Engineering and Trades Up, Banking Down

In the past few weeks, I've encountered numerous stories about increased hiring by corporate industry giants such as Seimens Technology and GE. At the same time, Bank of America, HSBC, and UBS are all announcing large scale layoffs over the next couple years. So, perhaps last decade's trend of the best and brightest math and science minds going into finance for a quick score has crested, and we may see a return to engineering colleges and a new rise in innovation. Additionally, the stories at Seimens and GE indicate that they are seeking skilled labor as well. That will mean a rising need for technical workers. It's doubtful that politicians and education leaders will have enough foresight to prime the pump for this growth. But I'm hoping.

Back in the Swing of Things

Today was the first day back for students .... and it only took a second for me to feel the energy and be ready for the year. This is the first year I am not teaching College Prep English to juniors - as I am now teaching our first dual-credit, or concurrent enrollment (CE), class offered in English. Seniors can now sign up to take Intro to College Composition and Intro to College Literature. They are required to take the Accu-Placer test to qualify for the college credit. And students are allowed to take the class even if they don't qualify for credit.

The CE model is long overdue, and I am excited to teach it. The class will enable students to receive credit at both the high school and a local community college at the same time. Thus, the model is similar to AP, but the students don't have to take the exam at the end of the year for credit. And, the credit is awarded automatically as long as the receive a C or better in the class. The credits must be accepted by any state university or college in Colorado, and should transfer to any schools which have reciprocity with Colorado.

Now, clearly these classes are not the rigor of my AP Language and Composition. But not many freshman comp classes in college meet the rigor of AP's curriculum. Thus, any student who can write well enough to earn credit at a state two-year or four-year college should be able to get the credit in high school. Overall, this approach is necessary and practical for the needs of many high school seniors.

Sandwich King Spreads the Love

The Food Network's Newest Star Jeff Mauro "The Sandwich King" premiered his new show this morning at 11:30, and he left no doubts about the judges decision last week to award Jeff with his own show. Presenting an engaging personality and quality recipes, Jeff effectively introduced his show by revealing the secrets of the perfect Chicago-style Italian beef sandwich. Flipping back and forth between his time in the studio kitchen and a feature trip to the Italian beef restaurant of his youth, Jeff's show was a lot of fun. Shooting on location from Johnny's Italian Beef in Elmwood Park, Illinois, Jeff introduced the idea of the sandwich with stories of visiting the shop after a day at his Chicago Catholic school. He explained the way the sandwich is prepared, as well as the atmosphere of the scene, with most people eating the sandwich standing up. I could practically smell the "juice" as Jeff took a trip to Italian beef nostalgia.

In the kitchen Jeff walked through the steps of recreating this Chicago staple at home by starting with a pot roast, and then cooking up a nice pepper and onion relish to put on top. As most people don't have a meat slicer at home, Jeff recommended the roast which could simply be pulled apart for the sandwich. While the roast was cooking Jeff also presented a unique creation he calls a Focaccianini = a panini sandwich using a nice mortadella, cheese, and homemade fig spread. Because he doesn't have a panini press in the kitchen (who does?), Jeff pressed the sandwich on a griddle with a bacon press. Great tip and amusing idea. I loved Jeff's description of the mortadella - "the rich man's baloney" - and his comment that every house should have a pound of it on hand. When the beef sandwich was ready, Jeff walked us through creating the au jus, or as Chicagoans call it, "the juice." The sandwich looked - and practically smelled - heavenly.

The Food Network has come a long, long way from the early days of single camera cooking lessons with simply a chef, a studio kitchen, and a recipe. In fact, there's ample evidence to the argument that the Food Network is producing some of the best television on the air today. Jeff's show neatly juxtaposed his work in the kitchen with a little slice of life with the visit to Johnny's. Additionally, the multi-camera editing and split screens created an entertaining montage of shots of Jeff cutting up and preparing the onions and peppers. It was a refreshing change from the often laborious shots of cook's cutting veggies and trying to fill the time with banter - not that stand-up specialist Jeff is ever at a loss for words. But, overall, the producers made some nice editing decisions in giving America its first "taste" of The Sandwich King.

Nice show, Jeff.

Sports & Energy Drink Stupidity

Sports and energy drinks are not a healthy choice. Sports and energy drinks do not "enhance performance." Sports and energy drinks have no business in the hands of children. Sports drinks are awful - and I am regularly shocked at how many American's are ignorantly "drinking the Kool-Aid" of the sports drink myth.

At a large baseball workout and practice session for my nine-year-old this morning, I was amazed and disturbed by the sheer numbers of children sipping Gatorade, Powerade, and energy drinks in between drills. The practice was at an indoor air-conditioned training facility, and no child ever ran more than about thirty yards. The rest of the time was spent on throwing mechanics, fielding drills, and hitting in batting cages. And, these kids were sucking down sports drinks. Worst of all, the parents are pushing it on these kids.

There is no situation I can imagine when children have gone through such a physically grueling workout that they need to "replace electrolytes" and sugars ... not to mention consume dyes and artificial colors and flavors. Gatorade was originally created for the Florida Gators because of the extreme fluid loss their practices and games. What is being sold today - often now containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of the original fructose or sucrose syrup - is nothing but chemically dyed and flavored sugar water. In practically any situation where children are exerting themselves, water is sufficient to replace fluid loss. For more intense workouts, athletes would better serve their bodies by eating an apple or banana - and maybe a complex protein like nuts - along with plenty of H2O after a workout.

Quick quiz: How much sugar does the body need on a daily basis? The answer is none. There is never a need for a person to ingest additional sugars. Thus, this misguided ignorant consumption of sports drinks is harming children more than helping them re-hydrate. Of course, the greater crime is the parents allowing their children to ingest energy drinks. The most disturbing example was the young player who was sipping a NOS-Grape "High Performance Energy Drink" during breaks. This insane-ly over-sugared stimulant contains carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, taurine (an amino acid used as a stimulant), L-carnitine (amino acid), caffeine (stimulant), inositol (a sugar ), ginseng (stimulant), sucralose (chlorinated sugar), and Red#40 and Blue#1 dyes. On the side of the can are the following words CAUTION: POWERFUL - Not recommended for children. Giving this drink to a child is a disturbing degree of negligence and downright stupidity on the part of this child's parents.

Granted, a number of kids like my son were simply taking a sip from the water fountain or simple water bottles when they were thirsty. Yet, the preponderance of kids sipping dyed, sugar water at a casual sports practice gives me little hope for the health of the average American.

Stop drinking this garbage.

Government and Jobs

I have to laugh at politicians - especially in the GOP - going back and forth about their beliefs regarding government and job creation. Half the time the political leaders - especially governors such as Rick Perry of Texas - are claiming they "created jobs," and the other half of the time they are claiming the government doesn't and can't create jobs. That latter position, of course, excludes all public service as well all the private sector jobs that come from government contracts, especially infrastructure spending.

Of course, the GOPers will respond that their create jobs by getting out of the way of the business sector. The reality is that policies can be more business friendly - as companies will seek incentives and subsidies to relocate or build a factory or train new workers, etc. However, as we've see over the last decade, a pro-business policy - especially tax and regulation policy - doesn't mean it's pro-jobs. In fact, corporate profits, executive pay, dividends, and cost cutting are proving that the new rule is "pro-business" often means job losses.

GE is moving thousands of jobs to China - even as the President has reached out to their leadership about creating jobs at home. Of course, GE's job is to make money, and they are free to do it wherever they can. Yet, if their policies have a negative on growth in the US and negatively impact American communities, we should not treat them so favorably. That's why I think any tax cut/deduction/rebate ought to be tied specifically to numbers of local jobs produced. If you cut jobs at home or locate them elsewhere, you lose the tax incentive.

Seems pretty obvious ... but I can already hear the pundits shouting it down.

Stock Market Yo-yo

And, of course, the stock market plummeted again today. Apparently investors are worrying about the possibility of another recession. So, they are selling stocks.

Could we simply ignore what the stock market is doing and simply focus on the issue of jobs. The US economy will not contract and slip into another recession as long as business owners start hiring - or at least stop laying people off. The economy is driven by consumer demand - and consumers only spend when the have money. So, if companies committed to maintaining employment levels and maintaining wages, consumers will continue to spend. That will, very simply, stave off any contraction in the economy.

If any business owner and investor is worried about a recession, he or she can simply not contribute to the problem by not cutting jobs or wages. He can contribute to the solution by hiring back some of the nine million people laid off since 2008.

OK?

Huntsman for GOP Presidency Nod

Watching the Republican debate last week, I was - like many voters - profoundly disappointed in the field .... with one exception. John Huntsman was the one candidate who came across as honest, forthright, and genuine. Unlike Michelle Bachman who "wished the United States had defaulted" or Newt Gingrich who was offended by questions about his record or Ron Paul who (God love him) simply misunderstands national economics in the twentieth century or Mitt Romney who seems to be running from his record and confused about who he is, John Huntsman is the one man who presented a practical and clearly stated philosophy and who is "standing by his record" and "running on his record."

Huntsman can honestly defend his support for the deficit reduction bill and TARP and the stimulus plan. He can openly acknowledge his support of cap and trade legislation on climate change - especially because he can point out it was the Heritage Institute's idea. He can stand by his position on civil unions - because even that should be seen as conservative. He can look at conservatives and say, "Hey, this was our idea" and it's still a good one even if the Democrats embraced it. That's the same thing Mitt Romney should have said about the individual mandate. Instead of running from it, he should have stood his ground and said, "Hey! This is a conservative idea. This started with the Heritage Institute. It's still a good idea - even if Obama adopted it."

So, as an unaffiliated independent - one who is moderate with a strong fiscal conservative foundation who has much to criticize about the Democrats at the federal level - I will say this: In a contest between Huntsman and Obama today, I would be likely to vote for Huntsman. In a race between Obama and anyone else on the stage, my vote would go with Obama running away. If the GOP really wanted to appeal to the independents, they'd go with someone like Huntsman - or Johnson out of New Mexico.

But they won't. So, at this point I am stuck with the Democrats.

NCAA Academic Standards

In a move that is either a late but much needed - or more likely a symbolic but meaningless - act of reform in the higher education field, the NCAA voted to raise the base academic standards that it requires for its athletes. The board implemented a tougher baseline standards for schools to remain eligible for post-season play. Though the plans are still broad and won't be fully enacted for three years, word is the new standards would have barred Ohio State from post-season play in recent years - and the move would also limit their scholarships.

This action is way overdue - and probably won't be that effective. But it may be progress. As I've argued before, it is absurd that the NCAA and associated schools can sign TV contracts for billions of dollars and then claim tax-exempt status because of "their educational mission." The idea that the University of Texas has an "educational mission" for its football and basketball players would be laughable - if it weren't so pathetic and corrupt.

Considering 95% of the NCAA athletes playing basketball and football will never play professionally, the educational mission must take precedence. For sports outside of the big two, the rate is 100%. Thus, it may be high time for higher education to start paying its dues in terms of the revenue it generates if it is not going to accomplish the basic task of providing an education.

Do Special Needs Need Vouchers

The battle over the proposed - and now suspended - voucher program in Douglas County, Colorado has generated some serious discussion about the needs of students and the right of choice in schools and how tax dollars are spent. As I've noted before, Douglas County struck some as an unusual place for a voucher program - as it is one of the richest counties in the USA, and it's students are not trying to escape failing schools. Thus, the issue is all about freedom of choice - though Colorado already has statewide open enrollment. Thus, the issue is really about using public dollars to choose a private and/or religious education. However, in the testimony for the district's plan, one interesting claim was made by a woman who claims her son's special needs require a private school. So, that's a new angle.

Resident Diane Oakley appealed to the district to pass this voucher plan because her son has special needs - Asperger's syndrome. Oakley claims she needs the voucher to pay the $17,000 tuition at a private school called Humanex Academy - as that is the school that can meet the needs of her son. I am curious about this assertion. As a public school teacher, I know that her son's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome qualifies him for special service under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thus, in Douglas County Schools, he would have a case manager and a specialized instruction program to assist him in fully accessing his right to a free and public education. Certainly, a well-funded school system like DC is going to have all the necessary support for students with special needs. And, if a public school cannot provide for a students needs under the law, families can file suit for additional support. Thus, I am wondering why this parent believes that only this private school can meet her son's needs.

Over the years I have had numerous students with Asperger's Syndrome, as well as numerous other conditions such as ADD, ADHD, anxiety disorder, sensory processing syndromes, etc. At every school I know, there are qualified personal to assist students with these struggles. I've had students with these conditions - including Asperger's - in my basic level classes that have been team taught, and I've had them in my honors and AP classes. Thus, I have no doubt that public schools - especially high quality schools like DC - can provide every angle of support to assist students in accessing their education. However, occasionally parents will feel like their child needs even more than the school provides. At those times, students do pursue private alternatives. However, that decision is personal, and I'm not sure the public schools have to support that perspective. Certainly, any parents can file with districts if they believe that the school can't provide for a legally recognized disability.

Thus, the idea of a voucher being necessary for special needs students is questionable in my opinion.

The Next Food Network Star

In the most exciting, competitive, and entertaining season yet of the Food Network's reality TV challenge to be the next "Food Network Star," the title of rising star on the Food TV scene went to Jeff Mauro. Jeff beat out eleven other competitors in a weekly test of food skills and camera challenges to earn his own show on the Food Network. Jeff created a compelling and marketable vision as "The Sandwich Guy," and his consistent commitment to that vision throughout the competition is what solidified the win for him. From his top notch cooking flair as an executive chef to his engaging stand-up comedy persona, Jeff proved to have what numerous judges and panels throughout the show deemed "star quality."

Though I don't watch a lot of TV - especially reality TV competitions - I truly enjoy the high quality lifestyle programming that is the trademark of the Food Network. Thus, last year on vacation my family became engrossed in the weekly Sunday night food cook-offs that led to Arti Sequeria winning the title of Food Network Star. Her show Arti party is still running on Sunday mornings. This year's competition was engaging from the start with quality cooks and dramatic personality clashes. But, ultimately, it was Jeff's skill and charm that earned him victory. From the beginning, my wife and I had pegged Jeff and other finalist Suzie as the two people we wanted - and expected - in the finals. We were not disappointed. Suzie was a great competitor and truly deserved to go as far as she did - but there was no doubt that Jeff was the next Food Network Star.

If you haven't yet checked out the show that launched the career of Diners, Drive-in, & Dives star Guy Fieri, you missed the exciting run of the Food Network's next great personality - Jeff Maruo, The Sandwich Guy. Jeff's show airs next Sunday morning, and it will contain his trademark line - "You're only a couple steps away from turning any sandwich into a meal, and any meal into a fantastic sandwich."

Congratulations, Jeff. Can't wait to see your show.

Paying College Football Players is Absurd

Denver Post sports columnist Mark Kiszla hit the "debt ceiling" of absurdity in today's Sunday commentary by asserting college athletes should receive a stipend. Acknowledging the situation of the Ohio State player selling his ring for money, Kizla interviewed two Bronco's players - Hall of Famer Floyd Little and second round draft pick Von Miller. Little completely opposed the idea, while Miller allegedly said a stipend "would be nice." Ultimately, Kizla's piece goes completely over the top with some of his reasoning. The image of players begging for $20 to get a haircut after having $20000 - $50000 in bills comp-ed is beyond reason.

The obvious response to Kizla's defense of these poor, struggling football players is: Where the heck are the kids' parents? What is their responsibility for making sure their child can get a haircut, go to the movies, and have a snack - especially after other citizens have foot the bill for their kids education. Kiz naively assumes all college football players are poverty-stricken refugees from public housing. Then, he features Von Miller who grew up with middle class parents who are small business owners. After getting a free ride from tuition, Dad can pony up for a Von's haircuts and movies. Can you imagine how much the Miller's grocery bill dropped while Texas A&M was feeding and housing him for four years?

Kiszla also assumes the Ohio State player who sold his ring needed the $8000 for haircuts - rather than beer money and club cover charges. When I was a student at the University of Illinois, I knew more than a dozen Illini players. None were hurting for money on the weekends. As a high school teacher, I've had dozens of students go on to play college sports, including football and basketball. None had trouble with daily living expenses.

Playing college football is not a job, and these players are already being compensated. They not only get a free education and a reasonably comfortable living situation, but they are given a free opportunity to compete on a national stage for millions of future earnings. Once they make those millions, do any feel a responsibility to pay back the university for spotting them? Of course not. They use the university as much as the university uses them. And if anyone is going to pay a stipend for these kids, it shouldn't be the colleges footing yet another bill. If Von Miller and his NFL buddies think it "would be nice" for players to get a stipend, maybe they can create a charity fund from their signing bonuses. At this point, Von could sponsor quite a few players for $300 a month.

The idea that these players deserve a monthly paycheck is unsupportable. The belief that they need it because they can't afford a haircut is downright outrageous.

Douglas County Vouchers Unconstitutional

The Denver District Court has pulled the plug on the controversial voucher program that was implemented by the Douglas County School District in Colorado earlier this year. In a 68-page rule Judge Michael Martinez ruled that the program - which allowed a percentage of district funds to be used by students for private schools - violated Colorado's Constitution which specifically prohibits any use of public funds from supporting religious schools. Thus, the 304 students who had applied for - and received a portion of - a voucher of roughly $4,000 will not be able to proceed in their plans to attend a school other than a public school on the taxpayer's dime. The suit was filed by, among others, the ACLU and a group of Douglas County residents who opposed the program.

The program raised intense debate over the last year as proponents argued from freedom of choice on the parts of parents - who are taxpayers - and opponents who argued it violates the law. To be clear, Colorado's state Constitution does, in fact, literally forbid the use of public funds for religious schools. Thus, this is not simply a debate over whether the US Constitution literally or figuratively creates a "separation of church and state." Additionally, this case tested boundaries precisely because of the socioeconomic status of the students involved. Generally, vouchers have been proposed to help poor students escape struggling schools. However, Douglas County is the sixth wealthiest county in the nation, and its schools are not in any way struggling. Well, that's not true - they are struggling for money in one of the most tax-averse parts of the country. But the quality of the education is not in dispute. It's merely the freedom of choice.

As I've noted before, I am not completely rigid in my opposition to the use of vouchers. For me, education reform is all about whatever works. To that I would assert that Douglas County schools are, in fact, working. Yet, I do believe in freedom of choice - though Colorado schools do have open enrollment laws that apply statewide. And, I won't dispute that school reform darling Finland uses a voucher-style system. So, this particular program is awkward for a variety of reasons - and I don't support change for change sake or the idea that freedom and taxpayers' rights know no bounds. Thus, my gut overall is that this program is unnecessary and not in the best interest of public education or education reform. Supreme Court, get ready.

For the most part, the students were choosing religious schools, which clearly and literally violates Colorado's state Constitution. However, some parents filed for the money because they claim their child's special needs require a private school. That's a discussion for a later post.

Care About America? Buy American

Apparently, ABC News and Diane Sawyer have keyed in on the idea that one of America's biggest problems is that Americans don't buy products made in America .... and, of course, America doesn't make enough products. In a recent report, Sawyer explained that if Americans simply focused on making sure that they shifted their spending by $20 week to specifically buy American products, the result would lead to the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Certainly, choosing to buy American is not a bad idea. And, it's not that difficult.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. That's why I have never owned one of them "foreign" cars. Every car I've bought from the time I was sixteen has been a Ford, Chevy, or GMC. And, of course, I hear a lot of the flak from other consumers about the superior quality of German or Japanese cars - but I don't buy it. And, don't try to explain that your Honda Civic was "made in America." If it's not an Ford, Chevy, or GM, then the profits are going abroad, and it's not helping the American economy. I apply the same logic to food purchases as often as I can. When my family goes out, we often do so in my own town. When I fill my tank, it is always in Greenwood Village. Whenever I can buy produce at a farmers market, I do so. It helps the local economy - and the local tax base.

Thus, my conclusion is that if any American voter out there is truly concerned about the state of our economy or debt or deficit or unemployment, then he should make a concerted effort to by American and buy all natural and local whenever he can.

Scarborough Tells It Like It Is

Whenever people wonder how I can claim to be a conservative - or how I could vote for the GOP - I could simply point to someone like Joe Scarborough. The amicable, pragmatic, and wise host of the show Morning Joe is precisely the type of moderate conservative that I support - and he represents the GOP I used to believe in. If Joe Scarborough were running for office in my district, I'd campaign for him, and if he were running for President, I'd feel great about the future. Joe Scarborough is quite simply a pragmatic and rational conservative who puts the American people above politics. He did it in Congress, and he continues to promote that view as a commentator. And he's got moxie to go with his political insight. Here's a little of that Joe Scarborough snap:

"Michele Bachmann's first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost--some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way...they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines...Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke...Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again."

Tell it like it is, Joe.

Sit-com Community is a Great Find

Last spring two freshman boys in my Honors English 9 class recommended that I watch the new sitcom Community which recently finished its second season. As I don't generally watch much prime-time television - and I find most sitcoms these days mind-numbingly bland - I was unfamiliar with the show. However, the boys insisted that I would like it. Their argument centered around how much each episode derives from allusions to contemporary pop culture - especially from the 1980s. Because I was impressed with my students understanding of allusion - and awareness of it in this show - I recently rented the first season. And, I was not disappointed.

Community represents all that can be great about television and specifically about the sitcom. The premise of the show is a study group from an introductory Spanish class at a community college which seems to be somewhere in California. The group consists of six community college students - but the initial focus was on lead character Jeff Winger - who is a disbarred lawyer returning to college for a degree after his initial bachelor's was discovered to be falsified. Jeff - incredibly smart, witty, and superficially jaded but with a heart of gold - forms the study group in order to get in the pants of tough girl Britta Perry. The rest of the group coalesces out of random associations - and the dysfunction is hilarious. Without getting into story lines, suffice it to say, each episode brings a new challenge for the group that starts small but eventually envelops all characters and their unique situations.

It's been a while since I've seen a show this intelligent and wacky at the same time - reminds me of early Scrubs or early Spin City. And the allusions which were mentioned by my students are the key to the brilliance. This satire of contemporary American pop culture, viewed through the lens of the the industry that has grown out of higher education, is insightful social commentary - and it's probably one of the best shows on TV right now.

Check it out.

S&P Blames GOP

Interesting insight in a quote from the S&P Ratings Board on why they downgraded US Treasury debt - "Compared with previous projections, our revised base scenario now assumes the 2001/03 tax cuts, due to expire, now remain in place. We have changed our assumptions because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenue."

Strangely, that hasn't been getting much press. I would have guessed the liberal media would have heavily promoted that. And, it looks like a moot point anyway, because in the sell-off investors continued to go to T-bills, even though other countries still have AAA-ratings. Guess we still are the big dog. At least the market got up today and regained some sanity. Overall, the Dow has way too much influence on our psyche anyway. Even as the market moves along - fast or slow - wild swings in daily trading bring about talk of doom and gloom. And even as the Dow was rising the last two years and companies were posting record profits - which in turn drove up their stock prices - unemployment and the misery index remained high.

Thus, I am curious the proposal to put a minor - like .0025% - tax on stock transactions? Some are proposing it as a way to cut down on speculation and the wild swings in the market. It could raise some revenue at the same time it regulates the uncertainty. Ultimately, it'll be a no-go - but it's a reasonable idea.

T-Bills and the "Full Faith and Credit" of the USA

Wow!

How about that market play yesterday and today?

Isn't it fascinating that yesterday, amidst all the hysteria, investors sought refuge in T-Bills ... still ... even when returns went slightly negative for a short time?

Do you think that will convince radical pundits, extreme think tanks, and truly naive congressman to never, ever, ever f*%# around with the "full faith and credit" of the United States government again?

I would certainly hope so - but I doubt it.

Are Taxes Wrong?

One of my favorite bloggers, Darren at RightOnTheLeftCoast, occasionally posts about how the safety net programs of the US government are not Christian. In this post, which links to an article of similar mindset, he argues it again. If you check the comments, you'll see Darren and I have hashed this out on various occasions, and we simply disagree. However, I am somewhat baffled by his line of thought in some areas.

For example, I am curious about his occasional references to taxes as money "taken forcibly" or under the "threat of violence." This sentiment has been voiced by longtime TeachersView commenter Steven, who opposes all taxes - and pretty much all government - on the basis that it stems from threats of violence and confiscation. In his recent post, Darren says taxes and social programs are "not Christian" and other times he's said taxes, because they are taken against some citizen's wills are "not moral." I am wondering about the issue of taxes and morality.

Of course, Darren argues it's not Christian for the confiscated money to be given to the poor. Is it then also "not Christian" and "immoral" to use that money to inflict violence against other nations and peoples? Is using tax money to fight wars that not all people support wrong? Immoral? Un-Christian? Or are we just picking and choosing what we think is OK to use that "forcibly taken" money?

Darren also wondered what the Pope would say about taxes and social programs in terms of morality and Christianity. The pope has publicly condemned the War on Terror. So, clearly, using taxes to fund that would seemingly be un-Christian - especially since man was called upon by Christ to "turn the other cheek." However, the Pope hasn't publicly condemned "taxes" or "Social Security" or "unemployment compensation" or "food stamps." And, of course, Christ never said that "individuals" should be charitable but governments shouldn't. He made no distinction. I have a hard time believing that Christ would have admonished the Roman government if it had a safety net. He said pay your taxes.

Are taxes, as I believe Darren is arguing, immoral? If so, is by nature the Constitution immoral. For one of the first and primary powers given to the government in the Constitution is the authority to "levy taxes." The people went a step further with an amendment to specifically "levy taxes" on income. Thus, the authority to collect taxes is a founding tenant of the Constitution. And, as I've argued before, Christ had no opposition to taxes. Though he did exhort corrupt tax collectors to not take more than was due.

Just wondering.

Artistic License and the Disappointing Harry Potter Conclusion

*SPOILER ALERT*

Movies are rarely - or so rarely to mean never - better than the books. The only two major films that I recall being better than the book from which they are derived are Dances With Wolves and The Godfather. Thus, I had no great hope for a truly masterful final movie in the Harry Potter saga - one which honored and satisfactorily concluded the story. None of the previous films impressed me much - and some, like Goblet of Fire with a strangely aggressive and menacing Dumbledore, really disappointed me. Yet, I went to see the final installment of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - and I felt somewhat flat afterward.

I just don't understand the artistic license that the screenwriter and directors of the Harry Potter films have taken with the story. Why do they change scenes for seemingly inexplicable reasons? Why do they think they can tell a better story? Why does Rowling agree to such changes. Why? Of course, I understand some of the justifications. Some scenes simply don't translate well onto the screen - some scenes are too expensive or not visual enough. Sometimes directors want just a little more action - and sometimes they just want to make the product their own (even though it isn't).

But what was up with that final battle? How disappointing. Why were Voldemort and Snape in the boathouse (?) instead of the Shrieking Shack? Why wasn't Nagini balled up and protected in the giant orb? What was up with Snape crying his memories into tears? These sort of minor changes just make no sense - and some come across as actually quite stupid.

Why was final battle during the day? And why were Harry and Voldemort fighting outside - and all around - Hogwarts? And what the heck was that flying dive off the tower? What did Harry say - something about "ending as it began?" Whatever. And when Harry and Voldemort both hit the ground, how does it make sense that they crawl and struggle for their wands. Accacio wand, anyone? Voldemort crawls for his wand? Really? What the ...? Ultimately, that final battle between Harry and Voldemort was epic in the book - and as bland as any Tom-Cruise-movie-fight in the film. Boring. Boring. Borrr .....

The final conversation between Harry and Dumbldore was so pivotal and emotional in the book - and it left me quite flat in the movie. Thus, I walked away from the saga feeling a bit let down. And, of course, I haven't watched most of the movies for all the same reason. Yet, I did have hope - and it wasn't terrible. Just not all that great.

I am, of course, a traditionalist and a purist, meaning I don't really like change that much. Especially change for change's sake. I guess it's the conservative in me.

Borders Closing and the New Economy

The somewhat surprising - and disheartening to book lovers - failure of Borders Books to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy represents a bellwether of the new economy as a result of the creative destruction that comes from improvements in technology. The failure of this business wasn't about corporate taxes or the national debt or a decline in literacy habits or poor management decisions. It was bound to happen the minute Amazon arrived on the scene - and Congress exempted online retailers from any state taxes where they didn't have a physical presence. Ultimately, brick and mortar retailers face an incredible challenge to compete against companies with much lower cost overhead - or underfoot as the case may be.

The closing of the Borders simply represents a new direction in a new economy that has yet to really define itself. Who knows what the landscape is going to look like as companies like Amazon continue to take more of the retail effort? Who knows where the people who worked at Borders are going to work? Who knows how an entire corporate structure simply vanishes and leaves in its wake a group of people and a pile of assets that must be reapportioned around the economy?

Even now as Congress begins serious discussion of a national solution to the online retail tax issue, the economy is unfolding and redefining itself. It is going to be uncomfortable and confusing and messy, but it is the new face of the retail world.

Debt Ceiling Referendum

Well, I did my part.

Yesterday I called my senators and congressman and informed them of my desires as a voter in regards to the debt ceiling hike and deficit reduction plans being debated in Congress. At heart, I am worried about a government default and the loss of our AAA-rating - which is probably a lost cause at this point. Thus, like a majority of Americans I simply want a deal done, and I expect that it include a plan for long-term spending cuts. At the same time I am not opposed to revenue increases - though I would prefer them to come through the end of some deductions and subsidies, rather than any rate increases. In fact, the 2001/03 tax cuts will expire next year anyway, so there is no need to do anything with rates right now. The one thing that needs to be done is the debt ceiling needs to be raised - and it should be raised by at least $2 trillion to prevent another crisis just around the corner.

One idea that I proposed to my representatives is that a deal should simply be made to increase the debt ceiling devoid of any other plan. This plan would be intended to simply alleviate the immediate fiscal crisis and then set up the debt ceiling issue as a referendum in 2012. Make next year's election a referendum on the debt ceiling. I am sure President Obama and the Democrats would be willing to accept this deal. And many pragmatic Republicans probably would, too. The problem is GOP members who fear such a compromise in their next primaries. That is really sad. They believe that absolute rigidity on taxes is the only way they can survive challenges from their own party and their own voting base. Reagan would be saddened by such intransigence.

The reality is that the debt ceiling absolutely and unequivocally must be raised, now. And any sort of crisis is being created by people who refuse to accept that reality.

Freedom from Pledges

Have to admit I heard a valid point from Bill Mahr the other night.

Politicians who sign pledges are sacrificing the very freedom they tout as the foundation of this country. Thus, the pledge that Grover Norquist and his gang have used to tie the hands of GOP candidates in Congress over taxes has actually stripped them of their freedom to vote their consciences or adapt to each and every unique situation.

Pledges are for wimps who are afraid to stand on their own.

Debt Ceiling Absurdity

OK, now I am officially nervous about this impasse on raising the debt ceiling.

A majority of Americans in countless polls want debt and deficit reduction. A similar majority want it without cuts to Social Security or Medicare. And a similar majority want the deficit and debt reduction to come from a mix of spending cuts - though where is the question - and, AND, tax increases. Yet, we are at a stalemate because the GOP leadership appears just crazier enough to risk worldwide economic calamity and a staggering unprecedented default on the most trusted debt in the world simply because they won't agree to any, ANY, tax increase. Even a tax increase that is matched three-to-one on spending cuts. A majority of Americans want this as the plan, a majority of Americans simply want the deal done, nearly all interested parties from the Chamber of Commerce to the ratings agencies say this is the only answer. And, yet, the GOP balks.

I am nervous, and this is a damn shame.

Unemployment from Convenience

On a recent trip to the city of Chicago, I encountered two situations which clarified the idea of creative destruction and its role in unemployment. We decided to enjoy a day at the races, so a trip to Arlington Park Race Track was in order. And I realized how long it has been since I went to the track when I ran in to trouble trying to place a bet. The problem? No cashiers.

The clerks at the betting windows have been replaced by computerized machines where you insert some cash and push a few buttons for the bet. And it was actually kind of complicated ... and you get a voucher for any money you don't spend .... and you can't ask any questions or get any feedback on how to make various bets ... and it was a bit disappointing. How many people lost their jobs for the convenience of computerized betting?

The unemployment became more clear on a trip into the city when I visited one the numerous city parking garages. There is not a clerk to be found. And that is quite frustrating when I pulled into the wrong garage and attempted to turn around. The machine wouldn't let me out for less than fourteen dollars .... after turning around thirty seconds after entering the garage. Who are you going to appeal to? No cops, no attendants, no cashiers. I wonder how many city attendants have been laid off.

Of course, that's the nature of creative destruction. And I'm sure these people who formerly had jobs took advantage of their unemployment to return to school for graduate degrees or, better yet, probably went out and started their own businesses.

Now, do I think the race track or city owed these people jobs for life? No. But is this sort of automation part of our problem? Oh yeah.

Thoughts?

No Hiring Not about Govt

Well, it's official. Even the Wall Street Journal is arguing that the stagnant employment numbers have everything to do with a lack of consumer demand. Well, duh. Businesses hire when business expands and they need to produce more product and/or service. Period. It's, for the most part, that simple.

Yet, for the same twisted ideological reasons that influence most of their naivete about the economy, many "conservatives" argue that business are simply uncertain about government policies and taxes - so they are delaying hiring.

Yeah, right.

As if a business would turn down increased commerce and orders resulting from demand because they are worried about taxes going up. It's supply and demand, people. And demand impacts hiring. That's the way it works.

Great Resort in the Perfect Mountain Town

I love Breckenridge, Colorado.

I mean I know we all do - but for me I think it goes beyond that. Since moving to Colorado eight years ago, Breckenridge has been my family's choice to celebrate the Fourth of July holiday. From its festive parade and run/bike race activities to the kids water fight courtesy of the fire department to coffee and pie at Clint's to wading in the river all afternoon to the free concert and fireworks on the Town Center lawn, an Independence Day in Breckenridge is a truly wonderful experience.

Each year, we drive up for the day and then head back down the mountain with the crowds. This year we decided to stay for a couple days and check out a time-share opportunity at the new Grand Lodge of Peak 7. Having toured it a bit last summer after eating at Sevens Restaurant, we conceded to take a closer look at the resort - and, alas, we became time share owners in Breckenridge. Despite never believing that we could, should, or would buy a place in Breck, the Grand Lodge enabled us to take our first step to becoming more regular visitors and potential long-term residents of Colorado's perfect mountain town.

In addition to having a week-long stay at a great mountain resort in one of my favorite parts of the world, being owners at the Grand Lodge offers us opportunities to use the resort any time we take a day trip to Breck, as well as providing great discount prices for stays outside of our normal time slot. The prices beat any other accommodations we would find in the area, and we're paying less for a condo suite than we would for a hotel room. Additionally, because Breckenridge is such a desirable vacation destination, we have some great bartering room to exchange our time for any of 2,600 resorts worldwide. That seems like a deal we will most likely take, considering we can access rooms at the resort for great prices anyway.

Thus, if you happen to be in Colorado, I highly recommend taking advantage of a great deal to stay two nights in Breck and tour the fabulous accommodations and vacation living at the Grand Lodge of Peak 7.

Haters on My Tax Argument

As you can probably imagine, the email responses to my article on taxes in Colorado were heated. Sadly, many people felt that because I am an English teacher, I have no right to voice an opinion about tax policy - or that my argument could have merit. Many called me a "union thug," though I am not in a union. Others charged me with corrupting the youth with liberal propaganda - though my piece was in a newspaper and not even during the school year. The reality is I made a simple argument about one temporary tax increase proposal and its effect on Colorado.

I wonder if any people bothered to read the study commissioned by the CSPR whose findings I challenged I read the study. I also called the economist and quizzed him on his conclusions for more than an hour. The "economist" predicted that this 0.5% income tax increase and 0.1% sales tax increase - for an expiring limited three-year window - will cause thousands of wealthy Coloradans to literally pack up and leave the state. Do you seriously believe that? He extrapolated their exodus - including any businesses and personal money they spend - to have a subsequent effect of additional tens of thousands of job losses. Do you seriously believe that? If so, then we can dispense with much conversation - because it is an absurd conclusion that thousands of Coloradans will move out of state to avoid these minor taxes that expire in three years.

I challenged the "study" by the CSPR precisely because of the lack of causation that it was "a proven job killer. This point which was conceded to me by the economist when, after reading the actual study, I called him and had an hour-long conversation with him. During this conversation, he acknowledged my point about the lack of causation. He could, in fact, provide no justification in terms of his algorithms, and he backed away from the assertions made by the CSPR. Thus, I'm pretty confident in my criticism of the study.

After my research, I composed my credible argument by citing specific facts about economic growth and taxes during the past forty years. As I noted in my commentary, tax policy cannot be expected to influence the economy in any predictable way. Case in point about those most responsible for stimulating the economy - In 2004, corporations were given a one-year tax amnesty program to repatriate billions of cash reserves held abroad with the expectation that they would "stimulate the economy" by hiring people. Pfizer brought home more than a billion dollars, and then proceeded to cut 10,000 jobs in the next two years. That was two years before the '08 meltdown. GE did the same thing. They dropped their tax burden to effectively zero and cuts thousands of jobs. After the recent 66% tax increase in Illinois, United Airlines moved 1300 back home to Chicago - many came from their offices in "no-tax" Houston. It's not so simple - and thus my point about a lack of causation is pretty indisputable. Wouldn't you agree?

Colorado is not heading the same way as California or Illinois with a modest and expiring tax increase - for our government spending is still quite limited, and no one in the GOP could identify cuts. Thus, I ask my critics: where are your facts? What is your model? Where is the causation? We can go tit-for-tat on states that add and cut jobs, but as I argued very effectively, that is a fallacy about correlation and causation. The economy is far more complex, and you can't count on companies to hire simply because taxes are low - or stop hiring if they go up. It doesn't work that way. Thus, voters and politicians should consider the needs of the community and stop trying to play the "grow the economy" game.

I made a basic argument about how an incredibly small sales and income tax increase for a couple years in Colorado won't cause a determined number of job losses - especially a 150,000. I stand by my assertion.

GOP is Not Normal

David Brooks points out some depressing absurdities among that GOP in its approach - or lack of one - to the debt ceiling talks.

Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.

Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way.

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

And then there is this - which is exactly what I argued in my last piece of commentary in the Post:

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

These harsh realities are what make it so difficult for rational and pragmatic moderates and independents to support the GOP these days. This ideological rigidity - one which has basically made the Republican Party subservient to the demands of one man named Grover Norquist - is not good for America. While it is easy to simply criticize spending and cross their arms over their chests about taxes, the GOP leadership is ignoring the role of governing. The government needs to govern - not refuse to do anything.

Taxes Don't Cause Job Losses

In response to a recent "study" about taxes and jobs in Colorado, I composed the following piece of commentary, which was featured today in the Denver Post.

Let’s be clear: taxes have one purpose – funding government responsibilities. Period. Taxes aren’t meant to manipulate the economy or employment, and don’t reliably impact either. Thus, Colorado voters shouldn’t try predicting potential job gains/losses from the small, temporary sales and income tax increase proposed by Senator Rollie Heath. Despite warnings from some conservative groups, tax rates don’t influence job choices or migration for average Americans.

When I relocated my family to Colorado from Illinois, the primary reasons were lifestyle – outdoor living, great schools, and cultural experiences. So, while statistics indicate we moved from a high-tax to a low-tax state, taxes had nothing to do with our decision. In fact, as I consider the migrations of many former Illinois residents I know in Colorado, the reasons were education, employment, and lifestyle. Taxes were never a factor.

Recently, the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, a local think tank, published a study warning of job losses in Colorado if Senator Heath’s proposal succeeds. However, the conclusions are hardly definitive. Voters should remember that correlation doesn’t equal causation, and the CSPR study proved no causation between tax increases and job losses. Illinois passed a 66% income tax increase last year, yet its unemployment figures are comparable to Colorado’s. Florida and Nevada, with no state income tax, are in worse shape. Additionally, studies confirm that infrastructure and education spending are far more significant in business location than tax rates. Thus, Colorado could see more growth by sustaining its infrastructure and schools than by cutting funding.

In a desire to connect low taxes and economic growth, many conservative pundits praise low-tax Texas for leading the nation in job growth. Actually, it leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs with no benefits, as well as the percentage of children without health insurance. Texas has one of the worst education records, its unemployment numbers are rising, and it’s facing a $20 billion deficit. Even when jobs and population grow, a myriad of factors are involved. Texas, for example, has lower property values and cost of living, and much of its growth is linked to oil reserves.

Economic systems are far more complex than any single tax rate, and voters are naïve to think otherwise. The Bush tax cuts produced a “jobless” recovery and no net job growth after a decade. By contrast, Clinton’s tax hike coincided with America’s greatest economic expansion. Neither situation resulted from tax policy. The 1980s saw two tax cuts and six tax increases. Yet, drops in inflation, interest rates, and oil prices predominantly influenced the decade’s growth. And the Reagan Era also saw a Wall Street meltdown, a housing bubble, a major banking scandal, and a subsequent recession. Clearly, tax policy was not the primary factor of these events.

Voters should make tax policy decisions based on one priority – the needs of the community. Colorado’s strained state budget resulted from revenue drops – not out-of-control spending. In fact, in the last gubernatorial election, Republican candidates couldn’t identify any specific cuts to the Colorado budget, despite repeated media requests. In reality, Colorado’s modest government requires more revenue to meet its communities’ needs. In this regard, Senator Heath’s minor tax increase is actually quite pragmatic precisely because it expires, allowing time for economic recovery. By maintaining well-funded schools, Colorado can continue to promote itself as a great place to relocate businesses and families.

Despite the wishes of conservative groups, government cannot cease functioning when the economy struggles. Regardless of Wall Street drops or rising unemployment, children still go to school, crimes still occur, roads still wear down. Natural forces don’t wait for good economic times, and nature doesn’t limit snowfall based on budget projections. So, even in a downturn the forest department might need more funds for firefighting or CDOT might need more funds for plowing and repairs. In fact, when the economy tanks, the government often needs to sustain spending until the private sector rebounds.

Despite the ideology of groups like the CSPR, tax policy doesn’t drive the economy. And in reviewing predictions about job growth from the economist commissioned by the CSPR, voters should recall the tongue-in-cheek wisdom of Nobel-prize winning economist Paul Samuelson – “Economists have successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions.”

The ideological debate about taxes and economic growth is not going to end - I'm just seeking to promote reasoned and well-informed discussion.

Debt Ceiling Is Unconstitutional?

This week's edition of Time Magazine posed some interesting issues for discussion about the wording of the Constitution. Perhaps nothing was more interesting than a rather simple comment about the national debt, the debt ceiling talks, and the 14th Amendment. Now, it seems the issue is gaining some serious attention. In a few words, according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, "The validity of the public debt, as authorized by law ... shall not be questioned."

The Constitutional scholars could - and probably will - analyze this for years. But, the members of Congress better start wrestling with it now. For, if the administration suspects in any way that these debt ceiling talks are putting the country's fiscal integrity at risk, they may decide the conflict necessitates bold action - that is, declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and proceeding to finance the debt without congressional approval. For those who favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution - and yes that means the Tea Party - it is tough to argue that the government should be limited in any way to accumulate and finance existing debt. Period. Thus, in one reading of the Amendment, this debt ceiling discussion is over.

Time posed the idea that the United States defaulting on its debt is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. The Atlantic Monthly argued last month that the entire concept of the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. The Huffington Post has picked up on the story, and provides some interesting historical context - especially the Supreme Court case of Perry vs. the United States in 1935. Then the Court ruled - setting precedent - that Congress does not have the authority to default on the government's debt. Thus, they have no Constitutional choice but to raise the debt ceiling.

The discussion and threats and posturing and hullabaloo about the debt ceiling need to cease. The government needs to pay its bills, and if doing so requires borrowing more money until revenue goes up or spending goes down, the Constitution seems clear. Pay the bills. Eliminate the debt ceiling.

Bobby Flay & Bachelor Degrees

While watching the Food Network's show "Next Food Network Star" this week, I heard Bobby Flay casually make a very interesting comment. In discussing one of the finalists who is a high school dropout, Bobby said, "I stopped going to high school after my freshman year." Hmmmm. Yet another tremendously successful skilled service worker and entrepreneur who did not finish high school ... who did not go to college ... who did not need a bachelor's degree.

The story on Bobby is that he dropped out of high school after his freshman year - or at the age of seventeen, the details are unclear - and went straight to work. He began working in restaurants, supposedly working in a Baskin-Robbins and a pizza parlor. After that rough start, he began working at a restaurant in New York's Theater District, where his dad was a partner. Impressed with Bobby Flay, the owner paid for Bobby's tuition to the French Culinary Institute. From there Bobby began an impressive career in the culinary arts that has led to worldwide success and fame with ten restaurants bearing his name. He also secured a job on the fledgeling Food Network, clearly revealing his skill in front of the camera as well as behind the service counter.

Yet another American success story on a young man who did not fit our traditional education paradigm, but had great promise and success based on skills not measured by ACTs or state tests. I'd like to see more support in schools for people like Bobby Flay.

The 8:00 Bedtime

Parents today don't value bedtime enough.

The benefits of getting "enough sleep" are indisputable. From health to grades to attitude and general happiness, we need to get a good night sleep. And our children need it as much as anyone. Thus, my wife and I have always committed to consistent and early bedtimes for our children. And that doesn't change just because the sun is setting later or school is out. OK, it changes a little. But for the most part, my elementary age children are in bed by 8:00 with the lights off during the school year - regardless of weekday or weekend. Come summer, we extend the evening a bit, though they are never up past 9:00.

Children benefit from consistent schedules, and meals and bedtimes are probably the most important. Too many children never know exactly when dinner will be on the table, and bedtime is often whenever they decide to go - often that is after the movie is over. Occasionally, kids in the neighborhood will ask why my children come in and go to bed when it is "still light outside." Interestingly, my kids never ask this. Explaining to other kids that healthy bedtimes are linked to the clock, not the sun, really means nothing to them. But, that's no matter. Ultimately, my kids live rather healthy and happy lives, and my wife and I deal with far less drama from our kids than many I know.

OK, lights out.

Experience, Knowledge ... or Not

So, what is it going to be? Do we demand that politicians - especially the President - have experience running a business before they are "qualified" to lead the Executive Branch? I am tiring of the critics who trash a politician with a weak straw man argument by saying, "He's never run a business or hired people, so he's not qualified to be a political leader." Because if that is the case, then Warren G. Harding and Jimmy Carter were great choices as Presidents. Except they weren't. Often critics make loopholes if the candidate has been a governor ... but what about candidates for governor. Do they need to have experience "running a business" or "hiring people" or "creating a payroll"?

Do people need to have personal or business experience with every issue before they are allowed to have an opinion on that issue? Occasionally, when making an argument about taxes and society or unemployment, some annoying and rather obtuse thinkers will ask me, "What experience do you have running a business? How do you know how tax cuts/increases will affect hiring?" And, of course, my answer is knowledge, not experience. If you get asked that question, here are a couple follow-ups:

You're probably not a climate scientist, but I bet you have an opinion on global warming. You're not one of our military leaders, but you have an opinion on how and if to fight a war. You've got no experience in counter-terrorism, but you've got an opinion on how to win the "War on Terror." You're not an economist, but you have an opinion about supply, demand, business cycles, and taxes. You're not a constitutional scholar, but you have an opinion on the document and what it means in American history. You're not a teacher or an administrator or child psychologist, but you have an opinion on how to "fix our schools." You're not a doctor or a nurse, but you've logged on to WebMD and diagnosed yourself. You've never had a weight problem, but you have an opinion on how others should deal with theirs. You're not a lawyer or a judge, but you decide innocence or guilt after watching three minutes of the nightly news.

Few of us are experts in anything, and few have experience with everything. Yet, we can all be informed voters. And obtuse, thickheaded ideologues who disagree really piss me off sometimes.

Privacy versus Anonymity

The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on the rights of individuals to be anonymous on the internet - namely when posting critical views. Some companies want the right to identify detractors, and, in many ways defend themselves against libelous but anonymous comments. Critics of the companies claim that identifying the names is an infringement on freedom of speech. I'm not so sure I agree.

The anonymous quality of the internet has always bothered me for a variety of reasons. Everything I post on the internet - every comment I make anywhere in society - has my name and face attached to it. For that reason, I am accountable for what I say. And I never put anything in print that I am embarrassed or reluctant to claim. And I view with suspicion anyone who posts anonymously - or, with ridiculous pseudonyms. I have often considered refusing to post anonymous comments on my blog because I have little respect for someone who will criticize or challenge my public posts, yet refuses to put a name to the comments. It always seems a little cowardly and childish. Of course, I acknowledge the time-honored tradition of anonymous news sources, especially as whistle blowers. But they are not what I am talking about - we can't extend whistle blower, anonymous source protection to everyone who wants to write a negative review of a product on Amazon. Can we? Should we?

One of the biggest mistakes I think Americans make regarding privacy issues is to believe they have a right to be invisible, or a right to not be seen. This weighs heavily in public places like schools, airports, and streets. No one is guaranteed invisibility if they are going to walk down a public street or enter a public building. The right to privacy does not endow invisibility. And, that should probably extend to anonymity. Author Michael Lewis wrote about this years ago in his book Next: The Future Just Happened. In analyzing the unintended results of the rise of the anonymity, he chronicled stories of young people who broke down the walls of the legal profession and Wall Street by using the anonymity of the internet. For example, Jonathon Lebed was the youngest person ever indicted for internet stock fraud after he bought penny stocks and then posted anonymous hype of financial message boards. Lewis explains that his "hype" was believable only because no one knew the financial advice was coming from a teenager with no credentials. Anonymity allowed Lebed to crash the gates of financial advising - and enabled him to generate nearly $900,000 in about fifteen months. Whether that was a positive impact on society, I don't know.

Ultimately, accountability is important. This is especially true in economic situations. Trust is integral to the integrity of a system. And, outside the situation of whistle blowers, anonymity is not a positive quality for American society.

Cut Social Security? Of Course

While it may seem earth-shaking that the AARP has softened its long-held opposition - and congressional lobbying stranglehold - on cuts to Social Security benefits, it shouldn't be. In fact, it's sad that such rigidity ever existed in the first place. Social Security was, is, and always should be a simple safety net to keep retired people/elderly from slipping into poverty. A social insurance system against abject poverty is how it was sold, and how it should be treated. For that reason, cuts are in order, and that should have begun with "means-testing" years ago. Certainly, there could be some incentives against drawing early and often from the fund, and Americans should do all they can to make sure that the government payment is not their primary source of income in retirement. At the same time, it must remain, especially as wages lose ground for the lower classes. It has to be there as a safety net - but it should change.

IKEA Store a Monstrosity

Driving down Interstate-25 to Park Meadows Mall yesterday, enjoying the view of the Rocky Mountains, my mood suddenly shifted to a darker place as the monstrous new IKEA store in Centennial overwhelmed the landscape and blocked my view of the entire West Coast. Though it was heavily courted and promoted as some sort of savior to the local economy, the IKEA "Warehouse" also generated some controversy and opposition from residents who worried about its intrusiveness. The primary concern was about the size of the sign, which is, no doubt, a ridiculously over-sized sign for the area. The store asked for and received an exemption from codes. However, the sign pales in comparison to the blight represented by an enormous blue box of a structure that IKEA calls "a store."

I was already turned off to the arrival of IKEA after news began to surface about IKEA (in America) and its anti-labor practices. In Virginia, IKEA workers have been facing serious opposition to desires for collective bargaining after dealing with dangerous work conditions, discriminatory business practices and low wages. These stories are all the more disturbing considering IKEA's origin in the worker-friendly country and culture of Sweden. Where IKEA's Swedish workers make nearly $20/hour, have excellent benefits (provided by taxes), and five weeks of vacation, American workers are starting at about $8 with no benefits. Certainly, the higher wages and benefits given in Europe didn't prevent IKEA from growing into a strong company. Yet, they clearly had no desire to continue practices that improve society once a cash starved society and government allowed them all the shortcuts.

Certainly, Colorado needs the jobs and the commerce, and everyone hoped IKEA would be a boon to the local economy. But, as I've noted before, there are companies that benefit a society as a whole with a sense of being "stewards of the community" .... and then there are companies like America's version of IKEA.

GOP Shift on Anti-tax Zealotry

When I saw the tagline GOP Shifting on Anti-tax Ideology run across the bottom of my TV during the 9:00 news, I felt a small shimmer of hope rising in my heart. This, as I've noted, is one of the areas where I simply haven't been able to find common ground with the GOP. And, whenever I talk about the truly pragmatic Republicans like Judd Gregg or Tom Copburn or Lindsay Graham, I am always disappointed by the RINO label from the un-thinking and naive ideologues.

Yet, there may be hope. Perhaps the Grover Norquist wave is fading just a tad. In Colorado the Douglas Bruce anti-tax zealots have been voted down on their most recent referenda on "no tax increases ever" and "gut government till we look like Somalia."

So, yes, there may be hope. Keep watching.