Lockjaw's Lair

Words from the President on Iran's Unrest

2009-06-23T15:23:56Z

With Iran in the middle of widespread unrest, I think it is important to look at what our President has said on the issue.

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

"The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

"The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side."

Those are some powerful sentiments, and statements. This is the kind of thing that the defrauded voters in Iran need to hear from us, and badly.

The quote above is from George W. Bush in his second inaugural address.

Obama hasn't been so supportive of freedom in this case. I guess that's the difference between a President who has the balls to do and say what he thinks is right, rather than what will make him look good on TV.

Warcraft Economics - Auctions, Profiteering, and Helping Others

2009-03-12T15:03:42Z

I love to play World of Warcraft. Questing, killing beasties, gaining achievements, and Player vs Player are just entertaining things to do on a nice relaxing evening. One of the great things about WoW, as it is known, is that there are so many different ways to play the game. One of my most enjoyable things to do, though, is profiteering. I farm expensive materials, gather sellable quest items, and pick up items from vendors in my travels for resale.

My favorite way to find things to sell, though, is to scan the auction house for items that are, frankly, being sold too cheaply. I buy them at the seller's asking price, and immediately place them back up for sale at a higher price. The price I sell for more closely matches the price that the market will bear. Sometimes, I can multiply my investment several times on one item. ]]>
Personally, I see the sale of vendor patterns and items in a different light than some do. Some of these patterns are in areas that only high-level characters can visit. The only way a low-level character can get these items is on the auction house. Sometimes, you might travel a long distance to visit the vendor that sells an item, only to find that it is sold out. By purchasing these items when I can, and selling them on the auction house for a higher price, I am providing a service to others. They don't have to travel. They don't have to risk the effort, only to find the item is sold out. All they have to do is search the auction house, and buy.

When I choose to buy an item from a vendor, or on the auction house at a low price, I am accepting a certain amount of financial risk. One recent visit to the auction house, I spent over 1400 gold on low-priced items. I then paid deposit fees to list these items again at a higher price. The sellers of the items got their asking price with little effort on their part, even if the price was too low. I placed the purchase price, and the listing fees, at risk. If I can't re-sell the items at the higher price, I lose that money. The seller got their asking price. No one is forced to buy from me at a higher price. I am the only one taking a risk in this situation. Some, though, consider me a bad guy for doing this.

There are other benefits to my actions. By removing items from the auction house at prices that are too low, I increase the likelihood of higher-priced items selling. Anyone else with those items for sale sees a better chance of making a sale, because the lower-priced competition is dissapearing at my cost. I will be competing with them for a sale, but I will compete at prices that are closer to the market prices. My actions benefit others who are selling the same items on the auction house, because they can get a better price.

There's another great benefit. I don't just buy things on the auction house to resell. I also buy things I need there as well. If I find an item that would require a lot of travel to find, or a lot of questing to hope that it drops from a mob, I may just buy it on the auction house myself. I can afford it, and don't think twice about spending the gold, because I've taken steps to increase my available gold. I've purchased many vendor patterns and items at higher auction house prices, simply because it was much more convenient to do so.

I've placed thousands of gold in game-wealth at risk, and provided great benefits in the game. I've made items more easily available. I've propped-up the market price and increased profits for others. I've made many things conveniently available with little effort, and I've paid untold hundreds of others exactly what they asked for items I've purchased, making them happy for the sale.

Some consider me a bad guy. That's all right. Some consider the oil companies bad guys for their profits. Some consider healthcare companies bad guys for saving lives while making money. Some consider McDonalds bad for selling food people want at affordable prices. I don't mind being in that group.

Plus, I want the mammoth.

Stimulate Me - How Obama Could Win the Economic War

2009-03-12T09:19:42Z

Now that we're starting to get an idea of what President Obama's economic knowledge is like, it's starting to get a little worrisome. Taxpayer money is being thrown at hundreds of projects, like museums, sidewalks, libraries, and a trolley in Puerto Rico. Pushes for more "green energy" projects will do more to raise energy costs, which tends to hurt the economy as that cost is reflected in the price of milk and bread. Even Obama's so-called tax cut is designed to cause hardship, as taxes aren't being cut. When your income tax withholding is reduced, but the actual tax rates are not adjusted, it isn't a tax cut at all. It's a deferred payment, because you'll either have to pay the money back in April 2010, or have your refund reduced.

So ... is there a stimulus plan that could work? Is there an idea that could put an immediate cash infusion into the American economy? Could we, with one or two quick decisions, take action to put our economy on the fast-track again, while costing no more than the estimated one to three-and-a-half trillion dollars that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have allocated so far?

Yes.
]]>
It seems that the city had a beautification program that we could take advantage of. If we would purchase the cement planters to place around our little downtown area, the city would fill them with flowers, and take care of the upkeep. Not a bad deal, all in all. We all thought it was a great idea, so the next question was, how to get the planters, and pay for them. The head of the group, a Republican, was pushing for a special tax district for our area, with a small additional tax being paid by the building-owners that would go into the coffers of our group, the designated business association. The tax money could then be used to purchase planters, as a first project.

The tax-district idea had been put forth in multiple meetings. It wasn't popular. Honestly, I did my part to make sure I talked to everyone that hated the idea, and make sure it couldn't be pushed through. When it was brought up yet again, in reference to the planters, I stood up to say exactly how stupid I thought the idea was, and where I thought the district lines should be drawn so that I was excluded.

The leader of our group looked at me, and asked a simple question. "Without the tax district, and the money we would get from it, how would we pay for the planters?"

I stood my ground, and presented my idea. It was simple. We call around, and find suppliers of the planters. We find the best price, and any business owner that would like a planter can buy one, two, or however many they need. We just collect the money, and go pick them up on a truck.

You would have thought I had slapped the guy's sister. While others in the room nodded at my suggestion, our leader blustered something about how not everyone would buy them, and we would have planters in front of some stores, but not others.

My response to his objection was, yet again, simple. If everyone doesn't buy planters, then not everyone gets planters. Those who don't get them will see them appear in front of the other stores, and they'll want them too. Before much time passes, a second order will need to be made for those that don't buy-in the first time.

Well, my idea won, and his idea lost. Money was collected, planters were purchased, and flowers were planted. The tiny improvement made a huge difference, and lots of people talked about how nice the planters looked. Those that didn't buy on the first round saw the benefit, and a second round of planters had to be purchased.

The point of the story is that we could have gone the tax route. Money could have been taken from profits to pay the tax. The tax money could have gone to the city, until the time came to pay the business owner's group the proceeds (100% of the tax would have gone to the group). The group would have had to pay costs of accounting, and decide how to spend the money. Some day, perhaps months down the road, we would have been able to purchase planters for everyone. Instead, we simply allowed those who wanted the benefit of the planters to buy-in, and we got a good deal. Peer-pressure worked on the stragglers, and they soon paid for planters as well. No taxes, and great benefit in two weeks, rather than months.

How does this story apply to today's economic issues?

Right now, our government is taking taxes at every level. They take a personal income-tax, which you pay out of your paycheck. They take a corporate income-tax, which you pay in the price of the goods and services you receive. They take tax in tariffs, duties, and licensing fees, all of which increase the cost of goods and services you receive, and so you're the one paying them in the end.

Looking at the bills Congress is passing, and Obama is signing, that tax money isn't being spent well. It's paying for streetscaping, trollies, libraries, museums, sidewalks, "Totally Teen Zone," fairgrounds, ferries, a swamp canal, a water-taxi service, a Historic Jazz Association, aircraft displays, lobster research, catfish research, and many, MANY, more non-stimulus items. For the record, there's even at least one downtown revitalization project in there.

All this, and Obama is talking about tax increases "for the rich."

What if we took a little different path. What if we cut out the middleman. It seems to be a good idea for business to cut out the middleman, and passing the savings on to the customer. The customer pays the money, and the customer gets the benefit of the purchase. YOU are the customer. YOU pay the taxes, and YOU are supposed to be the beneficiary of all the good that government does. The government is the middleman.

Let's do something simple. Let's go back and cancel the "Porkulus" bill, that is disguised as stimulus. Let's cancel the spending bill with 9000 earmarks. Let's replace them with a simple, effective stimulus plan that we can agree on.

Here's the plan. We cut the 2008 personal income tax to zero.

That's it.

I can't take credit for the idea. Rush Limbaugh is the one I heard mention the idea, but as I keep thinking about it, it sounds better and better. Here's how it would work.

Starting as soon as possible, all federal income-tax withholding would be stopped from your paycheck. This would result in an immediate boost in available cash to every working person in America. How much of your paycheck each payment period goes to federal income taxes? Is it 25%? Let's just take that as an easy number to work with.

If 25% of your check goes to federal income taxes, and your tax rate is cut to zero, your $1000 in take-home pay will rise to approximately $1330. That's enough for a payment on an affordable car. $330 per week for a year is over $17,000. That's enough for a nice downpayment on a house, or a full purchase on a slightly-less-affordable car.

In April, anything you've paid into the federal income tax withholding before the wittholding was stopped would be refunded to you. If the plan went into action on April 1, then your refund would be almost $4000 based on the numbers above.

What's the cost to the government? It would cost one trillion dollars. That, conveniently enough, would be offset by the cancellation of the last spending bill. What's more, unlike the spending bill, the tax cut would actually stimulate the economy.

What would YOU do with your federal income-tax money back?

Interesting Self-Quote from 1991 BBS Post

2009-01-07T21:25:05Z

4/60: new portable computers with color VGA

Name: Lockjaw The Ogre #31 @9955

Date: Mon Jul 08 11:22:54 1991

i am watching a story on CNN right now about new portable computers with flat

color vga monitors. they look great, with awesome color capabilities. the

screen is made up of loads of tiny transistors that control the color, rather

than the picture tub. only one american manufacturer is making them, dolch,

but toshiba and nec are making them elsewhere.

Interesting how times change.

Anti-Israel Protesters - I Don't Get It. Yes I Do.

2009-01-06T14:14:20Z

A violent street gang, over the course of months, randomly fires bullets at houses in a populated residential area. For months, the city asks politely for them to stop. Over time, the mayor begins to suggest that the gang has gone too far. Eventually, the police move in and strike at the leaders, and begin to return fire on gang members who are seen firing weapons into neighborhoods. Local college students protest against the city and the police.

On the southern border of the United States, a paramilitary organization based in Mexico begins firing explosive projectiles into the southern areas of New Mexico and Arizona. Some shells land in highly populated areas of Tuscon, killing more than a few civilians. This goes on for months. The governments of the affected states and the United States tell them to stop. Eventually, after thousands of shells have been fired, the US Military moves across the border and takes action against the group, killing their leaders and anyone found operating the weapons in question. Protesters across America come out to protest the US actions against the killers.

To think that someone would protest against the city or the US for striking back in the above situations seems stupid on its face. Why would anyone protest against those who are trying to stop the attacks on innocent civilians?

Hamas fired over 2600 explosive missiles from the Gaza Strip into Israeli populated areas over the course of months. Israel worked diplomatically to try to bring it to a halt, but with no effect. Finally, they respond in kind, attacking the military leaders of Hamas responsible for the rocket fire. If they find caches of rockets, smuggling routes for the rockets, or anyone firing a rocket, they move against them as well. In response, protesters around the world are chanting anti-Israel slogans and calling for Israel to stop its actions.

If you try to think about the protests as being about what's right and wrong, it will cause headaches. Somehow, I think it's more about the fact that it is Israel than about the actual situation.

This stuff has been going on for many years. Israel has been asking its neighbors to be allowed to live in peace. Hamas and its allies have been asking Israel to die. I know which one I want to win. If the protesters want peace, then they should be protesting Hamas, not Israel.

Do they really want peace?

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T11:58:39Z

As I wake this morning, before loading the car for the day's travels, I want to wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Because the opposite of Merry Christmas isn't "Happy Holidays," "Happy Festivus," or "There is no God." The opposite of Merry Christmas is, "I hope your dog craps on your face to wake you up on December 25th."

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Merry Christmas!

How to Save the US Auto Industry

2008-12-11T04:24:00Z

As the arguments have gone on about how to bail out the US auto industry, I've thought a lot about it myself.I believe that the US auto industry can be saved with some rather simple steps. Primarily, these include such common-sense things as un-crippling the automakers, reforming the automotive market, and trying some innovative experimental tax reform. ]]>
When most think about union involvement in the automotive industry, they think of the line-worker. It isn't unreasonable that automakers provide decent pay and benefits to those who make the cars. When someone talks about reducing the power of the unions, the automatic assumption is that this would mean lower pay and benefits for the line workers. While that may be a side-effect of reducing union power, it's not the area in which the unions need to be broken from the process.

The most cumbersome requirement of the unions is that the automakers rely on unionized vendors. Let's take brake pads, for instance. If Ford has bids from three different manufacturers of brake pads, each capable of producing the same pads to the same standards of quality, they are able to make a decision on price. Manufacturer #1 can create the brake pads for $20 per car in its North Carolina plant using non-union labor. Manufacturer #2 can make the brake pads for $30 in Massachusets using some union labor. Manufacturer #3 can sell their brake pads for $50 per car out of their Ohio plant using nothing but union labor.

Given identical standards of quality and safety, the choice is easy. The North Carolina manufacturer gets the contract. In Detroit, this isn't allowed. Union contracts require that the parts that go into the cars be made by union labor. This means that each part of the car costs more to produce than it should, thus driving up the price

It's the extraneous requirements on the contracts that have to go. The best way to do this is the bankrupcy process. Bankrupcy proceedings could allow the big-three automakers to renegotiate these contracts. The end result could, and should, be reduced manufacturing costs per car, and therefore a lower cost per car.

Lower prices per car would increase sales, allowing for profitability.

Lower prices aren't the only answer, though. In order to be able to sell the cars, the automakers also have to be able to make cars that people want to buy. That's easy enough, isn't it? A little market research, good design teams, and quality engineering should be able to produce the cars that America wants.

Wait a minute, though. That isn't how it works. Thanks to the US Government, the automakers can't just produce what America wants. The greatest impediment to this is called CAFE standards. CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. In short, the CAFE standards say that each automaker must produce CARS with an average mileage defined by the government.

Notice the emphasis on cars in that last sentence. That's important, and I'll get to why in a moment.

My parents love their Mercury Gran Marquis. It's not a gas hog, but it isn't going to get any awards for economy, either. The estimated miles per gallon on the highway is 25mpg. This is below the government's CAFE standard rate of 27.5mpg. In order to compensate, Ford must produce cars that exceed this standard. The Ford Focus exceeds this standard. Unfortunately, the Focus is a tiny car that, quite frankly, wouldn't meet my parents needs in a car. By averaging the fuel economy across the full production, the automakers try to keep the number below 27.5mpg. If they exceed 27.5mpg, they pay civil fines.

Personally, I love my Mustang. If I change the plugs and wires, and buy a new air filter, it should get more than 27.5mpg. It is, after all, a six-cylinder model, and I drive conservatively. I'd really rather have a V8, as I'm sure many other people would. What happens, though, if the automakers find that there's more demand for the V8 model, and other less fuel-efficient automobiles? They either follow the CAFE standards and make cars that are in less demand, or they pay fines on their cars and pass the costs on to the customers.

There is another answer. You see, the standards for light trucks are necessarily lower than those for cars. People in need of more space for their family, more cargo room, more pulling power, or safer cars (CAFE standards kill, but that's another post and a radio interview I gave several years ago) have to buy a light truck, instead of a car. The intersection of needs for more car and a family-friendly format created the surge in SUV sales.

The SUV turned out to be the best way you could get a "real car" in the current regulatory environment. A new format, the crossover, still qualifies as a truck while providing better fuel economy to meet the light truck CAFE standards of 22.2mpg. They're lighter, and less safe than the SUV, but still provide more than that little Ford Focus in room and carrying ability.

So, the second thing that should be done is to abolish the CAFE standards, and allow the automakers to create cars based on customer demand, rather than government mandate. Let's face it, letting the government decide what you can and cannot buy has never been a good idea. For the automakers, it's been a disaster.

Thirdly, the government should reduce taxes on the auto manufacturers. The fact of corporate taxes is that the companies have to pay the taxes out of money they get from the consumers. If you buy a car, part of the cost of that car is taxes paid by the company. Corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. Their customers pay them in the price of the products consumed.

The government should, therefore, start a 12 year tax reduction plan for the automakers. For the first two years, corporate income taxes on the big three should be reduced to zero. That's right, they should pay no corporate income taxes. The savings should be taken out of the price of the cars, thus allowing consumers to buy new cars at lower prices. After the first two years, the taxes can be put back into place in 10% increments. At the end of 12 years, the corporate tax burden would be back where it was in the beginning.

Of course, reducing or abolishing the corporate income tax isn't just a good idea for the car companies. It should be done across the board. Corporate income taxes should be abolished entirely. The best way to demonstrate this is to experiment with the auto industry in their time of need. It would be a great benefit to the manufacturers, the employees, the consumers, and the economy as a whole.

Three simple steps. Reduce costs by reducing union controls over every aspect of the big three automakers. Remove the crippling restrictions that government has placed on the industry, and allow the companies to create cars that people want for a change. Finally, cut the unnecessary cost of government out of the automakers' bottom line by cutting their taxes to zero for at least a short time.

If, after all this has been done, a loan is needed to get the companies past the short run, then maybe that can be done. Just don't add on extra requirements that hurt their business like demanding they make certain types of cars, or disallow dividend payments for stockholders. That's just more stupid government micromanagement, and that's been half the problem the automakers had in the first place.

You Should Read - "Why Liberals Hate Us"

2008-12-11T04:16:56Z

Great post over on Pink Elephant Pundit about Why Liberals Hate Conservatives. It's a well-considered presentation of differences between left and right, and why the left is so often driven to hate-speech when speaking of conservatives. As a former liberal who decided hate wasn't a good enough reason to choose a political stance, this post appealed to me. Good read. Head on over and check it out.

Joining the Dark Side - I Got an iPhone

2008-12-02T11:16:58Z

Last week, my wife and I finally upgraded our phones. We knew we needed more from our phones, so I spent some time looking at the options. I'm crazy like that. When we first got our cellphones four years ago, I spent 2-3 months talking to everyone who had a cellphone about their plan, their service, and their phone. I wanted to make the right decision, without hassle. I gathered the evidence myself, and made the decision. I did the same with this purchase.

I prepared for a few days beforehand, browsing apps in the iTunes App Store, and grabbing a collection of apps that looked useful, so I could jump right in when I got the phone. Finally, the day before Thanksgiving, the wife and I drove down to make our purchase.
]]>
Before we left the store, I had to have my music playing at least once. There had been no chance to install my music, since I had just gotten the phone, but my perusal of the app store gave me an option. I had purchased Simplify Media for $3.99. With Simplify Media, I have a powerful tool for my music. Installed on my home PC, the tool indexes my music collection and shares it with me, and up to 30 friends. With it installed on two PCs, I can listen to music from one PC on the other, anywhere in the world. The PC software and the service are all free. The iPhone software is the only part I've found that costs anything.

Using Simplify Media, I was able to fire up some Jamiroquai in the store, as I paid for my phones.

The phone itself is great. Managing contacts is much better than my old Motorola, and it synchronizes to Microsoft Outlook (which occasionally has a use on my PC). Call quality is good. Signal strength in our apartment is at least as good as, and usually better than it was with my old carrier. The speakerphone is a bit lacking, but there are ways around that.

I'm very happy with some of the apps I've chosen. Last.fm, Simplify Media, and Pandora give me access to my music, and music I might like. On top of that, I finally realized a dream of listening to my favorite Internet radio station, Radio Paradise, in my car.

Twitterlicious, and Twittelator are vying for position as my app to post to and read my Twitters. The map applet, along with Google Earth give me a nice GPS/Map capability. Evernote gives me a way to keep important information with me when I'm on the road. There are apps for tracking Woot.com (Don't know what it is? Go there every day). There are multiple apps for IMs, some allowing multiple tools to be used at once like Yahoo, AIM, Jabber, etc. I have a couple recipe apps, apps for social networking sites, search tools, and much more.

On Sunday, I visited the NC History Museum. As I walked around, I snapped photos with my phone. As I was leaving, I loaded PixelPipe, selected the photos I had just taken, and uploaded them. Before I drove away in my car, I had the photos on my Flickr, Kodak, and Facebook accounts.

Oddly enough, the least-used tool on the iPhone for me is the iPod capability. I have an 80 Gig iPod Classic for my music already. Instead, I have 4000 of my photos on the iPhone so that I can keep track of my collection, easily share them, and upload to Flickr if I like.

I'm learning to make the iPhone work for me. All in all, I'm extremely happy with my choice, and love having this new tool available to me every day.

Advice for President-Elect Obama: International Policy

2008-11-20T12:02:42Z

As the latest in my ongoing series of posts advising President-Elect Obama, I'd like to approach international issues. This may be a moot point, since Obama already has many international ties. Regardless, I'll try to hit some high points.

I won't bother with advising on interactions with the palestinians, since Obama has ties to the palestinians; already. Likewise, he seems to have good ties with Kenya. Heck, some think Obama was born in Kenya, including his own grandmother who says she was in the hospital at the time.

]]> I'd like to talk about some of the other international connections that need to be addressed.

Afghanistan

You've talked about increasing the efforts in Afghanistan. Since President Bush made a point of giving the military the resources they needed, it's obvious that the military doesn't know what they need. You'll want to give them more.

The forces in Afghanistan at the moment include troops of many types. On the hunt for Bin Laden, for instance, we have many special forces working throughout the country. You'll want to increase that number. This may extend deployments, cause a reduction in training, an increase in divorce rates, and a general lowering of effectiveness, but you can't let that affect you. You made a campaign promise, and you have to keep it.

After all, if Bin Laden actually puts his head up out of his secure hideaway long enough to be seen, you might get lucky where Bush has not. If you can actually find him, you can take credit for doing something Bush couldn't.

Capturing Bin Laden won't actually do much to stop islamic terrorism in the long run, but it can be a feather in your own cap.

Iraq

It is very important that you continue the liberal story on Iraq. Repeatedly refer to Bush's "lie" that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Whatever you do, don't tell the truth that Bush specifically said that there was no evidence of such involvement. Don't let on that things have improved in Iraq so much that military vehicles no longer demand the right-of-way in the streets, but now follow the same traffic rules as the rest of society.

Keep telling the story that Iraqis don't want us there. Don't point out that the fighting against us is primarily by militants and terrorists that came to Iraq from other countries to fight both the US and the new Iraqi government. Since you're determined that they don't want us, and that we must pull out, it is VERY important that you avoid mentioning that the Iraqi government has asked us to stay at least 3 more years.

Keep selling Iraq as a failure. Keep saying it was based on a lie. Keep your story just as it is, and pull our troops out as fast as you can. When the foreign militants increase their efforts in the vacuum, you can point to it as an example of our failure, rather than a result of your own actions.

Don't worry, your supporters won't question you.

France

France has, in the past, opposed the multi-lateral actions that the US led in Iraq. When the US , Britain, and other countries acted in Iraq, France was vocal in standing against us. They painted our actions as unilateral (meaning we did it alone) and misguided. It is very important that you understand that France sees unilateral military action against enemies in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia as its own job. When we took action, it wasn't so much that we did anything wrong, as it was stepping on their toes.

Things have changed now in France. The tide has changed a bit, and opposition to our actions has reduced. Sarkozy's election was a natural outgrowth of this change. Part of this has been because of France's own problems with militant Islam within their borders.

I left France for last, because it is the lynchpin of my foreign policy advice. In recent years, France's support has been the key judgement on US foreign policy. You have to continue this trend. For that reason, I give you my #1 rule for your foreign policy.

France is the foremost promoter of US interests in the world. It is imperative that you listen to their advice, and get french approval for any actions taken outside our borders. If you don't, then the Democrats will oppose you.

Oh wait... no they won't. Who'll tell them?

Advice for President-Elect Obama - Make Promises; Lots of them

2008-11-18T11:30:22Z

As self-appointed advisor to President-Elect Obama, I am duty-bound to offer advice as I have it, on how to succeed in the office of president. Since I'm not tied to any particular field of work, I don't have to limit my advice to economic, international, or domestic issues. Instead, I offer my advice for success of the man in the office itself. Today's advice: Promise something to someone every single day you can.

When I look back through history at Democrat Presidents, the greatest personal successes came from those who promised a lot. Promises are an important tool in the Democrat arsenal, and one that you haven't used to great effect so far.
]]>
Pull out of Iraq? You definitely will, within 16 months, but maybe not. The issue is still open.
Govt. wiretapping of suspected foreign terrorists on phone calls to or from the United States? Against, but supporting.

You can't do this once you're in office, making the promises that matter. No, I don't mean promises like pulling out of Iraq, ending all the restrictions on abortion that you can, or giving tax refunds to people who don't have any money paid in to refund. I mean the little things.

One little promise every day can endear you to one little segment of society every day. That's the goal. On Monday, promise working families additional tax credits to help pay for raising their children. On Tuesday, go for the minority scholarships. Wednesday is the day for promising money for targeted education improvements (not reform. That's considered racist on the left, because it might place standards too high for minorities.). Thursday is health-care day, so promise to remove the impediments of [insert disease sufferers here] to receiving the medicines that they need.

Friday's promise is an important one. This promise has to carry you through the weekend. I highly suggest somethnig that will generate a lot of discussion, and maybe a little controversy. It should involve spending government funds on something, but then again, most of your promises will if you choose them correctly. Maybe a promise to spend $100 million on pregnancy counseling services for lower-income single women. In the paper briefing to accompany your announcement, create the controversy by allocating 75% of the money to Planned Parenthood, 25% to another group that supports abortion, and none to fund counseling for alternatives to abortion. That will get the pundits talking. On Monday, you can clarify the issue by saying that the numbers were incorrect, and that the money is intended to offer all alternatives to pregnant, single, poor mothers.

Here's the most important thing to remember. You just have to MAKE the promises. You don't have to keep them.

If there's one thing Bill Clinton taught us, it's that there are two types of people in this world. There are people who don't pay enough attention to what happens to know that a Democrat President hasn't kept his promises, and there are Republicans. If you demonize the Republicans hard enough, nobody on your side will care what they say.

So, it really doesn't matter what the numbers on the "pregnancy counseling" promise are. In the end, it's not even something you need to bother yourself with. Those who are interested in the issue will love you for the promise, thinking that the promise is actual legislative action. The rest won't remember it. In fact, the only one on the left that is likely to remember is Christopher Hitchens. He may even write a book. Nobody on the left will read it, though, because you can just tar him as Judas to your messianic rise.

It's the promises that are important, not whether you keep them. Your supporters didn't pay enough attention to the truth and facts to care that you weren't experienced enough for the job. It was your wife that said you weren't ready to run because you hadn't done anything yet, not your supporters. Your supporters are useful, but not always informed. Don't count on them figuring out the truth behind your promises.

So, to summarize: If you want to solidify and expand your base, with little political or fiscal cost, just make a promise every day. Not even your own party expects you to keep it.

Warmest October on Record Turns Out to be Cold After All

2008-11-17T02:45:05Z

Time and again, extreme claims about global warming (aka global climate change) turn out to be lacking in one major aspect. That aspect is truth. Today’s story from the London Telegraph tells how the warmest October on record could be explained, considering the unusual cold, snow, and ice activity around the world during the month. It seems that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by Gore apologist, and often inaccurate Dr. James Hansen, recorded October as the hottest on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

]]> But how could NASA have gotten it so wrong?

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

That has to be hard to explain.

Actually, not that hard to explain at all. May I suggest reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, written by an actual scientist who worked on studies about climate change for the United Nations. Having just finished this book, I can say it’s an essential read if this issue interests you, on either side.

Advice for President-Elect Obama: Take Credit for Everything

2008-11-15T13:47:46Z

In my new role as advisor to President-Elect Barack Obama, it is my duty to provide the best advice I can. The goal of this advice is to elevate the new President and the Democrat Party. I really wish my advice could be for the betterment of the United States and their citicens, but too often those two goals are mutually exclusive.

Today's advice is this. Take credit for anything good that happens during your presidency. Add to that the following corollary. Give blame for anything bad to George Bush and the Republicans.
]]>
When I say "take credit for everything," I mean EVERYTHING. As the new messiah, it is important that everything good that happens in the world be credited to you, Mr. President-Elect. This means, if a research laboratory attached to NC State University discovers a way to convery spent uranium into non-radioactive, non-toxic, and rather tasty chocolate treats, you have to announce it from the White House.

If medical science somehow proves, once and for all, that a child in the womb is merely a mass of cells up until the moment it is delivered into the air and becomes a human life, you have to announce it from the White House.

When the truth starts to become clear about how the Earth has been cooling since 1998, thus placing us in a period of "global cooling," you have to annouce it in the White House. I suggest using words like, "Due to my policies of carbon-dioxide reduction, a move to more fuel-efficient transportation, and increased regulation of industrial pollutants, we have turned the tide against the global warming threat." Don't harp too much on how the cooling started two presidencies ago, or how the actual climate scientists would never actually conclude that carbon dioxide caused global warming. Don't say anything about how global average measured temperatures rose at a rate that could be explained by the closure of measuring stations in colder regions such as Siberia. Just leave the truth out of it. If the people wanted truth they'd have elected... well, I'm not sure who they'd have elected this time, but it wouldn't have been a Democrat.

At any rate, you have to take credit for any good news (meaning cooling in this case, which may not be better than warming overall) that happens. It's your job as the new messiah. You just can't go letting people believe that the old messiah's Dad had anything to do with it.

The people are looking to you, Mr. President-Elect, to BE that new messiah. YOU have to be the source of all that is good in this world. YOU have to make the rose garden speech announcing new technological innovations from IBM. YOU have to speak from the oval office if science ever finds a single, solitary use for embryonic stem cells after all these years of trying. YOU announce the results of scientific studies that have gone on for years, if they publish during your presidency. YOU announce that GSK or Merck have discovered a new treatment for cancer, after decades of research. Heck, if you can announce that Baby Jessica has been rescued from the well, do it.

Don't let the fact that the work on these things has gone on for years, or even been completed for a decade or more. Annouce them as if YOU were the visionary who made it happen.

You're going to need a short press conference (no questions from the gallery) every weekday for four years to say something positive. How you handle these daily briefings will determine if you get another four years.

Oh, and the bad news? Either ignore it, release it on a Friday afternoon (after 3:30 means missing Limbaugh and the deadline for the 6pm evening newscasts) or blame the Republicans.

I know you can do this. It's so important that you do this. You have an image to maintain. That's more important than the economy, or the country, or those little people clinging to guns and faith. It's more important than the police officers you had removed from your sight while they protected you during the campaign. It's important, because without the image you are nothing. Without the image, you have no power. Your image got you elected, and it's your image that can get you re-elected. Protect and enhance that image, and you get to grow, and keep your power.

Hey, if you can handle this advice properly, yesterday's advice on the middle-class tax cut should be easy enough to handle.

Daniel 11:36-37

My Advice for President-Elect Barack Obama Pt. 1

2008-11-14T12:04:21Z

Now that Barack H. Obama, the only messiah to actually have H. as a middle initial, has won the election, he can assemble his transition team, staff, and advisors. Since I'm a firm believer that not all advice should be taken from people who believe exactly as you do, I am applying for a role as advisor to the future-president. With that in mind, I am offering a series of short pieces of advice in this blog.

Part 1 - Middle-Class Tax Credit
There are undoubtedly plenty of people in America who think you were serious about your tax-cut plan. That happens every presidential-election year, so it's not surprising. Now, though, it's time to start transitioning the promises into realities. Now it's time to break your promises while making it look as if you really tried to keep them.

]]> First, you'll have to set the stage for what is to come. Over the next few weeks, you'll be giving speeches on a variety of topics. Make references to the current economic client. Use phrases like "researching to determine what we can afford," and "economic realities." Make it clear that, while your tax plan represented an "ideal plan based in the realities of the moment," the "current realities" will require that all options be placed on the table.

Now, the tax cut plan you laid forth has three basic brackets.

_The Poor _- Their "tax cut" amounted to receiving money that they never paid. Giving money for nothing is the best way to buy votes for a re-election, so this "tax cut" is a must.
The Rich - You never promised this group a tax cut anyway. In fact, you promised to raise their taxes. Keeping this promise will prevent, or at least slow, economic recovery. Keeping this promise will cause job loss, or at best a slowing of job creation. Nonetheless, a promise is a promise, so taxes on the rich will have to go up. The top 25% currently pay 86% of taxes. With tax increases, and the impact on the economy to go with it, this percentage may be about to fall. That leads to:
The Middle Class - Let's face it. This block is the hardest to deal with in writing a tax plan. They actually make enough money to pay taxes, unlike the poor. Unlike the rich, they only pay a small portion of the total tax burden. The 86% of the tax burden paid by the top 25% of taxpayers would be higher if we could just make them richer, but higher tax rates will do the opposite. That places the burden on the middle class to make up the difference. You'll say how sorry you are to do it, but then as President, you'll drop the middle-class tax cut just like you always planned.

The important aspect of this is that you must create the image that you're fighting for that tax cut. Tell the middle-class how important they are. That's what they want to hear. All the way to inauguration day, you've got to tell the american people how important these tax cuts are, especially to the middle-class.

Be careful, though. While you have 100 days to show how much you can get done, you don't want to drop the idea of the middle-class tax cut in the first 30. Two months in should be enough time to wait before dropping the bomb.

Clinton moved too quickly in telling the truth about his middle-class tax cut plan. He talked about "revisiting" the plans, and how he was "mystified" that the media somehow believed the middle-class tax cut to be a part of his "big plans" after he had talked about it the entire campaign

You've got to slow down. After the first 30 days, you'll have some positives to build on, and you can drop the news of there being no tax cut for the middle-class at 5:30pm on a Friday. That way, the news media will have a hard time reporting on it until it is old news. Most of the weekend shows will already be taped by then.

I know you can do it. Heck, it's not like you don't already plan to drop the middle-class tax cut from your plan already. It's the implementation of this move that's important, if you want to solidify yourself into America's future as a great President. Unlike Bill Clinton, you have to lie to the people without them calling you a liar.

Hey, with how well you hid your past during the election, this should be a breeze.

iTunes and iPod Tips - Ratings, Smart Playlists, and More

2008-11-12T11:00:00Z

I'm not alone, I'm sure, in having a huge music collection. With iTunes and my iPod, this translates into a collection of thousands of tracks. Working with such a large collection is a horrible process without some organization. Early on, my wife pointed out the smart playlist option in iTunes, which made life much easier. My first iPod died after being purchased used, having a hard drive replacement, and a year of heavy use. Now I own an 80 Gig iPod Classic. When I upgraded to a new PC, I decided it was time to start over on my music organization in iTunes. This left me with thousands of tracks to work with, and a need to completely reorganize my music collection for more ease of use.

Those who heard me describe my organization style on my iPod always thought I was fairly hardcore in my way of working. Ratings, smart playlists, and genres were effectively used to give me access to what I want, when I wanted it. Still, with so many tracks, I found myself overwhelmed, and my iPod stuffed to the gills with tracks that I didn't necessarily need with me every day. It was time to go further.

I hit Google, looking for clues from others. I wanted to see how others used the features in iTunes to manage their music, and how I could use those tricks myself. This post is an attempt to gather what I learned, and pass it along.

]]> The first major change I needed was to properly categorize my music into genres that made sense. I like Rock music, but I could care less if it's Alternative Rock, Classic Rock, Progressive Rock, or Indy Rock. I must have had two dozen genres that, to me, just meant different ways to subdivide Rock and Roll. The same went for Pop, Latin, Christian, Country, and so on. I simplified my collection down to genres that made sense to my own way of thinking. iTunes 8 made this easier than ever before with the grid view. I could multi-select artists or genres, depending on the view, and right-click them to select "info." By changing the genre for multiple selections at once, I could simplify hundreds of tracks at once.

Now, using a trick I learned from the web, I created a smart playlist that I called "Music Only." This playlist gives me everything in my collection that doesn't fall into certain genres like Spoken Word, Podcast, Audiobook, and so on. In theory, this should give me only music. Is it perfect? No, but I'm tweaking it as I find failures in the system. As you'll see, I use this playlist as the basis for my other smart playlists, so as I tweak this list, I tweak all my smart playlists.

Next up in my organization scheme is ratings. I use a ratings scheme that makes sense to me. One star is a song that I don't want on my iPod. Maybe it's an interview track in an "iTunes Exclusive" collection, a segueway track that I don't care for, or something so horrible that I only keep it at all to complete an album on my PC. Two stars is for tracks that I keep on my iPod because I may want to keep the whole album for some reason. Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and The Beatles' "Seargent Pepper" are examples of albums that I keep the whole album on my iPod, but that contain tracks I don't care to listen to otherwise. Three stars and above are actually ratings that matter for music I like to varying degrees. My biggest favorites get five stars. Most music I really like is four stars, and anything I generally enjoy gets three stars.

Rating thousands of songs is a pretty huge task. I need a way to make it easier. First, though, I need playlists to represent the music I like. Because playlists are shown in alphabetical order, I call these playlists Aardvark (five stars), Absolute (four and five stars), and Actual (three to five stars). These names ensure that the playlists will appear near, if not at, the top of my list in iTunes and on my iPod. To create these playlists, I made a smart playlist for each. The first option for each is "playlist." My Aardvark list requires that a track have a five star rating and be in the playlist "Music Only." See how that "Music Only" playlist up there has become more useful?

Now that I have my playlists for rated favorites, I need a playlist for songs I haven't rated yet. I call this "Unrated" which puts it down the list of playlists on my iPod. The requirements for this list are that each track be part of the "Music Only" playlist, and have a rating of zero stars. Now, I can take my iPod with me, and listen to the unrated playlist, and rate music as I listen. Two clicks on the center button, and I can select the number of stars to rate the music.

Now, at this point, I'm left with a lot of one-star music on my iPod. To get rid of this, I can go into iTunes after I've synced my iPod, and uncheck those tracks. An even better idea, though, is to change the music sync options for my iPod. Instead of syncing all checked music, I now sync only certain playlists. I sync the unrated list, as well as Aardvark, Absolute, and Actual. Now, anything with three stars and up will automatically sync. Since this leaves out the two-star tracks I want just in case I want to listen to "The Wall," I made a playlist called "Everything" that includes the "Music Only" tracks with two stars or more, and set this to sync to my iPod as well. The only things that shouldn't sync now are one-star tracks, so each time I sync my iPod, any one-star tracks will automatically be removed. In the image below, you'll notice that the "Everything" playlist is not synced. This was to make space for episodes of "Top Gear" and "24."

Even this left me with so large a list of unrated songs that I broke down my unrated list into four lists. One with "Rock" in the genre (not exact, but containing the word "Rock"), one with "Christian," one for "Latin," and one called "Misc." The "Unrated Misc" inludes all zero star tracks that do not contain one of the other three genre keywords in the genre. Now, I can listen to a smaller list of tracks such as "Unrated Rock" and rate them without feeling as if I'm being yanked from side to side by style changes of the music. I also set these individual playlists to sync to my iPod. Note in the two images below, the different ways I looked for zero-star music.

Now, all this is fine and dandy. Each day, I take my iPod to work and play music while I work. As I listen, I rate music as i can. Obviously, I can't sit all day and rate music, but I am able to get a lot of music rated this way. Each day, my rated lists grow, and my collection is more usable. Still, something is lacking.

When I drive, I often like to listen to more upbeat music. My favorites ratings are great, but they don't allow for whether a song is good, hard, driving music. I used to have a standard playlist called "Slammin" that I would drag tracks to, but manually creating playlists is the old way, and I need something better. I need a classification system beyond ratings and genres that allows me to divide my collection into more specific playlists. For this, I use the little-recognized "Grouping" tag. If you go to the "info" page for a track, you'll notice the box for "Grouping" now that I've pointed it out. All in all, it's a pretty useless tag, but we can use it here.

Thinking about how I'd like my music classified, I have three basic classifications. "Slammin'" is for the good hard music I like to drive to. "Radio" is for music that I would play on my perfect radio station, consisting of Folk, Americana, easier-going rock and oldies, and some eclectic things thrown in. I know, perfect is in the ear of the listener, but I like a nice, enjoyable, slow mix sometimes, and "Radio" is the classification I use for that. In addition, I use "Explicit" to classify songs that may have curse words or content that I'd rather not play when my son is in the car. For good measure, I added a fourth category called "Other" that will make sense in a moment.

To classify my music, I simply edit the "Grouping" field to include the tag for that group. If a song falls into multiple classifications, I separate the keywords with a dot. slammin.radio would indicate a song that is both properly upbeat for driving, but also fits the eclectic mix of my ideal radio station. Slammin.explicit might be a really good song for me to listen to, but not my son.

To make use of these new grouping tags, I build a smart playlist identical to my "Actual" playlist of three stars and above, but I add a new option to include songs with "slammin" in the grouping tag for driving music, or "radio" for my eclectic mix. I can make a copy of my "Slammin'" playlist that also excludes the "explicit" tag to make a "clean" playlist for when my son is along for the ride.

Why did I also include an "Other" tag? That's easy. I'm making inclusive playlists, but I also need an exclusive playlist, so I know what hasn't been categorized yet. I make another copy of "Actual" but this time, I want it to include tracks that DO NOT have "slammin," "explicit," "radio," or "Other" in the grouping field. These are all songs that need to be classified. Everything will eventually have a tag, but if none of the first three are appropriate, I use the "Other" tag to allow the track to fall out of the unclassified list. Unlike the unsorted list, I don't tell the unclassified list to sync to my iPod, because the tagging must be done in iTunes anyway.

Isn't this a lot of work? Yes. The great thing is, it doesn't have to be done all at once. By allowing the smart playlist system to work to my advantage, I can go as fast, or as slow, as I like. I always have unrated music I can rate, at least for a while longer. I'm down to under 1000 tracks left to rate. On a good day, I can rate 100 tracks with little effort. Classifying can be done in batches. If I know some songs in the unclassified list I want in my slammin list, I just add the tags. I quickly classified a couple hundred songs into my slammin list to make it usable, so any additional work will enhance my experience. If I add a new CD to my collection, I can easily rate and classify it on the spot, and save the rest for later.

Obviously, I could go even further. If I had the years for all my music in the tags, I could easily make a 1980s favorites playlist. The techniques used above can be applied in many more ways, to allow you to make your iPod work the way YOU want it to.

So, in summary:
* Fix your genres so they make sense to you. * Make a "Music Only" smart playlist that will serve as the basis for all smart playlists you create
* Create smart playlists based on ratings, including an unrated playlist
* Synchronize playlists, rather than simply "checked music"
* Rate your music
* Categorize your music to match the way you listen. (hard, funky, easy, dance, crap, etc)
* Create smart playlists to use your categories
* Take some time to rate, and classify, as you can. Don't sweat it if you don't do it every day.

Oh, and one more thing. If you have an iPod and an iPhone, or multiple iPods, you can sync them all to the same music library by selecting which playlists you want to sync to each device. My iPod has most of my music on it, but when I have an iPhone, I may only want my Aardvark and Absolute playlists. More likely, I'll only have my Radio playlist, but that's just me.

The funny thing is, when I am driving to work and back, I'm usually listening to an audiobook.