Well, Tiger Woods Did it Again...

At least he made it close this time. Tiger Woods, bum knee and all, still managed to best the best. There are many supremely talented golfers on the PGA tour. I would submit that there are a few that have equivalent physical talents to those of Tiger Woods. However, where Tiger separates himself from the field are his mental talents and his thinking man's approach to the game. When he is on this game, his physical skills combined with a level of focus and concentration, unmatched in golf, is an unbeatable combination. Mickelson, Els, Singh, Goosen can all rip drives as long or longer than Tiger. They all can stick irons to tap in range. They can turn long par five's into eagle opportunities. However, no one can do it like Tiger can when all the chips are on the table. Love him or hate him Tiger Woods, more often than not is money, when it counts.

Thankfully he did not run away with the US Open. His bum knee kept things close and a journey man almost took home the big prize. But was there ever really any doubt on the final day who would take home the title? At least there was suspense and drama this year. No 10 stroke blow out with everyone else playing for second place. I am grateful to Tiger's bum knee for that.

The downside though is that El Tigre is done for the year, and as much as I despise the 10 stroke Tiger blowouts, it will be a hollow victory for the winners of the majors for the rest of 2008. I hope Tiger gets better and is ready for 2009. As much as I hate it when he ruins that majors with a blow out victory, they are a little empty with out him there.

Send Home the Clowns

The Commonwealth of Virginia has a transportation problem borne of two sources. First, the state is growing. The economy is bigger, the population is bigger. Virginia, as the northern most right-to-work state is an attractive place to work and to live. Second, the Virginia political class has spent money like drunken sailors for the past 10 years. No hand out too big, no tax increase ever enough to satisfy the spend-thrifts in the legislature and in the governor's mansion. Mark Warner "reformed the tax code" with help from big spender republicans and raised taxes through the roof. New governor Tim Kaine, despite promises to the contrary is fighting hard to raise taxes even more. The clowns in both branches of government and from both parties are in this for the long haul....anything that enhances, extends, or promotes their political careers. That is the real objective of the vast majority of political climbers in Virginia government and is the fundamental problem for those of us who have to live with their electioneering garbage disguised as policy.

I heard a radio interview with a republican delegate discussing the transpiration challenge facing Virginia. A solution was proposed...the content of the solution is not relevant...the radio host asked what about "solution A" as proposed by one of the senior state senators? The response was "that sounds like a proposal from someone who does not face an election for over 3 years". Well, isn't that interesting. The merits of the idea are really not relevant, but the impact on one's re-elections chances...now that is the top priority when considering policy decisions and the future of The Commonwealth.

The Framers of our constitution did not have this in mind when crafting this great experiment. The notion of careerist politicians would have been anathema to each of them. Yet here we sit, with "leaders" whose primary objective is to further their political careers on the backs of those they ostensibly represent.

The fix to the Virginia budget problems as well as many of the Federal issues is to term-limit out these folks, two terms in the House, one term in the Senate....and go home. I think that many politicians are self-absorbed enough to think that we really care about their careers and that we want them in their positions of power until they are good and ready to call it a career. Short term, self serving policies are responsible for much of our political mess. Until we are willing to send the bums home, don't expect much to get better...they have to face the voters and need to get in all the pandering they can...no matter how dearly it costs us all. See the problem?

Obama...Oh Boy....Here we go...

When was the last time a nation taxed their way back to economic prosperity? hint: never is a good answer. Think about that before you vote for president.

When do you think the news networks are going to point out that the surge in Iraq has been a raging success? It is a shame that we waited so long to add the needed military fire power to capture and kill the insurgents, but we did it, it worked, and we are on the cusp of winning a war that many, including Barack Obama declared lost. I am sure he is getting ready to point this out in his next speech...or the one after that.

Does anyone really think that if we add protectionist legislation to the list of old ideas we want to re implement that manufacturing jobs will come back to American shores? Those jobs are where they belong, where labor is cheap and plentiful.

Barack Obama stated that the policies of George Bush have pushed millions into poverty. Really? When unemployment has been at historic lows for the past 5 years, home ownership is at historic highs, despite the press fixation on the mortgage "crisis", and we have been on a path of economic growth for the past 6 years, yet millions are suffering and in poverty? Sounds like made-up electioneering to me. Hey Obama, there are over 300 million people in the United States...if 99% are have jobs, own their homes, and are living the good life, guess what, there are still millions who are not. It is called the law of big numbers. We live in a country of over 300 million citizens. No matter how well things may have gone or may be going you can always find millions down on their luck. Also, the law of diminishing marginal returns says that it will be more costly for government to raise the next person out of the ditch, so guess what, they shouldn't, it's not the government's job and it costs too much stinking money.

What the hell is Obama talking about when he says he will invest in green jobs? Why should the government invest in any jobs? What is a green job? This guy is not looking too bright any more or he is getting real bad advice.

"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”
— Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007

Isn't that quote hilarious? Barack believes in the free market so much he is going to kill it...strangle it with more taxes and "green" regulation, kill NAFTA and the Colombian Free Trade agreement. He is going to take the great rewards from those who have earned them through the free market and give them to those who have not. We are all in this together, so let's make sure that the shitter smells the same for everyone when we are all sitting there wondering what happened to the free markets that Obama killed. Sorry for the rant, but I cannot take the pandering from this guy any more. He is looking more clownish with each passing day. Lord help us!

Not a Tiger Woods Fan, for the Right Reason

I am not a Tiger Woods fan. I am awed by his accomplishments, I am impressed with his physical gifts, but most impressed with his mental toughness and concentration ability that is unmatched in the history of golf, maybe in the history of professional sports. So what is my problem with Tiger Woods? Why am I not a fan? The answer is easy, I do not watch a lot of golf on TV, but I almost always watch The Majors. Tiger Woods has in the past completely ruined the majors by essentially lapping the field...making Saturday's "moving day" the day when he blows by the field and Sunday's final round a boring battle for second place. I know he does not always make chumps of his PGA rivals, but he has done it enough that I root against Tiger Woods, not because I don't like him and don't admire his game as well as his constant dedication to improving his already spectacular game. I root against Tiger Woods, at least for the first three days of the major tournaments, so the last day will be worth watching. I look forward to golf's majors tournaments. Watching Tiger Woods increase his 5 shot three round lead into a 10 shot pummelling of the field just is not that much fun.

However, this year Tiger is injured. While he is on track to be back in time to play in the US Open, there is a risk that he could miss the tournament. Pondering the possibility of a Tiger-less US Open, I must admit, is much more unattractive to me than the prospect of another 10 shot Tiger Woods victory. Winning a Tiger-less major in golf's Woods-era, would be like having 2 extra games to break Babe Ruth's home run record...there would always be a cloud over the victory..."congratulations Mr US Open winner on your victory today...do you think you would have won if Tiger had played?" Sorry, but the question would have to be asked.

So I am a reluctant anti-Tiger fan. However, we need him back for the US Open. I am rooting for Tiger's speedy return and hope that he comes to the US Open in great form. So while I truly hope there is a full field for The Open, I hope my reward for backing Tiger's speedy and full return is not another Tiger blowout. I have seen those already. They bore me. I think I may be able to get on the Tiger Woods wagon when he is 45 or so and having to keep up with the wonder-kids of the next golfing generation. He will probably only win the US Open of 2020 by a stroke or two...which would be great fun.

Expectations and Reality

Do you think the Founders of this nation considered the prospect of an ignorant electorate with no vested interest in society electing equally ignorant representatives to the highest positions in the federal government?

I think that a flawed assumption of the founders is the assumption of an informed electorate. I think that there was an assumption of basic literacy. I think the Founders incorrectly assumed that the electorate would have an understanding of economics and history. Clearly this is lacking in today's America. Listen to the expectations from voters that the president is responsible for and should fix high gas prices, that the government should provide most if not all basic services, and that everyone is essentially owed a base standard of living. There is little to no sense of history, how we got where we are as a nation, mistakes we made as well as things we did right. This makes for an electorate susceptible to the latest political snake oil salesman promising government programs and benefits well outside the bounds of government responsibility and government's ability to pay.

The political class is not in much better stead than the voters they court. When presidential candidate Barack Obama cites the Roosevelt/Churchill/Stalin meeting at Yalta as an example from history that validates his ridiculous idea to meet unconditionally with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. the clear axis of evil in the world and clear enemies of the United States, something is a little amiss in how we have implemented the ideas of the Founders. Maybe someone should point out to Barack that the United States, Great Britain, and The Soviet Union were allies in World War II and that the meetings in Yalta set the table to open a second front against the Germans. It was funny in "Animal House" when John Belushi asks the question "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?". It is not that funny when the likely democratic presidential nominee confuses who was fighting who in the second world war.

Somehow I think that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams has higher expectations of our political leaders and for the electorate in general. We may have a hard time finding a lot of voters who know the relevance of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Adams. I wonder if Barack Obama knows that they were on the same team?

Can I ask a dumb question about Obama?

If Barack Obama's mother is white and his father is black, why is he the first African American candidate to be his party's nominee for president (assuming there is no Clinton diving catch to seal the democratic nomination)? Frankly, I don't care whether Barack Obama is black or white, I think his policies for this country will send it into an economic tailspin in short order. However, I find it odd, and almost a little racist that the press and everyone who writes about Obama refers to him exclusively as "the first black candidate" or the first "African American candidate". Isn't this a slap in the face of his mother and her family? Why does the white side of his family defer to the black side in the eyes of the media? I honestly don't know and I really hope that his race plays no factor in whether or not he is elected president of the United States. I think the time has come when the US will readily and easily accept and embrace a black man (or woman) as president, I just think that Barack Obama is the wrong man, black or white, for the job based on his leftist views, inexperience, and poor judgement. I would love to support Condie Rice or Colin Powell for president. I wish someone could talk JC Watts into re-entering the national political scene. However, it strikes me as odd that the Obama's black father makes him black and his white mother, still makes him black.

In an ideal scenario, a candidate's race wouldn't enter in the thought process for political office, but "firsts" will always be noted by the press. The time will come when the United States has a minority as president. I hope when the time comes, though it will be duly noted in the press, it will be an after thought in the hearts of the voters who elected him....or her.

Energy Crunch, What Energy Crunch. Here is the Answer

I had some time to kill in between dinner and a new episode of "Deal or No Deal" so I thought I would go ahead and solve this energy crunch that has manifest itself with gas prices approaching 4.00 per gallon. Ready? Here we go, Green light to off shore drilling and oil exploration in ANWR Announce plans to authorize permits to double the nation's nuclear power generation capacity Announce plans to double the nation's oil refining capacity Remove the shackles from America's massive coal reserves and exploit advances in new clean coal technology. Over the long term this plan would demonstrate America's actionable resolve to become far more energy independent over the long term. Over the short term this new found resolve would take the wind out of the oil speculator's sails which would result in siginificant and immediate price reductions in the cost of crude oil. Let's face it, absent political constraints, this is not a hard problem to solve. We need to make the most of the resources we have, we need to remove the self-inflicted constraints to our energy independence, and let the market delivery technology-based solutions over time. Think about the efficiency of our politcians. Here is a workable plan to solve the energy problems we all detest, developed while waiting to watch "Deal or No Deal" and I still have time to get some ice cream.

The Wrong Chickens

Jeremiah Wright, the America-hating preacher and mentor for Barack Obama is right about one thing, the chickens have indeed come home to roost for the United States. The problem is that reverend Wright had the wrong flock of chickens. Wright had his head up his rear when he was talking about the American foreign policy chickens coming home to roost on 9/11. No the chickens that have come home to roost are the ones that the United States congress hatched by refusing to allow off-shore and ANWR drilling for gas and oil reserves. The chickens coming home to roost were hatched when congress bowed to hippie environmentalists by not investing more in clean coal technology and new nuclear power facilities. These chicks are indeed in the roost thanks to weak-kneed, spineless congressmen and women who focused on their re-elections instead of leading this country.

As oil prices race past $ 120/barrel on their way to $ 200/barrel in the near future and gas prices hit $ 5.00/gallon in 2009, when will the American people demand that their leaders actually lead through this crisis and take demonstrable action to exploit our massive energy reserves? I am all for alternative energy and am certain that there is a technological solution to the energy crunch we face today. However, the ultimate solution(s) to our long term energy needs may be several years if not decades in the future. The answer to our energy needs is not growing in an Iowa cornfield. We have seen what a debacle that governmental stroke of brilliance has become.

Want to get out of this energy box? The answer is so strikingly easy, one would think that even politicians in Washington cold figure it out:

Use our massive coal/shale reserves; build new nuclear power plants; drill in ANWR and off shore; double our refining capacity over the next 10 years.

Done, problem solved. If we announced this energy program, oil speculators would dump their positions, oil prices would drop sharply, and in 10 years we would be masters of our own domains. I solved this problem in 5 minutes after dinner. The dopes in Washington still can't find their asses with both hands and a map. Anyone feeling better about the clowns "leading" the charge? ....me either.

Uhhh, Okay, I Guess So...

For all of the tapes we have heard from Senator Obama's pastor railing on the United States and making hateful comments about the United States...this is a church right? I didn't hear much about saving souls, getting to heaven, and loving thy neighbor. Call me crazy, but I don't go to church to hear a political hate speech. Aparently Reverend Wrigth hates America, hates Jews, hates whites, and sympathizes with those who kill innocent Americans. Obama has been a pupil of reverend Wright for 20 years and is just now figuring out that Wright holds radical and incindiary views? Who does Obama think is the dummy here?

Hilliary Clinton has been able to let everyone else do her bidding on the Reverend Wright issue, so she has turned her considerable mental capacity towards the economic challenges of the coming year. In a typically rear-view-mirror fashion, Hilliary proclaimed that had she been president over the past year she would have averted the present economic turbulence by increasing government regulation and oversight in the financial markets. Really? So when has increased government regulation and oversight helped foster economic growth? The answer is "never" and this would have been the first time in history. Uh, okay.

Change For America - the speech that, sadly, you will not hear

I envision an America of independence, one where the relevance of government is lessened and the power of the individual is maximized and leveraged for competitive advantage. This sounds like yet another platitude, but what does this really mean?

It means an America where citizens are free to cut their own path, earn a living and keep the lion's share of their income. In my America, Americans keep enough of their income so they do not have to rely on government for healthcare but can afford to choose their own healthcare. In my America, government mandates, regulation, and bureaucracies are limited to bare minimums so the free market drives down healthcare costs to market rates that are affordable and efficient for everyone.

In my America, people keep enough of their earned income so they do not have to rely on the government for retirement incomes. In an America where people keep the rewards of their labor, an "opt out" option for social security would be the preferred choice for most once they realize that they can do far better for themselves than the paltry returns of the American ponzi scheme.

In a truly free America, parents have real choice where to send their children to school and are freed from the shackles of failing public school systems. Choice at the family level will create great flight from failing schools which will trigger a fierce competition for parent's education dollars between public, private, and religious schools. This will be a boon to the efficiency of the American K-12 system with the ultimate beneficiary being the students and families who get to choose the best option for their education from a variety of alternatives.

In a truly free America, the government gets off the back of its citizens about what they eat, whether or not they smoke, and with who they are in a committed relationship. What someone eats, smokes, and who they sleep with at the end of the day is no concern of those in Washington, state capitols, or local city halls. I am not sure that America needs to call homosexual relationships "marriage" because it is certainly different than the heterosexual union in marriage, but in a truly free America, committed people of the same sex need to have legal recognition under the law, out of decency if nothing else to provide rights of survivorship, next of kin, and power of attorney when situations arise. When these folks decide to recognize their relationship in a legal bond, they should be able to serve beef tenderloin, and chocolate eclairs and smoke Marlboro Lights at their reception if they choose.

In a free America, American traditions of generosity and philanthropy is the first layer of safety net for those who fall an hard times and minimalist government programs are the layer of last resort for those who face overwhelming problems.

In a free America, Americans are free to fail, and are free to right themselves and try again. In a free America, no one is held back to the pace of the "least common denominator" to avoid hurt feelings or offended sensibilities. In a free America, Americans self-limit their success by their willingness to work, take prudent risk, and their God-given abilities. No one is guaranteed any level of success, nor is anyone prohibited from full participation in the American Dream.

I know there are issues that are not addressed in this rant, but this would be a nice start towards a better, freer country. It would be great to hear one or two of these points in the presidential conversations over the next several months, but I am not holding my breath. If Obama really wants change, he ought to try this sort of change, rather than the change of government where we all are forced to depend on an inefficient, poorly managed, and ineffective central government. Want to give American hope for the future and reason for optimism? Then leave them alone, let them carry on their lives, and stop trying to shove well intended, ineffective government programs down their throats. How's that for change?