. This makes operations more efficient, getting us our needed products and services faster and cheaper. (Surely you don’t LIKE your products and services to come SLOWER and be more EXPENSIVE!)

So . . . wasting time is as bad as wasting money. If you have “free” time . . . “spend” it on something . . . or SOMEONE . . . important!

_____________________________
The photo is some strawberry jam I made this summer from berries we grew in our back yard berry patch. The first batch turned out great, so I made some more and gave away a bunch for Christmas gifts. Then I tried some of the second batch; the taste was good but the texture was almost rubbery. If you got some of the second batch, I apologize!

Fat Cats

2010-10-12T14:38:00.001-07:00

I have a confession to make. . . I absolutely LOVE to eat! I like to grow food . . . I like to cook food and best of all . . . I like to EAT food. I like Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Italian, Greek, Hawaiian, American, and even British food. There’s almost no type of food I don’t like. Food is energy. Food is comfort. Food can be given as gifts. Food is culture. Food is entertainment.

Butt, there’s a problem . . . I gain weight . . . it’s a recurring battle. I don’t usually try fad diets, because I like to eat a variety of foods (see above paragraph :). What works for me to lose weight is counting calories. I’ve done it so much that I can glance at a plate of food and tell you its count within 50 calories. For this reason, I don’t fool myself by saying I’m gaining weight because I’m getting OLDer. I KNOW how much I’m eating, and it’s more than I need! My sister showed a web site to me that gives calories for thousands of food items. It’s www.FitDay.com. On the website you can graph your calories as well as protein, carbs and fat. When I saw that my fat consumption percentage looked like Pac-Man, I changed my snack habits!

We all know what it really takes to lose weight . . . eating less, exercising more, enough sleep, some willpower, and the patience of a Chilean miner.

How MUCH more do you need to exercise? It depends on how much you’re eating.

Like sweets?
Snickers Bar, 280 calories . . . . . . . . . . 45 minutes of jogging
Chocolate cake, 400 calories . . . . jog for over an hour

Like Pizza?
Meat Lover’s Pan Pizza, 3 slices, 990 calories . . . . . jog for about TWO HOURS!

Like to drink?
Two glasses of wine, 300 calories . . . bike for 45 minutes
A restaurant margarita, 540 calories . . . bike for an HOUR and 20 minutes

“Knowledge is Power”. . . so knowing the calories IN your food . . . and the time it takes to BURN those calories . . . can make it easier to NOT eat extra calories in the first place.

Spending is the same way.

A new 50 inch HD flat-screen TV . . . . work for over two and a half weeks (at minimum wage).

A new truck . . . . . work nearly a THOUSAND hours (at middle class income).

It’s easier not to SPEND it in the first place!

Middle income is between $40,000 and $95,000 annually, making the middle-middle $67,500. The two U.S. “stimulus packages” in 2008 and 2009 totaled nearly 950 billion dollars. To pay for it (at 2009 tax rates) the government needs the taxes from over 100 TRILLION hours* by those middle-middle taxpayers . . . but since most people have deductions on their taxes, it’s probably double that number of hours.

That’s JUST for the stimuli . . . not for anything else the government spends. Our government borrowed money to give a “stimulus” on the theory that spending would invigorate the economy. If so, what happens with the reverse is true, and money is taken FROM the economy to pay back the money BORROWED for the stimulus?

It’s easier to NOT EAT the candy than to burn it off. It’s easier to NOT SPEND money than to earn it back, or pay it back with interest.

We need some fiscal Jenny Craigs in Congress.

_________________________________________
*Income taxes on $67,500 is almost $20,000, without deductions. An annual salary of $67,500 is $32.45 per hour. Income tax takes out 29% (not counting social security). This means the government gets over $9 an hour from each of those worker-hours. Divide that into 950 billion and that comes to over a TRILLION middle-class-worker-hours.

Some say taxes should be raised on the rich, not the middle class. Here’s an article that actually recommends raising taxes on the rich. If you read it thoroughly (to the end) you will see the author says:

“. . . the hit to the weathly [sic] won't make that much of a dent in our national debt . . . but you have to start somewhere. . . . . even if tax hikes on the rich don't generate that much revenue they are important symbolic gesture.”

So . . . I ask . . . if raising taxes on the rich won’t make a dent, and raising taxes on them is just a “start” . . . where will they have to go to raise taxes?

There is ample historical evidence that lowering certain tax rates actually brings in MORE. However, some people in charge don’t care about bringing in more money for government programs, they care more about their idea of “fairness” which actually reduces revenues collected. Again, I ask . . . if they can’t amass enough from upper income folks for new spending programs, where are they going to get the revenues needed?

Don’t be fooled into thinking they can pay for all their new entitlement programs by “soaking the rich.” They can’t . . . it’s a bait-and-switch.
_________________________________________
Photo is from one of my favorite web sites, "LOL Cats."

Want a good pre-Halloween scare? Check out the US Debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org.

Runaway Bride!

2010-09-12T14:12:00.000-07:00

I recently attended my niece's wedding, but this is not about her. The wedding was beautiful and they seem a perfect match.

This story is about a certain ancestor of mine . . . "ours" for some of you reading this :) . . . it's about the maker of "the quilt." While I was on the trip to Texas, I had the pleasure of visiting with many of our relatives in McKinney, Nacogdoches, and Lufkin. It's a great privilege to have lots of family, and it's a unique honor to visit with (and stay with) a grandmother who is 93 . . . who remarried seven years ago to a wonderful man who was 95 at the time and is 102 now!

While I was at their house a couple of nights, I asked Grandmother Worley about our family tree because I’m interested in starting with Ancestry.com. We began by talking about my Great-Great-Great-Grandmother “Sarah,” who made a beautiful quilt with six large squares. My Aunt Judy ended up with the quilt and she carefully cut it apart to give a square to each of the six great-granddaughters of Grandmother Worley. Aunt Judy said the stitching on the quilt was almost as perfect as machine stitching.

Miss Sarah Evelina Williams ran away and got married . . . when she was just 14 years old! Grandmother said it was in June of 1872, and she wasn't quite 15. She met Richard Alonzo Mabry who was 29. That's young . . . but he was twice her age! People said he was a good-looking man. (Maybe that contributed to the quick romance?)

Sarah had three sons, the youngest of which was named George Bedford Mabry. He’s my Great-Great Grandfather. He was born in 1878, which was the same year she made the quilt. (How did she make a perfectly stitched quilt with three young boys?!) That same year . . . her husband died of yellow fever. She was only twenty.

Sarah determined to not remarry until her boys were grown. Her brothers helped her raise them. She was a seamstress by trade, which may account for her perfect stitches . . . or maybe she became a seamstress because she had perfect stitches. She did remarry after her sons were adults, and was known as “Grandmother Deason.”

This story makes me think of several things. One . . . if she had been advised to wait to marry . . . I wouldn't be here (and some of you!). If she had used birth control until she was "older" . . . I/we wouldn't be here. I'm not making a particular recommendation here . . . just sayin' . . . Well, maybe I am dropping a hint . . . if you want children, don't wait until it's TOO late.

Another thing this makes me think of is how wonderful our modern medical care is. Yellow Fever is a viral hemorrhagic infection . . . the first disease discovered to be carried by mosquitoes. This was discovered by Dr. Carlos Finlay and confirmed by Army Major Walter Reed M.D. (yes, the one that the Army hospital is named after). Yellow Fever is thought to have been introduced from Africa via the slave trade (Karma bites?). Vaccines for it were developed in the 1930s. It's been eradicated in North America since the 1940s through vaccination and elimination of the insect vector.

My first two children suffered through chicken pox, but my third child got the shot and didn’t have to get sick. All three were vaccinated against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, whooping cough, hepatitis A and B, meningitis and multiple types of flu. I'm thankful that I'm a parent nowadays and not a hundred years ago! I highly recommend the book “The Good Old Days, They were Terrible!”

In the early 1800s an average family spent over half their budget just on food! Today, the U.S. has the lowest ratio of food expenditures to personal disposable income in the world.

Now, the average American family spends about the same amount on health care as it spends on ENTERTAINMENT. Why do we GRIPE about the cost of health care?

So what if health care costs are rising? Compared to what? In 1878 the percentage spent on health care was less than 1% and now it’s nearly 6%? Is that a BAD thing? In 1878 there was practically none available. Now we have an abundance of vaccines, medicines, tests and procedures to detect, mend and cure all kinds of injuries and diseases. Of COURSE we’re going to spend more on it! After all, we don’t have to spend HALF our income on food any more.

In the early 20th century the average life span at birth was 35 . . . a number that Great-Great-Grandfather Mabry just reached. Now it’s DOUBLED to over 78 years (in the U.S.) I think good medical care is WORTH spending “more” on, don't you?

___________________________________________

*The quilt was framed by my niece Jennie at the Aaron Brothers on North Academy in Colorado Springs. She does GREAT work! If you bring something in for framing, ask for her by name. :)

Keep on Truckin' !!!

2010-06-22T16:26:00.000-07:00

We have a 1976 Toyota Land Cruiser that's in good shape, but it's difficult for me to drive if my van unavailable or unusable. I can drive a standard just fine, but the Cruiser doesn't have power steering and it's HEAVY. Besides that . . . it doesn't like me. Every time I drive it, I get injured. I break a nail or bruise my knuckles. One time it knocked the diamond out of my wedding ring. I call it "The Bruiser" . . . but it IS a COOL Cruiser, as you can see. Anyone who drives it gets lots of compliments.

However, it can't carry a camper, or sheets of plywood, or a load of dirt. So . . . we're in the market for a used truck, small enough to get decent gas mileage, but big enough to carry a camper through the Colorado mountains.

We searched on Craigslist and plenty of trucks showed up in our range of affordability. One of them was newer than the rest, and the price was a LOT lower. We emailed the seller. She had a sad story about being recently divorced and needing to sell the truck. She said the sale would be conducted by "eBay Motors" which is a solid company. We asked for more information, and she sent the VIN number which I researched, and it checked out.

I asked for more details and she sent an "eBay transaction" number. She said not only would eBay insure the sale, but it would handle the shipping, cost included. That was just TOO good. You know the old saying? "If it sounds to good to be true . . . it probably is!" They just needed half down, and half later. My suspicions were raised, and I contacted eBay after I got her email with the "transaction number." Sure enough, it was a SCAM. Fortunately, we had not sent money or any sensitive information.

This experience got me to thinking about two things. 1.) The value of information, and 2) the benefits of a free market.

Information is valuable because you require details about goods and services you need or want. You can research a VIN number and get the individual history of a vehicle. You can go to Kelley Blue book and find out the TRUE value of any model, with features and mileage.

How does Kelley Blue Book determine the value of that type of vehicle? It's from the buying and selling on a FREE MARKET. The market determines the TRUE value of a vehicle. Kelley Blue Book tracks thousands of transactions and you get the benefit of that information.

How can you know if a price is "too good to be true?" You can know by finding out what the FREE MARKET price is. That's why a Realtor gets "comps" for you when you are buying or selling a house. The "comps" are the "comparables" for similar houses in that neighborhood. Would you like to pay $25,000 more for a house than for other similar houses in the neighborhood? Of course not.

Prices are signals. They signify the value, or worth, of something. If you know what a price SHOULD be . . . as we did with the truck, then we got a signal that something was wrong. Prices signal suppliers; rising prices signal that demand is going up, and producers increase supply in response.

The free market keeps you from paying MORE for something than it's worth, or selling for LESS than real value . . . and it can keep you from being scammed. The free market PROTECTS you. When people buy and sell freely, the item or service being sold will auto-set at REAL value. If the government ARTIFICIALLY sets a "price," (either a price "floor" or a "cap") it puts LIMITS on the FREE market. Then you don't know what that value really is . . . how do you know if you're getting the your money's worth?

That limit on the price of something interferes not only with the free market, but with TRUE information. It screws it up. If prices are not allowed to set themselves in the free market, someone is losing value . . . either buyers or sellers.

If sellers can't get what seems to them is the "right" price for something they're providing, they will provide less of it. Then buyers suffer shortages. Sellers, of all people, know the proper worth of something. They know the cost of time and materials to provide a product or service.

You may think the government can "control" costs (value). It can't . . . it can only control "price." If it tries to limit or suppress the true value/cost, then supply goes down. It happens every time.

If something seems too good to be true . . . it probably is. If you're shopping for a politician to improve the economy, and he or she wants to set limits on the FREE market . . . keep on truckin'!!!

CHEAP is the Best GREEN

2010-06-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

I like to watch HGTV programs, especially the "make-over" shows that totally revamp or restore rooms, homes and yards. It's amazing, and inspiring, to see what they can do in just a half hour show! (I know it takes longer than that, but I get to see the results in just 30 minutes. :)

My favorites are "Designed to Sell," "Design on a Dime," "Curb Appeal," and "Red-Hot-and-Green." The first two shows do makeovers on a shoestring budget. "Curb Appeal" uses more money, but it's a landscaping show and I love gardening. "Red-Hot-and-Green" is a makeover show where they try to use "sustainable" materials. They'll use things like bamboo floors instead of hardwood. They install concrete counter-tops, use low-VOC paint, and sew with cotton fabrics and such as that.

But . . . wouldn't the "greenest" thing be to NOT make-over at all? Most times when you tear out and replace . . . you use NEW materials. You consume the fuel it takes for the manufacture and transportation of those products.

When the government made the "Cash-for-Clunkers" program, it caused the destruction of THOUSANDS of useable vehicles. Maybe the new cars save a couple more miles per gallon . . . but how much energy did it take to MAKE those new cars? Not only did the program destroy useable cars, it destroyed much of the used car market. This is the market from which low-income folks usually buy their cars. They can't afford NEW cars . . . even with a "credit" of a few thousand dollars. Used cars cost less to purchase AND to insure. This government-designed program benefited the rich (and the auto unions) at the expense of the poor.

The last used car we bought cost $2,500 and it gets 40 miles per gallon (a '95 Geo Metro). The government wanted people to buy NEW cars for TEN times that. I betcha there are not many new cars that get better gas mileage than we get with our old used car! We were green AND cheap (and smart.)

Other cheap/green ideas . . . shop at the Salvation Army, the ARC, or Goodwill. I buy most of my clothes at those places. You can get good jacket for about $6 and jeans for one tenth what they cost new. It's cheap AND green! In addition, those organizations give jobs to low-skilled folks or those struggling with other problems.

Don't buy bottled water. Studies show that bottled is no better than tap. Tap water is cheap! Bottled water has to be shipped, using fuel unnecessarily . . . and the plastic bottles end up in landfills. Tap water is much cheaper AND "greener."

Make your coffee at home. It's cheaper AND greener because you're not driving to Farbucks (as it's called in the Shrek movies.)

Bike to work, school or the store. If you live close enough . . . walk. Not only are those options cheaper AND greener, but you'll benefit from the exercise.

Plant vegetables in your back yard, or in pots on your patio or deck. If you have neither a yard or a porch, you can grow lettuce in boxes by the window, or under special grow lights. People grow more lucrative cash crops indoors all the time. I'm not recommending you do that, but you can supplement your diet by being cheap AND green. Money doesn't grow on trees, but food does!

I don't believe that CO2 is destroying the planet. In fact, CO2 makes plants even greener. That's why it's called a GREENhouse gas . . . plants eat it up, literally. Horticulturists pump CO2 into their greenhouses to make plants grow faster, better, bigger. Higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts. Forest growth rates have increased in some places up to 40% since 1950. Scientists have discovered no environmental factor other than the CO2 increase that could explain the higher growth rates found in forests around the world. But wasting God-given resources is stupid.

Why would anyone waste energy or money unnecessarily? Our country is deep in debt . . . BP-oil-spill-deep. Millions of families are submerged in debt. To help ourselves, we need to be more productive . . . or less wasteful. Let's wise up, or as Dave Ramsey says . . . . stop paying the Stupid Tax. His "stupid tax" concept usually means compounded credit card interest and late fees. But if you waste money, isn't that a stupid tax, too?
__________________________

The picture is my little garden last July. My husband and eldest son helped build it. The veggies in the raised beds (right-to-left) are: yellow squash, onions & garlic, zucchini, carrots & bell peppers & tomatoes, turnip greens, more zucchini, and Swiss chard. Growing on the trellises along the fence are snow peas and green beans. There's one more bed to the right of the picture that had spinach and lettuce in it. In another garden on the opposite side of the yard we have cherry trees, raspberry and strawberry plants.

The Gorilla is NOT in the Room

2010-05-20T16:47:00.001-07:00

Four mountain gorillas were found dead in Rwanda’s Karisimbi area, and extreme cold is the suspected culprit, the New Times (Rwanda) reported.

In addition to endangered gorilla deaths, in Florida this past winter over 200 manatees died from COLD STRESS, surpassing the previous RECORD deaths from cold (56) LAST winter. Manatees are a THREATENED species.

The mountain gorillas, a female and three infants, were found dead between May 16 and May 17, the Kigali-based newspaper said. Mountain gorillas are a CRITICALLY ENDANGERED species.

Where is the human hero for these humble hominids? Where is their Al Gore-illa with altered global Al-Gore-ithms?

Climate change is not the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not in the room either.

Perhaps we should be more concerned about Hypothermic Gorilla Warming.
_____________________________
Photo from here.

What is that Greece-y Spot on the Mirror?

2010-05-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

See Spot. Spot is a dog. Spot is a BIG dog. See Spot run. See Spot EAT. See Spot get re-named "Debt."

I have some good friends who once had a dog like this. It takes quite a commitment to support an animal of this size. They start out as cute little puppies, or in this case, maybe not-so-little, but still fun.

A little debt can be fun. We charge our credit cards when we're on vacation, and then pay them off. We get a home loan and enjoy living in the house while it (hopefully) grows in value. But what happens when you give your kids a credit card, and THEY are not the ones who have to pay the bill? There is no discipline to pay it off; they may even "accidentally" charge things for their friends.

This is the situation in Greece . . . and it's a dawg.

Greece's annual budget deficits are about 12% (over revenue). Their deficit expressed in relation to their GDP is almost 37%. Their total debt is 134% of GDP.

What does this mean? GDP is "Gross Domestic Product." That is ALL of the economic output of a country in a year . . . private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports-imports).

What's the difference between "deficits" and "debt?" The deficit is a country's annual shortfall between spending and "income" i.e. TAX revenue. The "debt" is the cumulative deficits from all previous years. The annual deficit is like a Chihuahua and cumulative debt is like a Great Dane. Imagine the Great Dane growing to the size of a horse . . . a Budweiser Clydesdale, and never stopping. How did Greece get into so much trouble?

Let's look at that AND look in the mirror. Are we ANYTHING like Greece?

- Greece's public employee unions get unsustainably generous pay and benefits, including a two month bonus for every year of pay. Also, Greece has more than five times as many civil servants per capita than even the United Kingdom.

- In the U.S., the average public employee salary is 45% more than private sector.

- In Greece, many people can retire at age 53. In the US we can retire at 62 and live to nearly 80.

- Greece's deficits are 12% annually . . . Our deficits are 12% annually

- Greece's TOTAL DEBT is 113 % of GDP. Our debt is 94% of GDP, and rapidly growing.

- Greece has nationalized health care . . . we're headed in that direction.

- Greece is having violent, deadly riots in the streets, organized by LABOR UNIONS.

-The U.S. is having violent riots in the streets, organized by unions, socialists, and communists who recruit protestors via the Internet: SEIU, AFL-CIO, Workers World Party, Socialist Party USA, The World Socialist Web Site, and the Revolutionary Communists Party USA.

At least our union-organized riots aren't deadly . . . yet.

The IMF has constructed a "bailout" for Greece. What is the IMF you ask? Is it like "WTF?!" Yes and No. It's the International Monetary Fund, and its function is to oversee the global financial system by watching over the economic policies of its member countries in order to stabilize exchange rates, and it offers highly leveraged loans mainly to poorer countries.

Here's the rub . . . the United States pays 17% of the IMF bailout for Greece.

The US pays about three times more than any other country in the IMF, although the bailout to Greece will include additional funds from other EU countries. As the late Billy Mays said, "But wait! There's More!"

There are several other countries on the same precipice as Greece. The acronym for them is P.I.G.S. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain. . Did you ever see a greased pig catching contest in a rodeo?

- Portugal's deficit is 8.5% with total debt nearing 90% GDP.
- Ireland's deficit is 14.3% and unemployment is at 13.5%, with a shriveling GDP.
- Spain's deficit equals 10% of GDP. Unemployment is close to 20% and its GDP is shrinking.

So, we're on the hook NOT ONLY for 17% of the IMF bailout to Greece, but ALSO for any other country that might need an IMF funds "fix" . . . Portugal, Ireland, Spain and others. A . . . N . . . D . . . in spite of the recent bailout package for Greece, people are betting that Greece is going to default. You can tell by the rising price of their credit default swaps. "Default swaps" = insurance in case the borrower can't/won't pay. W . . . H . . . O . . . is INSURING the debt on Greece? A . . . I . . . G . . . ! Owned/backed by the American taxpayer.

NOW you can scream "Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!"

As NBC's news anchor Brian Williams said to David Letterman: “the dirty little secret is: the world has no money and the emperor has no clothes.”

In a startling development, the balance-challenged New York Times is starting to wake up and smell the coffee (even though they couldn't smell the T.E.A. if it was stuffed up their sinuses). Quote: "Greece . . . and . . . other European countries with huge debts . . . don’t get it. They have been enjoying more generous government benefits than they can afford. No mass rally and no bailout fund will change that. Only BENEFIT CUTS or tax increases can."

Perhaps that is one reason the IMF is telling Greece they should PRIVATIZE transportation, energy and HEALTH CARE.

Americans, take a look at the Greece-y spot in the mirror . . . is it on the glass, or on "US?" This is not a "slippery slope" it's a Greece-d one!

__________________________________________

*The names in this story have NOT been changed to protect the guilty. Any resemblance to actual events or real countries living or nearly dead is NOT purely coincidental. Any resemblance to clever writing IS purely accidental.

Photo from here.

Su Casa . . . Mi Casa

2010-05-06T13:42:00.000-07:00

You might think I have that backwards, but I don't. You might think that's about Arizona's current immigration issues, but it's not. You might think it's about Cinco de Mayo, but no.

No, this rant is about the current housing crisis. It's about what's considered "your house" and what's not.

If you buy a house that's bigger than you need, that's fine as long as you can pay for it. We've bought three houses in our 30+ years of marriage, and we're in our last one, hopefully. It's bigger than we need, but the excess capacity is for company. I love having family and friends over, and we've often had extended family or friends-of-family living with us for months. That's one reason we bought a big house this time, for visitors, possibly for an aging parent, and for future visits of grand kids . . . hint, hint. (I have relatives reading this who take in "boarders," bless you, you know who you are :) In the picture above, my six-year-old daughter drew her mom, dad, brothers and COUSINS in our house. :)

Let me tell you about the first little house we bought (1300 sq ft). We had just moved to a new town, and the waiting list for on-base housing was 2 1/2 years, for a 3-year assignment! There was nothing to rent, and we were homeless . . . so we were forced to buy. We had three small children and one income, so we couldn't afford much. We bought a VA Repo ("as is") for $50,000. Here's a list of what was wrong with it: it had water damage from broken pipes in the walls where they had frozen. We didn't know they weren't fixed until we had the water turned on and it came running out. We should have suspected something . . . there was mold growing waist high on the walls inside one room. The hot water heater was busted, which we also found out with water-flow commencement. The toilet backed up from tree roots growing in the drainage pipes. The furnace had a gas leak and could have killed us. The air conditioner didn't work either (in Louisiana!) The house had aluminum wiring, and one evening as I was putting the baby to bed, an outlet with a loose wire (in her room) sent me a smoke signal, thankfully it was before I had gone to bed! And last, but not least . . . when it rained, the roof leaked . . . we moved there the RAINIEST year in Louisiana history, no less. (Footnote: my husband was away on TDY for over 100 days that year, one son developed asthma, and I had health issues that required surgery and caused hemorrhaging, but that's a story for another day.)

If you borrow money to pay for a house, YOU don't own it . . . the BANK does. (If I borrow my neighbor's lawnmower, I'm not the "owner" even if I promised I WOULD pay for it.) The bank as every right to take the house back if you don't repay. People shouldn't buy more house than they can reasonably afford. Many don't realize the huge expenses AFTER moving into a house . . . furniture, drapes, carpets, maintenance and REPAIRS! If that means a smaller house, so be it (but don't buy a REPO, unless you love living dangerously, fixing constantly, and you don't have small children!)

Back to the housing crisis. First, understand what sub-prime lending is: it's making loans in the riskiest categories. This risk is a combination of factors, including but not limited to, the size of a loan relative to collateral, lack of documentation on the borrower, or a borrower's low credit score (below 650).

Now to the time line:

1977
The Community Reinvestment Act, from the Jimmy Carter days, required federally insured lenders to make extra effort to loan to low income borrowers. Additional changes were made between 1993-2000, and banks loaned more than $800 billion to borrowers covered by the law. This amounted to well over 90% of all loans made in the 23 years since.

1995
The Clinton Administration and the Democrats in power added massive new provisions to REQUIRE sub-prime loans be made. The revisions went further, by allowing the securitization of CRA loans containing sub-prime mortgages.

1999
Fannie Mae eases the credit requirements to encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is not good enough to qualify for conventional loans.

2000
Fannie Mae buys $600 million and Freddie Mac buys $18.6 billion worth of sub-prime mortgages and guarantees another $7.7 billion .

Fannie Mae commits to purchase and securitize $2 billion of Community Reinvestment Act eligible loans.

Fannie Mae announces that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will soon REQUIRE it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families and its goal is to finance over $500 billion in Community Reinvestment Act related business by 2010.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (signed into law by Clinton) defines interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes as “EXCLUDED commodities,” allowing trade of credit-default swaps by hedge funds.

2000-2003
The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates from 6.5% to 1.0% Translation: this puts money "on sale" and leads people to buy more of it (when you get a loan you are "buying" money, the interest is its cost). People bought more house than they needed, or borrowed on the their "HELOC" (Home Equity Line of Credit), or bought houses to "flip."

2001
The Bush Administration first red flagged Fannie and Freddie stating that “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause STRONG repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.”

2006
That year, 22% of homes purchased were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% for vacation homes. So . . . close to 40% of homes purchases were not intended as primary residences . . . a record level. (The law of unintended consequences.)

1963 to 2006
Home values increased 157% faster than inflation. CRA caused home prices to rise too fast. Economic fundamentals didn't support this growth. Government regulation-mandated credit did.

So, let's summarize . . . the government thought home "ownership" was a good idea for everybody. (It's really a "mortgage ownership," but I digress). They passed laws to encourage, and then to FORCE, banks to make loans to risky borrowers. The government lowered interest rates and subsidized risk. Economic laws happen, just like gravity. Everyone wanted to "get in on the good deal" and the bubble grew. Throw a few monkey-wrenches on the economy, like high gas prices, a terrorist attack, and a war or two and POP! the bubble burst. Hot air can't support growth, only real structure can.

Today, Fannie and Freddie, along with the Federal Housing Authority FHA represent more than 90% of all mortgage activity.

Unless you've paid your mortgage off . . . the bank owns the house. Fannie, Freddie, and FHA are taxpayer-backed, so . . . it's not su casa . . . it's mi casa.
. . . or it might be su dueda, mi dueda (debt).

_____________________________

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
~Ronald Reagan

Read more about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac history here and scandals here.

5-6-10 a.m. News Flash: The CBO estimates the American people will spend $389 billion bailing out the Fannie and Freddie by 2019. (And we're potentially on the hook for the TRILLIONS they have "guaranteed" with taxpayer dollars).

Image courtesy of my daughter who was six when she colored it and drew in the people.

The World's Oldest Profession

2010-04-29T14:35:00.000-07:00

. . . is gardening. Remember, God made the garden of Eden and put people in it to keep it and tend it? Even if you don't believe that story, you know gardening goes WAY back. You might debate that we were hunter-gatherers long ago, but for the sake of argument, I'm going to say that hunting is a sport.

I've been spending hours weeding and planting for this year's crop of vegetable favorites. I think it's amazing that food grows right out of the ground!! Think about it. We didn't create the seeds. We didn't create the soil. (Well, I do compost bio-waste to IMPROVE the soil, but I made neither.) All we do is put the soil and seeds together, and let sun, rain and time take its course. That requires planning. And patience. The most productive gardens also require maintenance . . . weeding, moisture monitoring and additional water when needed. They also need to be guarded from pests such as insects and squirrels.

A garden is a good metaphor for life. We're lucky (or blessed) to be born where we are . . .in this country, this soil. You're equally lucky if you have good parents and good genes . . . the seeds. What you plant in your garden is up to you. How much you grow depends on how much you plant, and how productive your garden is depends on how well you tend it and protect it. In addition to good soil and seed, it takes hard work and patience to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

I think a lot of us are impatient. We're an instant-gratification society. We don't want to wait for results, we don't even like waiting on a microwave meal! We've done a disservice to our children to not teach them the value of hard work and delayed gratification.

We must work hard, save, invest for the future and be patient. We want to enjoy all that life has to offer, NOW. We think we're entitled. If we can't pay for it now, we'll charge it to the credit card!

The same things are true for a country and an economy. If we spend all that we have "enjoying" life now, and we don't plant and work for the future, there will be no crops. If we don't invest in education, there will be no scientists, doctors, and nurses. If we don't invest in young businesses, there will be no next-generation Microsofts or I-phones. If we don't plant the seeds of the next generation, literally, there will be no next generation . . . to pay the nations' credit cards (deficits and unfunded liabilities for pensions, Social Security, and Medicare.)

Let's stop charging up the nations' credit cards. The next generation can't pay 80% taxes, especially because there are going to be fewer of them than there are of us. Unless we start growing more of them. Forget the world's oldest profession, what's the world's oldest past-time? Oh wait, we now can have the recreation without the procreation. Too bad for us. Or should I say, too bad for them?

_______________________
Picture link here.

Vonnegut “Social Justice”

2010-04-12T13:07:00.000-07:00

Last weekend I watched my daughter and her friends in a Theatre d’Art production, Between Time and Timbuktu, a compilation of Kurt Vonnegut’s early work including Cat’s Cradle, Player Piano, Welcome to the Monkey House, The Sirens of Titan, Happy Birthday Wanda June, and Harrison Bergeron, directed by Brian Mann.

I remember a few of these stories from my high school reading of Kurt Vonnegut, but there was one in particular that I want to describe. Theatre d’Art portrayed it in a memorable way that still haunts me.

For those of you that don’t remember the “Harrison Bergeron” story, it takes place in the future United Sates . . . where social equality has finally been achieved through the amendments 211-213 to the Constitution. Social justice is the law of the land, so that no one feels inferior to anyone else.

The strong are forced to carry extra weight, the intelligent must wear noisy headphones so they can’t think straight, the beautiful are required to wear masks, and graceful dancers must wear handcuffs, hobbles or chains. The government “Handicapper General” is the enforcer.

In this portion of the play, several ballerinas perform on stage, each of them bearing weights or chains. It’s sort of amusng at first to see their bumbling struggle, but it quickly becomes uncomfortable. Then Harrison Bergeron barges on stage . . . he’s a fugitive from social justice. He rips off his chains and heavy weights. The lead ballerina proceeds to do the same. They embrace, and clumsy dance becomes sensual and beautiful, and the closeness of the stage makes it even more intimate. It’s as if the weights come off your own body as you are lifted by watching the dancers embrace each other in graceful synchrony. Then . . . the Handicapper General marches in with her gun . . . and the shocking ending of their dance brought me to tears.

If you are reading this before Friday, April 16th 2010, you still have a chance to go see the play. The last ones are this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at the Osborne Studio Theater, 2nd floor of UCCS University Hall off Austin Bluffs, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

I couldn’t help but think about how often we are hearing about “social justice” in our current political climate. It’s a good thing to assist the handicapped and helpless. It’s entirely something else to force handicaps on the able, talented, and hard-working folks in order to bring about a dubious benefit called “social justice.” The handicaps our government is already imposing include salary caps, “special” taxes, racial discrimination points, heavy regulations for businesses, burdensome mandates for hiring employees, and the social attacks of being vilified for becoming “rich” or successful. Since 10% of our population pays over 70% of the income taxes, do we truly wish to encumber their productivity?

In the play, the audience assembled to watch the travesty of a performance when the ballerinas were burdened and restricted. In real life, I doubt if anyone would truly WANT to watch such a thing . . . it was painful. It was obvious to everyone how much more enjoyable the performance would be if they were FREE. It wasn’t just the dancers who suffered . . . it was the audience.

In our society, if we hate and envy the smart, talented, or hard-working . . . and we impose handicaps on their success . . . it will not only be THEY that suffer . . . it will be ALL OF US.

By coincidence, a film company has produced the Harrison Bergeron play in DVD format, the title is "2081” by the Moving Picture Institute.

It’s an official selection of the Seattle International Film Festival 2009. You can watch the trailer here: http://vimeo.com/7898284. I encourage you to watch the clip, it's unforgettable. The music on the DVD is performed by the word-renowned Kronos Quartet.

The photo above is not from the play "Between Time and Timbuktu," it's a snapshot from the DVD "2081."

Smart Cookie

2010-04-05T08:53:00.000-07:00

Many of you know I’m a database programmer. I was recently referred by a former co-worker to a potential client. Last Friday I had the pleasure of meeting Christine Yocum, the maker-baker of Art and Style Baking, a specialty cookie business. I saw the most beautifully decorated cookies I’ve ever seen in my life! These are cookies you could give as gifts instead of flowers, for any party or occasion . . . birthdays, engagements, weddings, Valentine’s Day, Easter, or Christmas.

Check out their elegant web site. http://www.artandstylebaking.com

Christine really impressed me; she is a little dynamo! She has a good eye for design . . . and equally impressive . . . she has a good head for business. She already had much of her operation detailed and documented. She had spreadsheets with every recipe calculated to the ounce, and every step in the baking and decorating timed to the second. She measured the individual cookies, photographed them and assigned item codes. She designed “collections” and made display books. And her web site is inviting, beautiful and user-friendly.

When I build a system, it usually takes hours and hours of analysis, but Christine already did most of that brain-busting work. She has a part-time job in addition to this startup, and she knows that time is money . . . and her time is in short supply. She recognizes the need for a system to streamline orders and scheduling.

In addition, she has the help and support of her husband, and her good friend Sandy. Christine is thorough AND forward thinking . . . she has big plans and she’s outlined steps to achieve them. She’s one SMART cookie!! I think she WILL succeed.

Maybe that’s what I’ll call the new system I’m building for her . . .
“Smart Cookie!”

He Thinks He Nose

2010-03-25T08:41:00.001-07:00

Are Liberals More Intelligent than Conservatives?

Maybe they just think they are. At least the writer of this article in Psychology Today thinks as much. Satoshi Kanazawa is an “evolutionary” psychologist.

First, he defines liberalism.

“ . . . one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary U.S. as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs."

Let me see if I understand what he is saying . . . liberals are willing to let the government tax them MORE, and they TRUST this bigger government to be benevolent and fair, to use those resources efficiently, and not waste them nor divert them for political motivation.

And he thinks that makes them smarter than conservatives? *Snort* It would by funny if it weren’t so sad . . . and damaging.

Here’s my impression of “evolutionary psychology” . . . it’s little more a pseudo-science, or junk science even. Here’s another opinion about it from Psychology Today:

"While Evolutionary Psychology offers a valuable way of thinking about psychological development and life in the prehistoric environments, many of the most prominent voices in the field are less scientists than political philosophers. They choose some aspect of modern life and construct elaborate justifications located in an inaccessible ancient environment. Often, the fact that their story seems to make sense is the only evidence they offer. For them, it may be enough, but it isn't enough if you're aspiring to be taken seriously as a science."

Translation: the evolutionary psychologist is little more than the Rudyard Kipling of human behavior. Mr. Kanazawa might as well have been sitting with his laptop by the banks of the great gray-green greasy Limpopo River.

Secondly, in his article he admits:

"The fact that conservatives have been shown to give MORE money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with [my hypothesis]; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. . . . In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit.”

Precisely my point! “Citizens” have no control over their “charitable contributions” (taxes).

Another liberal conundrum . . . most liberals say that the government shouldn’t “enforce morality.” The act of charitable giving is a clear moral choice. My hubby and I give thousands of dollars every year to multiple charities. Yet that’s not good enough for Big Government . . . they want to enforce THEIR version of charitable morality by taking even more of our money and giving it to the “charity” of their choice. Or to for Cash for Clunkers, Property for Pimps, Tunnels for Turtles, or any number of nebulous, nefarious, non-profits..

Vice President Joe Biden gave an average of $369 to charities in the decade leading up to his nomination. Most people feel that others think like themselves. Maybe Mr. Biden thinks the only way to make people “be charitable” is to tax them more.

Conservatives are more giving, but less trusting (of big government). Research the Social Security “Trust Fund” to find out what it means to “trust” the government with your “charity” dollars for the elderly.

Mr. Kanazawa’s blog is a riff on his one of his pet theories “The Savanna Principle” which states that the human brain has difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. (Is he speaking of “change” here?)

"Thus the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis (The Hypothesis) suggests that less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty than more intelligent people with comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. In contrast, general intelligence does not affect individuals’ ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations that existed in the ancestral environment."

Perhaps conservatives have are more attuned to history and economics. It’s not being afraid of change or progress or not understanding it, but rather being aware of how certain principles and ideologies have led to human suffering. When we see “change” headed down a different path (not a new one) . . . where does the slippery slope hit the precipice?

Mr. Kanazawa also says:

"Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life."

Notice this point, “Liberals do control . . . apart from a few areas in life such as business.” Is he saying that people in business are less intelligent? Think about that for a minute. Business is the engine of our economy . . . and that’s one area that liberals do NOT control. Perhaps they are not smart enough to go into business, so instead they go into media to report on other people, or into show business and pretend to be other people. As for academia . . . you’ve heard the expression “Those that can . . . do . . . and those that can’t . . . teach.* Not being smart enough to run a business doesn’t keep liberals from tying to control other people’s business!

*A generalization, I know, but we’ve all heard it. Of course there are fine academicians who could or did succeed elsewhere, but discovered a love of teaching.

Since conservatives are better at business, we know the effects of ill-conceived policies on the engine of the economy.

Conservatives may resent higher taxes for another reason. Conservatives tend to have more children than Liberals. Producing productive progeny is an pricey proposition (refer to my first blog.) It’s easier to be more “generous” (with taxation) when you have more disposable income.

Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal about self-described liberals vs. conservatives and the “Fertility Gap” of 41%.

Here’s a blog by “HalfSigma” that seeks to refute the WSJ article. It reports on the fertility of Democrats vs. Republicans, and it shows that the Dems are more reproductive because they have more poor, blacks and Hispanics, who tend to have more babies. Although, when you select for “religious conservatives” the scale tips the back. Then his last comment says, “The trend in the United States is that poor, religious, and stupid people are having more children . . . “ Wait, didn’t he just say that it’s the Democrats having more children? Is he calling them stupid? I’m not sure that’s the “take-away” that HalfSigma wants us to have.

Perhaps because liberals control academic institutions . . . and the more intelligent students are more likely to go to colleges and universities . . . they get brain-washed into being liberals while in the tutelage of the liberals in control, and that may be how we end up with lots of intelligent liberals. This argument is as logical as “once upon a time on the Savanna . . . “

And that, O Best Beloved, is how the elephant got his nose out of joint . . . from this kind of croc!
___________________________________
Thank you to my sweet liberal friends for showing this link to me. They disagreed with Mr. Kanazawa, too, but encouraged me to write about it anyway.

Image from here.

"Firecare" Follies

2010-03-22T12:04:00.000-07:00

Philip Goldberg recently wrote an article in the Huffington Post comparing Healthcare to “Firecare.” He says, “Right now, our tax money pays for a government-run program that puts out fires no matter who owns the building, or who lives there, or who started them. “

Mr. Goldberg is comparing houses to our bodies, and fire fighters to health care professionals. He’s saying our “firecare” policy is socialist, and everyone likes it that way, therefore our healthcare policy should be the same.

On the surface, the analogy seems like it might work, but if you press even a little, the veneer of logic comes off in a heartbeat. My sweet liberal friends have really good intentions, and their hearts are really big . . . even bigger than their brains sometimes. We need BOTH hearts and brains to make things work. One without the other is worse than useless, it’s dangerous.

Let’s look closer at the “firecare” analogy. Does the fire fighter help you rebuild your house after it burns down? Does our socialist “firecare” arrange and pay to have the smoke and water damage cleaned up? If the house partially burned down, does “firecare” pay to have contractors, carpenters, electricians, and plumbers rebuild? Does it pay for the wood, nails, sheetrock and paint? Does it pay for replacement of your valuables that burned up? Does it pay for a place for you to live while you have your place rebuilt? Does “firecare” pay for “preventive” care in your home? Will they install smoke detectors and sprinklers for you?

Does “firecare” pay to rebuild ANYTHING after a fire? No. Your private homeowner’s insurance does. Your homeowner’s insurance, that YOU bought, pays for the contractors, carpenters electricians, plumbers, wood, nails, sheet rock, paint, hotel bills and replacement of belongings.

What is the true “firecare” equivalent of healthcare? It’s the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Fire fighters stop the burning . . . EMTs stop the bleeding. Just as fire fighters don’t pay for carpenters, electricians, plumbers and supplies to rebuild your damaged home . . . EMTs do not pay for doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists and operating rooms to rebuild your injured body. So, it seems to me we already ARE on the “firecare” model for healthcare.

Let’s turn the tables and see if “Firecare” would work if it was forced to operate under the new “healthcare” mandates. . . . Hey, State Farm! My house is on fire, and I’d like to get insurance NOW! You have to give it to me because you can’t discriminate against a pre-existing condition. It wasn’t my fault. Oh, and you have to pay WHATEVER it costs to repair the damage, there are no caps on claims.

How many investors would buy into that business model? For that matter, how many homeowners would pay for homeowner’s insurance every month if they can get it AFTER they have an emergency? You would logically expect that the insurance companies would suffer so many financial losses that they would be forced into bankruptcy. It’s just like the government forcing banks to give mortgages to low-income, high-risk folks. Many high-risk folks defaulted, as is logically expected, and huge losses were forced on the banks.

If private homeowner’s insurance collapsed, everyone would have to get government “firecare” insurance. You’d have go through government channels to get your home rebuilt. Have you ever tried to get a government building permit? Do you really want to deal with government carpenters, electricians and plumbers? Or find the ones that will accept government-limited wages? Perhaps some houses would be deemed “too old” and too expensive to be rebuilt. What then? (This is not a problem when you buy private homeowner’s insurance.)

For that matter, why should anyone go bankrupt because their house burned down and they didn’t have insurance? The fire wasn’t their fault, right? Government “firecare” should rebuild their houses for them! Everyone needs a home, of course.

We pay for “socialized firecare” because fires CAN spread quickly and do more damage. Yes, there are some contagious diseases that can spread, but there are NONE that spread as quickly as fire, nor are they as deadly to everyone caught in them.

Let’s compare “firecare” workers with healthcare workers. Most city governments can afford a few hundred (or more) fire fighters, depending on the size of the city. Smaller cities can even function with volunteer fire fighters. Can hospitals be run entirely by volunteers? No. Cities require THOUSANDS of doctors, nurses, and health care workers . . . not just on duty but working around the clock.

How expensive is it to train Fire fighters? They don’t need a college degree. They get only a few months training. It’s nothing like healthcare workers are required to have. Most states have upped requirements for Registered nurses from 2 years to 4 years. Medical degrees can require up to 12 years of school and they often end up with over $100,000 in student loans. Governments can barely afford to pay fire fighters in our current economy, but Mr. Goldberg wants them to pay for all the required doctors and nurses, too. Shall we “control costs” by limiting what those dedicated health professionals can earn?

Fire fighters don’t work every hour of every shift. They would demand even higher wages if they did. Doctors and nurses DO work every hour of every shift, doing surgery, treating patients, and administering care. Doctors work more hours in a week than any self-respecting union worker would tolerate.

Do lawyers sue fire fighters for not fighting fires “correctly?” I’ve never heard of it. If they did, “firecare” workers would need to go around installing smoke detectors in every room of everyone’s house to reduce their chances of being sued. Do lawyers sue doctors and hospitals? ALL the time. Do doctors perform more tests than necessary to reduce their chances of being sued, and does it drive up the cost of health care? You betcha!

Has “firecare” technology changed tremendously in the past 1,000 years? Hhmmm . . . they still use WATER to put out fires. Health care, on the other hand, has advanced by orders of magnitude. If you want cheaper health care, we COULD go back to the days when all we had was aspirin. But no one WANTS that. Everyone wants the newest, best, and most effective health care treatments. That’s logical . . . but it COSTS. You get what you pay for . . . and its corollary . . . SOMEONE has to pay for what you DO get.

The laws of economics are as immutable as the laws of physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. “You cannot fool Mother Nature” . . . nor can you fool human nature. If people think they can get something for LESS, they will try. If cost controls are imposed on a high-demand service or product, shortages result. ALWAYS.

Be prepared for health insurance companies to go out of business. If they cannot make the paltry 2% profit they already make, they will. What many people don’t realize is that not only do they pay for health care for millions, but they also subsidize Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid passes much of its cost to private payers. In Washington State alone, $738 million were shifted to private payers to make up for underpayments by Medicare and Medicated in ’04. The same year in CA, private payers and hospitals paid $45 BILLION to compensate for the public care shortfall. Uninsured patients add only about 1%, but Medicare/Medicaid’s low reimbursement rates add as much as 10% in hidden costs to private health insurance.

Is it any wonder private insurance costs are going up? If private insurance goes out of business, who will subsidize the hospitals, clinics, and doctors for shortfalls from public care payments? Remember, economic laws can’t be changed any more than you can change the law of gravity.

Be prepared for doctors and nurses to retire in ever increasing numbers, and for fewer to train for (and go in debt for) those difficult and demanding careers, as the reward potential gets limited. It’s a law of human nature.

Mr. Goldberg, your bio says you’re a “spiritual counselor,” not a business adviser, nor an economist, nor a health care professional. Stick to your day job, and don’t stick it to the rest of us.

______________________________________

Image from web site: www.workingfire.net

Keynesian Cannibals

2010-03-11T14:51:00.001-08:00

Most of us have seen the nature documentaries where one kind of ant might cannibalize another. We’ve also heard of the “Donner Party,” the ill-fated settlers who had problems going west and got caught by global cooling in late October in the Sierra Nevadas. Some of them resorted to eating the dead to survive. I’m not passing judgment, I’m just sayin’ what happened.

When people decide to go into debt to buy something . . . they are “cannibalizing” future earnings. My hubby and I did this when we last moved. We bought a house we hope will be our “forever home.” We bought furnishings for it . . . and put much of it on credit cards, while paying for two college educations with student loans.

We both figured we'd soon get jobs and would have more money than time (to shop). We didn’t get jobs as quickly as we thought, and because we spent (consumed) a chunk our future income . . . we have to tighten our belts now. We will pay our debts plus interest . . . we don’t expect anyone else to pay them for us.

Keynesian Economics* is the theory that the government can manage the economy better than the free market, that it can regulate enough to moderate the ups and downs of business cycles, and that government spending can stimulate an economy out of a recession/depression.

Much of that “regulation” includes deciding what interest rates banks should charge, and to whom they should give loans. (Housing bubble anyone?) Another key concept in Keynesian economics is “stimulus spending” where the government picks favorites and redistributes money to them to supposedly stimulate the economy. If the government doesn’t HAVE the money to dole out, they borrow it.

Think about it . . . when the government goes into debt . . . they are “cannibalizing” future income . . . just as anyone does who goes into debt. EVERY single dollar the government “gets” has to come from the private sector.

From budget analyst Brian M. Riedl: “Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects INTO the economy must first be taxed or borrowed OUT OF the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. “

Pixie-dust Politicians claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But the Job Fairies must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then LOSE AT LEAST AS MANY JOBS.

This has been confirmed by the Department of Transportation and the GAO, yet lawmakers continue to base policy on this economic fantasy.

Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.

The water level analogy is a good one . . . the level would actually go LOWER due to evaporative interest rates and inefficiency spillage.

Let’s be clear . . . Keynesian Economics is government forced redistribution of income, either from current taxpayers, or when it’s deficit spending . . .from future taxpayers. At the present amount of government debt . . . we are consuming the future incomes of our children, their children, and THEIR grandchildren!

Another children's story comes to mind . . . the one about killing the golden goose. Remember? They were in such a hurry for the golden eggs that they cut open the goose to get them BEFORE they were laid . . . and the goose died.

Our goose is cooked.

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
~Winston Churchill

___________________________________________________

*Named after John Maynard Keynes, a 20th-century British economist, and a life-long member of the British Liberal party. Keynes was also a proponent of the progressive policy of eugenics serving as Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. He declared eugenics to be "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.”

Apparently, Keynes thought directed redistribution of human genes was good policy too.

The Hubris of Some Humans!

2010-03-05T11:35:00.000-08:00

Hubris: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

In his article in the Huffington Post, Steven Brant laments that the problem we face as a nation is that we’re “governed by two parties literally incapable of seeing the world the same way.”

He criticizes media that reports “the arguments going on about the way the world is” and he recommends “the only way American can return to being governed by a political establishment that . . . “is for journalism to become journalism again.”

“Our two parties definitely don't act as if they [live on the same planet]; and - until there is an independent arbitrator of who is on the REAL planet and who is on the IMAGINARY planet - they will continue to fight over whose planet is real.”

Mr. Brant’s solution . . . for a REAL journalist (like Walter Cronkite) to tell us who is RIGHT and who is WRONG. Let me guess which party he thinks is right? Perhaps the one most journalists admit they belong to? The Democrat Party.

He laments “the poor quality news product we're currently getting (and which companies like The New York Times want to start charging us for).

Mr. Brant . . . the reason most people think the Times is poor quality is precisely BECAUSE it uses the brand of journalism you espouse . . . they DO tell us what we SHOULD think. We disagree . . . vehemently at times.

From Psychologytoday.com
_____________________________

Journalists sometimes say conservatives and political independents don’t go into journalism because they’re more interested in money. . . . . This ignores journalism’s own issues with greed and corruption—most despicably with Walter Duranty, who covered the Soviet Union for the New York Times and won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for a series of stories that uncritically backed Stalinist propaganda, denied the Ukrainian famine, and defended Stalin's infamous trials. Duranty lived lavishly in Stalin’s good graces. (Meanwhile, the Times has never returned the Pulitzer.) More recently, the New York Times’ fraudulent reporter Jayson Blair received a mid-six figure advance for his memoirs—even the most egregious reporters can make big bucks and become media darlings.”

As far as investigating the dark side of the Major Issues, there’s a critically important concept that students of journalism are rarely taught. It’s easy to find any number of targets to write about in capitalist societies with an open press. But totalitarian governments are journalistic black holes. Journalists can tickle their self-righteous neurocircuitry every day (and many do), by exposing easy-to-find faults in democratic societies. But beyond their event horizon is the bigger story that often remains untold as it occurs—the horrific deaths of millions in totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and, yes, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. That’s why, when Robert Conquest was asked whether he wanted to retitle his updated The Great Terror, about the Soviet purges, his answer was: Yes, how about I Told You So, You Fucking Fools?

If you’re a journalist, want to help people and want to tell the truth, what truth are you going to tell? Why, the truth you THINK helps people, of course! Technically, that’s the truth . . . but it’s very different than the truth.

_____________________________________

Mr. Brant wrote an essay about how little Journalism “is doing to fulfill its civic education role in American society today, a role which the Founding Fathers thought was so important that they enshrined the right to a free press in the Bill of Rights.”

But of course, he means HIS version of the free press . . . not YOURS . . . and HIS version of the “the truth”

Buyer beware.

_____________________________
Photo is from a child victim of the Holodomor. Don’t know what the Holodomor was? It’s was a side-effect of implementing a command economy (the opposite of a free market economy). It killed millions of people in the Ukraine, by starvation. See also China’s “Great Leap Forward.”

So Easy a Democrat Could Do It!

2010-03-03T16:52:00.000-08:00

I love the GEICO commercials on the theme “So easy a CAVE Man could do it!” The poor Neo-Neanderthals take offense at the insinuation that they are stupid.

I remember taking offense for the TurboTax software producers with the US Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geitner said he used Turbo Tax and it led him to make errors in his tax returns.

For one thing, he was lying. His “consulting” work company, International Monetary Fund, sent him statements telling him EXACTLY how much income tax he owed on what they paid him.

Secondly, TurboTax is VERY thorough in stepping you through your income for the previous year. Our family used it for many years. It always asks a question like “Did you earn ANY other income for the tax year?” And when you enter the amount, it calculates for you what you should pay.

Geitner joins a long list of Democrat tax cheaters . . . Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Pete Stark, Robert Wexler and Rep. Charles Rangel . . . who is FINALLY stepping down as CHAIRMAN of the committee that WRITES your tax code!!

In one of George Will’s recent columns, he discusses an outline of a much easier income tax plan.

10% on incomes up to $50,000
25% on incomes above that
No deductions, credits or exclusions other than a health care tax credit

It’s SO EASY a DEMOCRAT could do it!

It’s Worth It

2010-03-02T09:02:00.000-08:00

A century half,
A lifetime ago.
It makes me laugh,
A few things I know.

Some work and some fun,
Are the ties bind you.
Family is one,
And friends are too.

Up and down are the hills,
And worth it to give.
It’s not boring, but thrills,
It’s worth it to live.

The Emperor Has No Lab Coat

2010-02-23T11:57:00.001-08:00

As I raised my children, I read to them every day. One story we enjoyed was the classic tale by Hans C. Andersen, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Here’s the story:

An Emperor who cares for nothing but his clothes hires a couple of weavers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid". The Emperor can’t see the fabric himself, but pretends that does so so as not to appear stupid or unfit. His ministers do likewise. When the swindlers report the new outfit is finished, they pretend to dress him, then the Emperor parades in front of his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out “the Emperor is has no clothes!” Soon everyone admits what is in front of their eyes. The Emperor cringes but continues to act proudly and continues the charade, I mean parade.

This seems an apt parable for the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “crisis.” Those of us who disbelieve the theory are labeled “just hopelessly stupid” because we don’t believe. Yet the AGW weavers, the swindlers, have convinced our Emperors (government officials) that it’s true, and they proudly continue the parade.

In the meantime, some of our southern-most cities have been caught “naked” without adequate road salt and snow-removal equipment because they were convinced their winters were getting milder and warmer by the decade.

Here are a list of bogus AGW alarmist claims that came from “experts.”

AmazonGate - the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall, but looked at the impact of logging and burning. No lab coats here, just greenie weenies.

ChinaGate - Many Chinese weather station measurements were seriously flawed, and 42 rural stations couldn’t even be located!! This biased readings in favor of urban stations. No white lab coats here, just red faces.

HimalayaGate – the claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an exaggeration to spur governments to action and to get massive research funding. This was based on speculation from a popular hiking magazine. No lab coat here, just butcher uniforms for lots of pork processing.

SternGate I & II –
I - One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports . . . the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified. II– A researcher claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. No lab coats, just hood-winks.

PeerReviewGate –at least 16 NON-peer-reviewed reports from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases. No meteorological lab coats in those reports, just Monkey-Monk hype.

RussiaGates - I – Russian investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree. II – A presentation to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated COOLING after 1961, but was deceptively truncated in IPCC publications. Just say “NYET!”

U.S.Gate – Is Uncle Sam more accurate? 40 years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990. Most of the deleted stations were in COLDER regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate –The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and one dissertation by a student. Mostly hyping boots here, I mean hiking boots. How about let’s give THEM “the boot!”

ReefGate – The alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation cam not from peer-reviewed literature, but from solely from advocacy articles by publicity-hungry Greenpeace. Another whale of a tale.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming. Perhaps there weren’t enough intrepid lab coats making the trek to icy “Last Frontier?”

There are more “Climate-Gates” in this link.

R. K. Pachauri, who is head of IPCC, is not a climate scientist, but an economist.

Al Gore is not a scientist of any sort, but a high priest of AGW. His “documentary” had so many inaccuracies that British schools could only show it when accompanied by a list of corrections. By the way, where is Mr. Gore? Did someone send him to a WitLess Protection Program?

Even Phil Jones, who IS a climatologist, recently admitted “that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming . . OOPS!!

“Scientists have underestimated the role that water vapour plays in determining global temperature changes . . . . The research, led by one of the world's top climate scientists, suggests that almost one-third of the global warming recorded during the 1990s was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere, not human emissions of greenhouse gases. . . . . Until now, scientists have struggled to explain the temperature slowdown in the years since 2000. OOPS!!

Mother Nature may be getting the last laugh. Her lab coat is the purest white . . . last week all 50 states in the US had snow . . . for the first time ever!

Last week, MSNBC and Time argued that the massive amounts of snow hitting the mid-Atlantic region proves AGW, yet in 2002 it was said that the LACK of snow in that same region proved AGW. They can’t have it both ways.

I just saw a weatherman say that “. . . because of global warming, the air holds more water at ALL temperatures.” So now AGW changes the laws of PHYSICS?

Estimates of “Cap and Trade” costs per family vary from $1,500 to $3,000 per year.
Using the lower estimate, that’s an additional cost nearly of $30,000 during the 18-19 years of raising a child, making the total cost over $230,000! (See my first blog entry).

When you see the Emperor has no clothes, SAY something!! Otherwise, the same swindlers will steal the shirt off your back!!

Even the Defense Department turning green around the gills.

__________________________________________________

I’d been working on this blog for a couple of weeks, and just yesterday we see another tear in the invisible fabric of the AGW space-time continuum.

The journal Nature Geoscience retracted its 2009 claim that sea levels would rise up to 32 inches by the end of the century. There are two separate mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by scientists after it had been published. (So much for “peer review”!)

Trash Can Jenga

2010-02-12T14:54:00.000-08:00

When our son was in college he lived off campus for one year. He had a roommate who was a really nice guy (now married to my niece). Guys aren’t known to be the best housekeepers . . . but they played a game I never heard of. They called it “Trash Can Jenga.” They would pile things INto and ONto the kitchen trash can, until it was so full and so high that it eventually toppled over. The person who placed the “last straw” that made it topple was the “loser” and had to take out the trash.

I think our politicians are play “Trash Can Jenga” with our government. They are piling up the national debt, and our Social Security system has almost reached critical mass. Some call it the greatest Ponzi scheme ever.

There is a normal game of Jenga . . . . and there’s the game played by our politicians.

I know who the loser is . . . but who is going to clean up the mess?

Look HERE to read about the European version of financial Jenga, with the country of Greece is on the brink of insolvency (just like California).

Hand in the Cookie Jar

2010-02-08T09:52:00.000-08:00

It’s best to have rules for small children, else they will rule you. They thrive when they know what to expect from you, and what can be expected from them.

One of our rules was to ask permission to get food out of the pantry or kitchen . . . and especially for access to the cookie jar. (I for one, DID stay home and bake cookies :)

When my middle child was about three years old, my husband and I were in the den reading, and our son came into the room with two cookies in his hands. He said to me in his little boy voice, “Look Mommy! I brought you a cookie!” I thought to myself, “How sweet!” and took the cookie he gave me and started to eat it, while he went merrily down the hall to his room munching on the other one.

A few minutes later . . . I realized I’d been HAD! He snuck one over on me, by offering me a treat as he was doing a snatch-and-grab. To this day, I don’t know if he planned it, or just did it out of instinct. As a grown young man, he is sweet and generous, but he also knows how to get what he wants.

I can’t help but think of that story when I think about today’s government. They offer us all kinds of goodies to keep us from seeing that they are robbing the cookie jar . . . and the pantry . . . and the grocery store . . . and the grain silos . . . and the seed store . . .

U.S. Debt Clock

Keep your eyes open, and your pocketbook locked up! There’s no such thing as a free lunch (or cookie :)

BUT, here’s a free cookie recipe!

Mom’s Secret Ingredient Chocolate Chip Cookies

1 cup salted butter (two sticks)
1 cup white sugar
1 cup brown sugar
2 eggs
2 teaspoons vanilla
1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon baking soda
2 ½ cups flour
Secret ingredient: (½ cup oat bran)
2 cups Semi-Sweet Chocolate Chips (12 oz.)

Nuts are optional (unlike in real life :)

Bake at 375 for about 9 minutes

Soften butter. Mix in sugars and vanilla. Stir in eggs, then salt and soda. Stir in oat bran and then ½ cup of flour at a time, stirring until well blended. Stir in chocolate chips.

Drop by rounded spoonfuls on un-greased cookie sheets. Bake about 9 minutes. Take off the pan and cool on cookie racks.

The oat bran gives them a slight oatmeal-cookie taste.

This recipe was perfected at high altitude (7,000) feet, so it may need to be adjusted slightly for sea level.

My Motto

2009-12-31T07:02:00.000-08:00

Value Family,
Seek Truth,
Seek Love,
Be Productive,
Never Give Up!