PCU -- Dixie State College...Red Storm?

I grew up with parents who were fanatical Dixie College alumni (ironically neither of them actually received degrees from the school). Dixie College Rebels was a mascot that fit the schools name and the nickname of the region.

I understand the connection that the politically oversensitive make between the mascot and the states who succeeded from the U.S. because of slavery. The school saw the unfortunate connection over a decade ago and has done several things to disconnect itself from that image (removing the Confederate Flag as the official flag, redesigning the physical mascot from a Confederate soldier costume to a bird, and other changes).

However, forces of political correctness didn't give up -- the schools mascot is now a red storm!?! What the hell does a red storm mean? The illustration the school gave is a tornado with bull horns and a bull ring, and the costumed mascot is a bull.

Okay, good now the schools mascot isn't offensive, or is it? What about Midwestern people who actually suffer through tornadoes, or cattle ranchers who have been hurt in a senseless bull charging? We must think of a less offensive mascot.......maybe the seagull would have a better connection to state (although we can't offend people who have had their cars shat upon) they could have gone with Red Necks and brought back the old confederate soldier costume. Collegiate PC is so much fun.

Any suggestions for a less offensive mascot than a half atmospheric phenomenon-half cow?

Oh well, if this post was gay I apologize -- I'm feeling quite bored today and I fear my wit may have deserted me.

A Tax Cheat to Run the Treasury Department

So Treasury Secretary Nominee, Timothy Geithner, has passed the Senate Finance Commitee Hearing despite the fact he appears to be a reformed tax cheat.

He apparently has made numerous tax errors, including failure to pay SE Tax for 4 years. His excuses are pitiful and self-serving, the kinds of excuses that would draw heavy critisim from US Tax Court judges (if he used those excuses in that court). However, because he has paid those taxes up with interest he may still be given the job as head of the US Treasury -- the same organization that runs the IRS, and handles the billions of dollars of bailout funds.

This may get interesting, especially in relationship to the IRS. Many people need very little justification to cheat on their income taxes, and now they have one more -- the boss of the IRS did it so why can't I.

Unfortunately, Mr Geithner doesn't stand from a strong moral position as future head of the Department responsible for collecting taxes, and viciously pursuing people who have the made the same "mistakes" that Mr. Geithner has made. His historically "flexible" tax compliance makes him a poor candidate for Sec. Treas., he should be replaced as nominee and he should be offered some sort of finance advisory position.

Oh well..... I guess I have one more hurdle to leap in explaining why you have to be fair and honest in your dealings with the Federal Government. I guess I'll need to focus on not getting incarcerated for tax crimes.

The Presidency of George W Bush

With the new Obama administration coming in, and the "supposed" worst president in history going out I've been reflecting on the Bush presidency -- how bad was it?

Did George Bush accomplish anything?

Keeping America safe post 9-11: Agree or disagree with his tactics and decisions, we have not endured a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Some argue that his tactics have produced more hatred and animosity towards the US, and will breed more hatred of the US in the Middle East and breed more Islamic jihadists who seek American blood. This may be a horrifyingly accurate depiction of the future. However, (by luck or the Bush-formed Homeland Security Department) we have been safe on US soil for coming on 8 years.

Lowered taxes: George Bush successfully kept taxes low through-out his presidency. This wasn't only for the rich -- the refundable child tax credit, increased standard deductions and exemptions, 5% capital gains rate, and other provisions have been highly beneficial to the lower and middle classes. Conveniently ignoring the housing bubble and subsequent banking collapses, his tax cuts were instrumental in increased investment and economic growth for a large part of his presidency.

Despite the tax cuts, revenue increased substantially during his Presidency. This is because the President appointed IRS administrators who ended the "kinder, gentler, IRS" for a "smarter, more efficient IRS". The IRS has spent his presidency updating stone age computers, and hiring new IRS agents who go into audit meetings usually knowing that the target has unreported income or over reported deductions that will bring in additional revenue to the US coffers.

I can't think of any others:

Failures:

Afghanistan: We never found Osama.
Iraq: No weapons of mass destruction. Declaring victory almost 6 years too soon.
Spending: He spent like a drunken sailor. He ran extremely high deficits.
Social Security Reform: He was never able to get on Social Security reform proposal through Congress.
Illegal Immigration: Instead of doing what the right wanted or what the left wanted, George Bush did nothing!

So it is my opinion that Bush II was not a good president, but I don't know that he was a horrible President either.

I respected Bush because he stuck to his guns on a lot of issues, despite to enormous unpopularity that resulted. However, he made rushed decisions regarding foreign policies that will be costly in future Middle East relations, he couldn't stay fiscally conservative (a "walk middle, squish just like grape" policy is bankrupting us now) and he failed to move one meaningful permanent piece reform through (except the Dept. of Homeland Sec.) that he proposed.

Florida concedes the Title to Utah

I have not received a response from Urban Meyer. Therefore by not addressing the challenge, he has conceded to title to the Utah Utes (in the world of Phramahaphil)

An open letter to Urban Meyer

Dear Coach Meyer,

Congratulations on your win last night. Your team had a wonderful season.

I am and always will be a big fan of yours. You brought Utah Football the next level while you were here and Kyle Whittingham is continuing that legacy. You are truly a legendary coach.

I believe you and I would agree that champions should be made on the football field and not in computer calculations, or by the votes of sports columnists. This system kept you from competing for a championship while you were Utah's head coach in 2004, and will keep your 2009 championship from being indisputable. Utah has the best record in college football, they beat the team that you defeated to get into the BCS title game, they beat Bama by a larger margin than you beat them. This year will always be known as a year that the championship failed to produce a legitimate champion because Utah wasn't allowed a shot at the title in a post-season playoff. This complaint isn't new.

The BCS system is a system of discrimination, monopolization, and elitism. This situation reminds me of Seabiscuit v War Admiral. In 1938 an unheralded racehorse was allowed a unsanctioned shot at what may have been the "greatest" racehorse of the time. War Admiral was bigger, had defeated much more notable opponents, and was believed by sports writers and many to be unbeatable especially by a smaller racehorse from the west. However, War Admirals owner realized one important fact -- the word maybe would always precede the words greatest racehorse of the time unless War Admiral faced the smaller contender from the west.

I believe we have a chance to create a Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral event for the 2008/09 college football season. The Florida Gators have been crowned as champions by the powers that be in college football, but there is a small racehorse in Utah, that you helped create, who has a rightful claim to that title. Your "2009 BCS championship" will always have a cloud over it unless your championship team faces Utah.

The game doesn't have to be sanctioned by the NCAA, the outcome (if Utah won) wouldn't change any history of your championship. What it would do is produce the first EARNED and PROVEN champion in college football! A championship that cannot be disputed. I believe a proven champion is something all college football fans would love to have. My hope is that a game like this might lead the BCS to move to some sort of playoff system, so that fans can celebrate and admire proven champions.

Florida maybe the best team in college football this year, but the word maybe will always accompany that phrase unless Florida and Utah meet on the field. The BCS championship will always receive jeers of the BS championship until a playoff is derived. Fans from non-power conferences will always feel cheated until they are allowed to see their championship level teams compete.

You have to power to help change the course of college football. I propose a scrimmage game, Gators v. Utes, on the Saturday before Super Bowl Sunday. I doubt that there would be an empty seat in whatever arena this occurs in, or a TV in America that would not tune in.

American College Football Fan

The BCS, the Opponant Utah doesn't need.

Mike Sorensen at DesNews seems to believe the BCS needs to be upheld. He suggests that Utah should be rooting for a lower ranked BCS conference champion in whichever game it plays in. I assume this is because he holds to the BCS motto that non-BCS teams are inferior and they have no right and therefore deserve no possibility to compete for the national title. The BCS may very well sack Utah in this position again, but Utah shouldn't hope for this scenario.

In 2004, Utah was made to play Pitt (a team that should have been in the Armed Forces Bowl or the Poinsettia Bowl). Utah won that trip to the BCS soundly, but that win was highly discreditable by the BCS, elitist coaches and sports writers. In that sense Utah's 2004 BCS bust wasn't much of a bust in at all -- more like a toe in the door. Personally I think this is why the BCS gave Utah Pitt in 2004 -- a Utah win would be discreditable, and a Utah loss would solidify the BCS' legitimacy.

The BCS is like sports' apartheid. In order to defeat this discriminatory system, Utah, BSU, and other teams that get chances to play in the BCS need to defeat credible foes. Utah is to second highest ranked team in the polls. They should, if not play in the title game, at least be allowed a playoff with other teams (BSU should be included) in contention for the title game. Only by playing and defeating teams in higher echelons of the BCS can the BCS be truly busted.

The BCS, Utah v. BYU, Boise State & Utah are the only legitimate contenders to face Bama in the Title Game.

I'm waiting for the game to start. I am a loyal U fan (I attended SUU, and they haven't been worth watching) I've been U fan since my older brother was a BYU fan as a kid (although he ended up as a cheerleader at the U and switched alligiences). This game is really the only game I enjoy watching each year.

I didn't finish this till after the game. Go Utes! I am a longtime Ute fan and am excited that Utah is going back to the BCS. Given Texas Tech's loss and Alabama and BSU being the only other unbeaten teams, Utah has a powerful claim to go to the national title game (although we all know that the BCS overlords won't allow that to happen). Although the title game won't likely be in Utah's cards, at least they can put another crack in the BCS' legitimacy -- in that I hope BYU fans can take consolation.

The BCS was created to try and come up with an indisputable national champion. Instead we have an elitist system that shuts out college teams in smaller conferences, and by so doing the BCS denies legends. Some of the greatest sports legends are created when David is allowed to fight (and at times defeat) Goliath. When Goliath is the only one fighting the outcome is always certain -- Goliath wins. We have been establishing a national champion for the past decade based on mathematical certainties, probabilities, and some (I assume) brilliantly created actuarial models all of which deny the greatest and most unpredictable componant of athletics -- heart and spirit.

Pressure must be brought to bear on the powers that be in college sports to abolish the BCS system. The only way to bring that pressure is to bust the BCS, and I am grateful that Utah and Boise State are in a position of strentgh to challenge the BCS system's legitimacy. With a looming economic crisis that may rival the Great Depression, now would be an ideal time to fix this problem. During the Great Depression sporting events were one of the biggest outlets for Americans who were suffering and some of the greatest legends in sports were made. Seabiscuit, a race horse that had no business in big time horse racing, became legend by challenging Goliath and winning. Utah and Boise State should have a playoff to face Alabama in the national title game.

ALLOW CHAMPIONS TO BE MADE ON THE FIELD AND NOT IN COMPUTER MODELS!

Are we on the verge of Great Depression II?

This opinion piece was on CNN.com:

"Every time the economy and stock market turn down, financial historians get predictable calls from reporters. Could this be the start of another Great Depression? Could "it" possibly happen again? My stock answer has always been no.The Great Depression resulted from a series of economic and financial shocks -- the end of a housing bubble in 1926 and the end of a high-tech bubble in 1929 -- but also from truly breathtaking neglect and incompetence on the part of policymakers. It couldn't happen again precisely because policymakers know this history. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remembers the mistakes of Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary. We can be confident, I always answered, that there will not be another Great Depression because policymakers have read financial histories like mine. At least that was my line until recently. Now I have stopped taking reporters' calls

The first thing that made the Great Depression great, of course, was the Fed's failure to act. It basically stood by as the banking system and the economy collapsed around it. This time, in contrast, the Fed can hardly be criticized for inaction. Not only has it cut rates, but it has rolled out one new unprecedented initiative after another.

Unfortunately, it has reacted more than acted. First, it provided funds to the commercial banks. Then, it targeted broker-dealers. Now, it is desperately propping up the commercial paper market. All the while however, the problem has been infecting new parts of the financial system

One thing that restrained the Fed in the 1930s was the fear that rate cuts might cause capital to flee to other countries and the dollar to crash. The danger was that the same liquidity that the Fed poured in through the top of the bucket might just leak back out through these holes in the bottom.
There was a solution: coordinated rate cuts here and in Europe. Unfortunately, central bankers couldn't agree on what was needed. The result was further instability.

That central banks have learned this lesson of history and now see the need for coordinated action is at least one ground for hope. The problem is that they have already used their bullets.

U.S. Treasury bill rates have essentially fallen to zero, and the Fed's policy interest rates are only slightly above that level. Central banks are out of ammunition. This is no longer a problem they can solve by themselves.

What is needed now is Treasury action to address what has morphed into a global banking crisis. Between 1930 and 1933, not just the U.S. but also Europe and Latin America experienced rolling banking crises.
When Austria took desperate measures to prop up its banking system, its banking crisis only shifted to Germany. When Germany did the same, the crisis spread to the United States.

This was beggar-thy-neighbor policy at its worst. We have seen some disturbing evidence of the same in recent weeks, as when Ireland unilaterally guaranteed all bank deposits and thereby sucked funds out of the British banking system.

G7 leaders, when they meet in Washington at the end of this week, need to explain exactly how they will address this aspect of the problem. They need to commit money to recapitalizing their banking systems -- now, and not next week.

The U.K., which has just announced a $50 billion plan for bank recapitalization, has shown how this can be done in a matter of days. But a coordinated initiative will require the U.S. to put up a considerably larger sum.

My recommendation would be to abandon the idea of reverse auctions for toxic assets and instead use the $700 billion of the recently passed rescue plan for bank recapitalization. Although the Great Depression started in 1929, it took until 1933 for American leaders to grasp this nettle and recapitalize the banks. We can't afford to wait for years this time around.

A final thing that made the Great Depression such a catastrophe was that some of the worst shocks occurred right before the 1932 presidential election. There then followed an extended interregnum between the election and inauguration of the new president when no one was in charge.

The outgoing president, Hoover, asked his successor designate, Franklin Roosevelt, to cooperate with him on joint statements and policies, but FDR refused to do so. Meanwhile, the banking crisis deepened. Corporations failed.

The economy was allowed to spiral downward. It was this disaster that led us to amend the constitution to shorten the time between presidential election and inauguration from 4 to 2½ months.

The implication is clear. The two presidential candidates should be assembling their financial SWAT teams now. Paulson should promise that they will be invited into his office on November 5. This problem cannot wait until Inauguration Day."

Amen.

McCain -- Claims he will cut spending but than proposes to buy mortgages in order to write down over-valued mortgages

John McCain has derided Obama, and Democrats in general, as big spenders. However, no doubt in an attempt to seems like a friend to the middle-class, John McCain has just suggested that the Federal government buy $300B in over-valued mortgages in order to refinance and write-down those mortgages at current home values. Although I agree that under-valued homes is a great problem, (one that I actually face) I absolutely do not desire to see the Federal government buy 300B of mortgage receivables only to write off a meaty chunk of those receivables at the cost of the US taxpayers.

The reasons why this is bad policy are numerous. The biggest problem is that this proposal strongly contradicts John McCain's claims that he will keep US spending down. With this proposal John McCain (before being elected President) has taken national debt which has topped $10T, and slingshot it closer to $11T. People whose home values have declined, is a difficult problem. However, more government intervention is not the answer and the fact the he has suggested this certainly impeaches his conservative credentials.

There are many ideas that I would find much less objectionable and costly. For instance offering certain incentives to lenders who write down loans could be a positive means of helping out owners of devalued real estate - tax credits, consequences for home-owners that default on principle-decreased mortgages, or some sort of insurance on written-down mortgages that default might work.

I continue to be disappointed in John McCain, and his campaign. Evidenced by his continued use of negative campaigning, he seems to have few logical plans that will improve and lead our country. Unfortunately, I don't really see that Barack Obama is the great hope that he would like us to see. Obama has had many questionable social and political connections (not ignoring McCain and the Keating 5) he is highly inexperienced in political leadership, and I have no doubt that he will lead our government into several renewed Johnson-era war on poverty programs. However, of the two candidates Barack Obama seems like he is the most in-tune with the issues and the more likely of the two to come up with logical solutions to issues that we may face. I have little faith in either of the two. Due to that fact that neither of them would be making important decisions without their cabinet, it might be helpful if both of them made there cabinet nominations -- it would be easier to choose one of them if Warren Buffet had accepted a Treasury Secretary nomination.

Is Ron Paul still running?

Shame on you PETA!

This pisses me off.

Autism is something that leaves families affected by it full of questions and little answers. There are real scientists researching causes of autism, and hopefully they will continue to make some solid discoveries that may help decrease the number of individuals who have autism, and even cure this disorder.

What is not needed is an activist organization making broad generalizations from less than compelling scientific data in order to further their political agenda. These rat bastards can go to hell!

The Bailout Bill Fails

In a blow to Paulsen and the Bush administration, Congress voted down the 700 billion dollar bailout package. I'm not really sure how to feel about that -- on the one hand I'm glad that Congress saw that bailing out a corrupt Wall Street was a heavy-handed move against the American taxpayer, and on the other is the worry-wart wondering if Congress is about to propel us into Great Depression II.

For the most part I am willing to suck it up and accept a bailout of Wall Street, sure the large banks of America are to blame for this mess (bad government policies may have opened the door, but bad banking decisions shoved us through the door) if banks keep tanking it will make all of our lives far worse off. I think that this bailout needs to be a little more even handed to home-owners who are actually suffering from the sub-prime mortgage debacle. For example in markets of declining value, I would suggest allowing homeowners to go the Fed in situations where they have an un-refinancible mortgage. The only help for suffering homeowners that the bailout package provided (at least to my understanding) is to help homeowners keep their homes if they land in bankruptcy -- if banks can be bailed out of bad debts well before bankruptcy becomes an issue distressed homeowners should have the same opportunity.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Republicans may not have voted the package down because of its merits, but because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Apparently the Speaker gave a highly partisan address before the vote which angered allot of the Republican lawmakers. In her speech she laid blame for the crisis almost solely on the President and the Republican party. I hope you are thinking.....WHAT THE HELL! Basically, we may be hanging on the thread of the first depression in seven to eight decades and the reason our lawmakers fail to act is Partisanship. I would be fine with the package being voted down due to the bills poor conception, but voting it down because Ms. Pelosi offended the ego of the elephant party is unacceptable and an indictment of the collapsing two party system. I long for a system and leaders who are most concerned about the good of the nation and not the good of the party.

Maybe the time has come for some kind of abolishment of the two party system in elections, I'm not saying outlawing the Republican or Democratic parties, I'm arguing we end party affiliations for elected officials. I mean when we vote, there is no more R and D by the candidates names -- instead of the R & D, a synopsis of the ideals that each candidate supports and plans for how to make our nations and communities better. I guess I'm thinking of a political system kind of like Dr. Seuss's "The Sneetches," if you have never read it I suggest you go to your library and check it out -- it might be the best way to end the partisan bickering and bottlenecks that keep plaguing Washington.

Heaven Help our Leaders Grow Up!

The Economy -- Where should the blame lie?

At Political Civility, Lyall is discussing the economy, government bailouts, and financial regulation. He infers that if elected Barack Obama will over increase regulation (somehow missing the past several hundred billion dollars the Bush administration has expended in market intervention) and Democrats will push more government intervention into the market, and that doing so will reek disastrous results. While I'm no fan of over-regulation, I'm even less a fan of the Treasury Department throwing cash at a banking industry that has proved incapable of making prudent lending decisions over the past decade.

In rebut to a comment blaming Republicans he points out theories that the subprime mortgage market was sparked by well-intended Carter/Clinton policies regarding the Carter-era Community Redevelopment Act, and therefore the blame for the current market woes falls (not wholly, but in part) with the Democrats. This was later brilliantly impeached by bekkieann who pointed out that it was lenders misuse of the deregulation provided by the CDA that has led to the current crisis:

"Clearly lenders took a concept intended to help low-income people and extended that concept to those who did not need that type of financing, and a lot of people got way in over their heads.
Do you know anyone who had/has an ARM? What income bracket are they in? I know some in my own income bracket. We are not poor.
Deregulation allowed lenders to perpetrate this financing scam on Americans who were eager to live beyond their means. "

In the current situation, increased regulation is warranted and deserved on a banking industry that failed to perform due diligence in lending practices for the past several years. Bailouts of the banking industry, without stringently increased lending regulations is an offense to the American taxpayer footing the bill. (For starters, make sure mortgage originators are qualified to evaluate a customer's ability to repay, objectives in obtaining financing, and matching proper mortgage products to their customers -- Stock brokers need to prove their competency in these respects and individuals suggesting mortgage products should be have these same demonstrable competencies.)

The Economy -- Who will take the lead?

The past few days have been unnerving to say the least. The size and number government bailouts that have happened over the last few months is incredible. One of the largest and once most stable investment banks has filed bankruptcy, AIG has become a US Government subsidiary, and other once rock solid financial institutions are teetering on the brink of collapse and to be honest I'm quite worried that a depression (I admit I'm being over dramatic) may be on the horizon. For me and many Americans this election is quickly becoming about one issue, which party will (if possible) avert economic catastrophe.

Our federal government has been feverishly trying to prop up failing financial institutions, and these bailouts have helped stabilize the disastrous effects of the subprime mortgage market collapse. However, with the latest 85 billion dollar bailout the question needs to be asked how much more can the nation expend on bailouts? It is an ominous sign that the Treasury Department is having to insert itself into the market on a regular basis just to keep the banking industry afloat. It appears that if the invisible hand was allowed to work without government interference, our economy would be in shambles.

Unfortunately, neither candidate for chief executive appears to have or be talking about how they will turn this around. Obama seems to get the severity of the situation better than McCain, while McCain has proposed a commission to solve the financial crisis while claiming that the fundamentals of the economy are strong (I don't blame McCain -- while his career background scores high on the bravery and heroism scale, his scholastic record isn't exactly stellar regarding subjects like economics or even mathematics)

I'm leaning towards Obama on ability to lead our nation out of imminent economic disaster. While the Republican mantra of tax cuts are good and great, they don't combine well with a federal government that is swimming in debt, fighting wars on two fronts, and (seemingly) propping up the entire nation's financial system. McCain's unsettling continued use of the "strong economic fundamentals"line isn't helping ease my concerns that he isn't the sharpest tack on the economy.

While in 2004 I was concerned about the best leader in the war on terror and Iraq, in 2008 staying the course is the least of my concerns.

Sarah Palin Baby Name Game

One of my biggest issues with Sarah Palin is her Child Naming Convention. Well now you can have an orginal Palin-esque name!

Mine is Slicer Mission Palin! I might use this one for child number 4 -- at least I'll suggest it for craps and giggles.

Nice Try, But I Don't Think So

Obama has actually contended that he has more executive experience than Sarah Palin because of running his presidential campaign.

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,”

McCain's campaign called the statement laughable, and I agree. While Obama's campaign has accumulated a large financial war chest, and he has been able to recruit a large following of volunteers, that is a far different story from running a state or the federal government. Sorry Obama, spending money on one massive program (your candidacy) doesn't hold a candle to the responsibility of funding the myriads of programs that states run without having to raise taxes or run deficits. The fact that Obama makes this comparison, might be quite revealing of just how naive and inexperienced Obama is.

You can spend money, that doesn't mean you can manage the Federal budget responsibly.

Palin -- Maybe I was a little harsh.

Okay, maybe my last post was a tad harsh regarding Sarah Palin as the VP pick. There is still one issue with which I'm not comfortable about her, (i.e. the ethics investigation underway in Alaska) but I think she may actually be the perfect addition to the McCain ticket. I've listened to some her recent campaign speeches and she seems quite eloquent but more importantly she seems more than pleasant, a wonderful contrast to her Democratic opponent the ever mouthy Sen. Biden. She has held executive office more than any of the candidates for President or VP, although in a small state it is executive experience nonetheless. It is true that she lacks foreign policy experience, but it should be noted that governors seldom do have extensive foreign policy experience and that lack of experience hasn't stopped the American voter from electing governors to the Presidency nor do I expect that it should stop voters from electing Mrs. Palin as VP.

While I assume the accusations in the her current ethics investigation will be found merit less, I do have concerns that it taints her image as a fighter of corruption and I'm sure that the Dem Duo will (if they feel necessary) use that against her. However as a whole, I think this is the only legitimate negative that overshadows Mrs. Palin's VP nomination. The biggest illegitimate issue I have with Mrs. Palin are the names of her children -- Track and Trig? Are those Biblical names, or European?

I think the upcoming debates (assuming there will be a VP debate) will be interesting to see how she handles Biden. My prediction (hope) is that Biden will try and monopolize the debate with verbose orations and shrill accusations trying to link McCain/Palin to Bush/Cheney, while Mrs Palin will focus on issues and pleasantly win the debate. While I'm cautiously optimistic regarding Mrs. Palin, she is a far more desirable VP than Senator Biden.

McCain Buries Himself

I think McCain may have dashed his chances of winning with his VP pick. Who could McCain have chosen from? Lieberman, Romney, Huckabee, heavens even our own Jon Huntsman Jr. all of whom have more popularity and better political resumes. Who does he choose? An 18 month governor of Alaska whose only other experience is that of Mayor of Wasilla Alaska. Wait a minute, maybe I shouldn't dismiss it that soon what else is on her resume?

Alaska State High School Girls Basketball team championship team
Miss Wasilla (also Miss Congeniality)
1st Runner up in Miss Alaska pageant
BS in Journalism (Minor in Politics -- I assume Political Science) -- University of Idaho
Sports Broadcaster
Commercial Fishing with Husband

That's it! So, McCain chose a Soccer Mom (oh sorry a "Hockey" Mom). I'm sorry, what the He@# is he thinking? McCain's campaign has been using as one of its big negative campaign points that Obama lacks experience, and McCain proposes to put an individual with less than impressive education, work experience, and even political experience one heartbeat away from the presidency. At least Barack Obama has an impressive resume despite his lacking national political experience, and his political experience I would safely assume, with all due respect, blows her experience out of the water.

In a campaign that is this tight, I think his pick is either an indication of McCain's arrogance or desperation. The fact the she is a woman may sway some moderate women voters, although her position on abortion negates her ability to sway the feminist vote. It is true that BushI successfully ran with an unknown on his ticket, but McCain needs to remember George Sr. was riding the coattails of Ronald Reagan, the end of (what may soon be called) Cold War I, and a strong economy, Bush Sr. would have had to have been caught with a prostitute to have lost the 1988 election. McCain on the other hand is running from the coattails of Bush II, a possibly reignited cold war, high inflation, decreasing individual incomes, and a less that stellar economy -- he is hardly in the same position of BushI. McCain needed a heavyweight boxer and he chose a girls B-Ball player (no offense to Girls B-Ball)

It sounds as though Mrs. Palin has the record of a reformer in the great state of Alaska, she has the conservative views necessary to please the evangelicals, she appears to be somewhat of a maverick which fits well with McCain, and the fact that she is female may help sway more Hillary voters. However, unless Mrs. Palin turns out to be an extraordinarily eloquent orator and debater I have little hope that McCain will pull off a "W" come November.

Stimulus Payments -- Rapid Refunds (RAL and RTs) Screwing the Poor Again

I know I said i wasn't going to write but getting a tad pissed off at the government is as good a reason as any.

I was expecting my stimulus check today in perfect timing to cover some of the myriad of bills I have incurred over the past year -- I was looking forward to the respite. Around 4pm I check my account to discover no check, and so I started to dig around the IRS website. They have brilliantly started a "Where's my Stimulus Check" program, and after entering all of my pertinent information I discover a horrible problem.

My former employer was a small tax firm, so needless to say we prepared a fair number of personal income tax returns. When I purchased my home (before I realized the necessity to move to SLC) my employer gave me a small loan to cover closing cost. While I was working for him he didn't try to collect at all, but when I quit he started pursuing repayment a little more anxiously. So when I filed my tax return I decided (per convenience) that I would have my anticipated refund transferred to my former employer via RT (refund transfer -- a regularly used means of ensuring payment in tax prep firms). The problem occurs due to the fact that the bank account on your return if you use an RT or RAL (rapid refund) is a one time use account, and the IRS therefore never receives your accurate account information and the user of the RT or RAL is left (likely unwittingly) waiting for a paper check that will come much later. (mid-July in my case) I don't think this was communicated in a very vigorous fashion to tax practitioner firms during the filing season -- when the info would have been most helpful.

I assume that my old company may be like many other tax firms in the nation -- unaware of this information when it mattered during the filing season. As a rule (at least as far as I have observed) the majority the people who use these services are the people that need help financially the most. In regards to RAL's especially, these individuals are often charged exorbitant banking fees, and many may currently have a shock when they discover how much longer they will have to wait for the much needed assistance promised from the stimulus package.

Oops, but really did anyone expect anything more from the IRS?

The Start of a Blogging Sabbatical

It has been a while since I have written and I thought I would like to explain why.

The past few months have been rather trying. Earlier this month my wife and I finally learned why my son has been developmentally delayed. While we were grasping a straws trying to figure out what was wrong we consulted a Pediatric Geneticist at the U Med School who ordered a host of genetics test to rule out certain genetics disorders - one of those test involved the PTEN gene. It turns out that the PTEN gene is the culprit in all of this, my son has a disorder known as Bannayan Riley Rulvacaba Syndrome (BRRS). This particular disorder is rare (I'm not sure how rare, but if the genetics department at the U of U needed do some research before they could explain it to me and my wife it must be pretty rare). He then has been evaluated by developmental pediatricians and a pediatric psychiatrist, who have concluded that he is non-traditionally Autistic (meaning there is no clear guidance on how to help him) and has developed to the level of a 9 month old (at age 2). Needless to say it has been an emotional roller coaster.

With that I have found little passion for blogging, and I really don't plan on posting on a regular basis for an extended period of time. I probably ought to officially resign my membership in the Bloghive advisory board, so that another blogger who is actively blogging can provide a much more contribution to that group. I appreciated working with all of them.

As I learn more about special education funding, I am truly shocked how little state assistance is provided in Utah. My future blogging may focus heavily on that issue.

Until then, adieu......

My First MotoQ Post

I purchased a new Moto-Q phone this weekend, and it is sweet. I thought I would try blogging with it.