Ok, this is purely conjecture.  Or perhaps more honestly - it's wishful thinking.

Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska stunned everyone.  Over Father's Day weekend, the Presidential hopes of Governor Sanford expired, now over 4th of July weekend many would say the political future of Sarah Palin has also expired.  This leaves Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as the only semi-recognizable potential Presidential challengers left in the Republican world.  A primary fight between these two would be a Democrat dream come true, and virtually assure us of another four years of "hoping for change."

But . . .

Sara Palin could be of great value in supporting "real conservatives" in the 2010 Congressional races.  It's about money.  Ronald Reagan became a serious candidate because a small number of wealthy backers supported his political endeavors.  Under todays campaign finance laws, Reagan could not have financed his initial political activities.  No group of wealthy backers can support a candidate to any great extent and not break campaign finance laws.  Democrats have found a way to effectively circumvent these laws with powerful exempt groups like "Move On.org" and "Media Matters".  Republicans have been less successful in finding such legal loopholes.

Here's where the "Palin Factor" could succeed.  There are numerous house seats that will be contested in 2010.  The RNC has been woefully ineffective at fielding and supporting strong conservative candidates.  The existence of campaign finance laws may be tieing one hand of the RNC behind its back, but it is it's own incompetence that has disabled the other.  There are no existing campaign finance laws that limit contributions to a person that is not running for anything.  That makes private citizen, Sarah Palin potentially the most powerful enemy of the radical left, and the most sought after endorsement of the conservative right.

Sarah Palin is the biggest draw in the Republican Party.  Her appearance at a fund raiser or rally gives instant credibility to any candidate.  She would be able to give immediate name recognition and energy to any candidate who might challenge a vulnerable Democrat, or pose a primary challenge to a weak Republican.  There are eight particular Republican Congressmen that come to mind.  (Perhaps Mary "Donno Jack" is listening).  Of course the same would be true for Senate races. 

Crazy ?

Perhaps.  But consider the following recent Senate example . . .

In 2004, Pat Toomey challenged Arlin Spector in the Republican Party Primary race for Senate in Pennsylvania.  Spector, in accordance with tradition recieved the support of the President, the RNC, and even Rick Santorum.  Spector managed to defeat Toomey by 2% in the primary.  Of course Spector went on to win the general election and then cast the deciding vote for the Obama stimulus package that may effectively bankrupt the U.S. Government. 

Now, consider the above closely contested election, and introduce the "Palin Factor."  Imagine a couple of well timed joint appearances with Sarah Palin, crowds swelling to the 10's of thousands, and the huge energy that surrounds Palin's appearance.  The media couldn't help but report, even though they'd be trashing Palin - the free media time couldn't help but work in the challengers favor.  It's hard to imagine that in a case like the PA primary, that Palin wouldn't have been able to energize enough of the base, and convince enough of the doubtful, to swing the primary in Toomey's favor.

Had Toomey won the general - we'd have 2 trillion dollars less future debt.  If he would've lost, we'd be exactly where we are now.

If Palin proves to be successful in supporting challengers, she would become both politically powerful in her own right as an "outsider", and possibly return to political viability for a future Presidential bid.  As such Sarah Palin could become a true "King Maker", and a means by which real conservatives could regain control of the Republican Party.

Perhaps just wishful thinking . . .

But Perhaps not.

While most on this and other right leaning sites have expressed polite condolences at the passing of Michael Jackson, some have rudely mocked his fame and questioned the relevance of both his life and death.  It seems though that neither the polite nor the rude have expressed the true significance of Jacksons life and success.

Jackson is more than an entertainer.  His life iconifies an entire generation.  Jackson became a star at the age of 11 during what was then the most turbulent time of most of our lives.  It was 1969, the country was torn with anti-war strife, racial unrest, and simmering civil unrest.  Jackson was a black child - but his appeal was to ALL Americans.  His success at an early age faded as he entered adolescence.  America also faded.

America, stunned by a humiliating military defeat in Viet Nam, numbed by the rapid succession of murders of King, and Kennedy, weary of years of civil unrest, and finally repulsed by the criminal acts of a disgraced President; fell into a deep malaise. Most of the supposed "smart" people of that period believed that America needed to just "get used to" 20% interest rates, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.  We were told that American greatness was a thing of the past. 

In 1981, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States.

In 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average "surged" above the 2,000 threshold for the first time in history.  Americans began to believe in themselves again.  National confidence began to grow.  Young American adults frequented restaurants and night clubs more than any time in recent past - and they danced.  More than to anything else, they danced to Michael Jackson.  Having moved from Cleveland, Ohio to Houston Texas in 1981, this humble blogger was at times surprised by the cultural differences exemplified by cowboy hats, pointy boots, and belt buckles that could easily be used hub caps.  It was admittedly uncomfortable to watch grown men dressed up like Roy Rogers, drinking beer by the barrel and dancing around doing something called the "two step."

But . . .

In 1982, in every bar or night club in Texas, (and everywhere else in the country) at some point in the evening there would be the a grinding 3 beat percussion, followed by a familiar base line, and finally ...

"She was more like a beauty queen - from a movie scene" ...

Before the first line of "Billy Jean" was complete, the dance floor would be jammed with people.  All kinds of people.  White people, brown people, black people, and every other variety.   They danced.   They danced like Michael.  (well, they tried to)  They felt good about dancing to Michael Jackson - they didn't care a bit about race.  And neither did Michael Jackson.  Americans sensed a returning strength to the land called America.  As that sense became reality, as often as not, the music in the background was performed my Michael Jackson. 

Later that year the IBM PC became a commercial success, two years later another Michael (Dell) started a company to "clone" IBM PC 's and the "information age" burst into full swing. 

Micheal Jackson did one thing better than anyone else before, or since.  He succeeded.  He was the biggest individual commercial success in the world.  He did it all with out ever leaning on a race baitor or looking for some government hand out.  He transcended race without trying.  He was what Barack Obama can never be.  A pure accomplished achiever whose success paralleled the rebirth of a great nation.  He achieved a level of success that had been heretofore unknown, and may never be reached again.  His gross revenues dwarfed the GNP of small nations.  His face, his name, his music, were all immediately recognized throughout the world.

Yes, Michael Jackson was wierd.  No attempt is being made to make excuses for, or minimize his oddities.  He was, in fact, bizzarre.  But, Michael Jackson was purely an individual.  He not only transcended race, he transcended every other demographic type cast -  he wasn't Black/White, Gay/Straight, even Male/Female - he was just Michael Jackson.  It is this extrardinary individuality that made Michael Jackson uniquely American.  He emboddied the spirit of the individual. 

It is the individual that is currently under attack in America.  Individuals in America are being asked, and even demanded, to surrender their individual liberties for the sake of the collective.  We are being told that "the climate", "health care", and "the economy" are all in peril - and that to save them we'll all have to act as a "collective" for the benefit of the common good.  Michael Jackson didn't believe in surrendering his individuality for the sake of the collective.  He developed his individual talents into unparalleled success.  He proved that the strongest "collective" is one that is made up of the strongest "individuals" - not vice versa.

Like Michael Jackson or hate Michael Jackson, the enormity of his success is undeniable.  So to, is the fact that it his success flourished under Ronald Reagan, languished under Clinton/Bush, and died under Barack Obama.

We can only hope that the parallel does not continue.
 

Why not - Everyone else has a fix.  Only difference is, this one works - but it won't make everyone happy.

The biggest problem with Health Care, as it now functions is that we already have a Public Health Care system, we just refuse to define it and deal with it as such.  Consequently the costs of Publicly funded health costs are spread among insurers, taxpayers, and direct payers in a rather arbitrary manner.  This process only succeeds in making everyone feel cheated - and probably everyone is cheated.  That is except the recipient of Public Health Care.

Our current public system is based around the EMTALA act of 1986.  In short, "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions." (Source Wikipedia)

Among the basic problems with the act, is that it didn't clearly define "emergency" and it made no provision for how such treatment would be paid.  Consequently, most hospitals have defined "emergency" as anyone who visits the emergency room.  Over the past 23 years this has evolved to mean everything from auto wreck trauma, to children with sniffles. Because no specific formula for payment has ever been established, most hospitals have kludged together some arbitrary method which combines; the submitting request for indigent care treatment to city, county, and state governments, inflating the charges to paying users, and attempting to limit payments to caretakers as well as absorbing some level of indigent care cost.  Because of this haphazard cost distribution, it is not unreasonable to say that no one really knows what this policy really costs.

Another aspect of this quasi-public funding program is that it has place an upward pressure on overall prices due to the economic realities of absorbing scarce medical resources and the presence of public funding.  The existence of this system cannot be underestimated in it's role in the dramatic upward spiral of health care costs. Combined with a runaway "jackpot justice" system which also burdens health care providers with extraordinary liability to accompany the obligation to provide "emergency treatment" the recipe for a "health care crisis" is almost complete. 

The solution to this self imposed crisis is simple. Define EMERGENCY, and limit care accordingly.

Of course, this would require legislators to make hard decisions - and actually DENY something from the public coffers rather than give it away.  This is not as difficult as it sounds.  For years insurance carriers have established "defined benefits" where they have clearly enumerated virtually every known medical procedure.  Each governing jurisdiction needs to get a copy of such a "defined benefit" list, and start identifying what procedures will qualify for "emergency" treatment. 

Some decisions about "emergency" are clear.  Setting broken bones from an auto accident - for example.  That's clearly an emergency.  What about follow up care ?  Not so clear.  Either way, it simply has to be decided, defined, and then funded.  This is not rocket science.  Every public hospital can make a reasonable estimation of how many of each emergency procedures will perform per year.  Accordingly, it can estimate the cost of such procedure - and apply for city, county, state, or federal funding for such costs.  If these "public benefits" were clearly defined, private insurance could be tailored to provide the necessary care over and above the known and limited "public" care.  This way, everyone only pays once.

That is, the "public" would pay for only very limited and defined emergency care.  Every citizen would then be knowingly funding such defined care through an identifiable public budget line item.  Defined care could be expanded or contracted based on public input and available funds.  Accordingly, insurance providers (in a competitive environment) would lower their premiums to account for public care that they would not have to cover.  This would allow for a much greater consumer choice in insurance products.  Healthy young people could buy a policy that only covers major medical, and chose to simply pay for any "cold / flu " treatment out of pocket.  Such policies would probably be both inexpensive for the consumer and profitable for the provider.

This isn't really such a radical proposal.  Consider the property insurance analogy.  Virtually every property owner carries some level of fire/casualty policy on their property.  Yet, almost none of them include covering the cost of local  fire protection.  The cost of maintaining fire trucks, fire stations, and paying fire fighters and EMS are almost always public expenditures.  Not so amazingly, if one resides in an area with highly regarded fire and ems services, they fire hazard policy rates are generally lower than if one resides in an area served by a poorly funded volunteer fire service.  The public portion of fire protection is clear and defined.  They put out the fire, the home owner has to deal with repair of the damage. A similar relationship exists for police protection.  The public police force will investigate crimes against private property, but the owner pays for security systems, theft insurance, and of course a couple of decent hand guns to protect private property.

The template where there is a defined public "nugget" of service, and an unlimited availability of private supplemental service is proven.  It works well in police, fire, ems, and even transportation (think public roads - private vehicles).  There is no reason that it can't work in health care.

Such a health care structure would return some level of consumer choice to medical costs, continue to allocate scarce resources according to monetary value, and begin to return some sanity in our health care system.  Most importantly, it would tend to strengthen the private sector system - and help stem the current tide toward Government control that is slouching ever closer and closer to a totalitarian tyranny.

As the debacle of Cap and Trade legislation looms ever closer, the public is often treated to the corresponding promise of a "New Green Economy" or "New Green Jobs" as a result of our "Transformation from Carbon to Renewable Energy."  President Obama recently made this argument in a speech from a solar panel manufacturing plant.  The New Green Economy is characterized as creating a large number of high paying jobs that are similar in size and scale to current manufacturing jobs.  This characterization that suddenly the U.S. will suddenly employ millions of people building wind mills and solar panels lacks any reasoned analysis. 

Consider . . .

Current "Carbon based" fuels already employ a small but significant sector of the economy.  To the extent that our energy sources are "transformed" we will obviously destroy many of the jobs that currently exist in that industry.  Consequently, at the very start of the "transformation" the new "green economy" will first have to create enough jobs to make up for those that it destroyed. 

One might argue that alternatives will never completely replace carbon fuels - so many of those jobs will still exist.  This is probably true, there in lies the other side of this energy conundrum.  Since carbon based fuels will continue to exist, new "green energy" must be at least somewhat competitive in price with carbon fuels.  Yet, to the extent the carbon fuel economy shrinks, there will be at least some marginal decline in jobs in the carbon fuel sector. 

It must be pointed out that our current energy industry produces energy rather efficiently, therefore by definition, doesn't employee a large percentage of the population.  For example, Exxon, the worlds largest publicly traded oil company, employs about 107,000 people worldwide.  By contrast, General Motors, the troubled flailing auto maker employs over 252,000.

When comparing the revenue per employee the contrast becomes more stark.  The 2008 numbers are:

All the great ones can do it.  Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, and now Obama.  It's a quick move to the right, when the opponent "bites" on the move, accelerate to the left and leave your defender looking helpless as he's "posterized" by a thunderous slam dunk.

In Obama's case, talk up the Afghanistan conflict, cite it as the "real war" on terror.  Escalate troop levels, request international help, increase unmanned drone attacks, and continue the strong rhetoric of Afghanistan being the central front on terror - while Iraq was a distraction.  Many who are skeptical of Obama's proposed policies and actions have already taken the bait and applauded this "aggressive, muscular, foreign policy" with respect to Afghanistan.  The response has be become almost automatic, "Yes, but I support his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan."

But ... Is this really good policy ?

Why did the Bush administration avoid a larger Afghan conflict ?

Why are there even fewer nations willing to join the Afghan "coalition of the willing" ?

Could it be because it is wrong headed and destined to fail ?

Further, could another grand U.S. Military failure, after having collected the support of all the potential "Iraq" heroes, be exactly the domestic political goal of this administration ?

Admittedly, the final premise in the above argument borders on being hyper - cynical.  Keep in mind, however, that this is the same administration that fired the CEO of GM, publicly stated it's intent to back GM warranties with the full faith and credit of the US Government, place new directors on it's board, and then proclaim, "we have not interest in running General Motors."  To that end, please forgive the cynical point of view when evaluating this administrations stated goals in Afghanistan.

Consider, the previous administration routed the Taliban, secured the Capital, and supported a democratically elected government based in Kabul.  They elected to not attempt to fight the tribal guerilla  forces that were able to coalesce in the mountainous hinterlands along the Afghan / Pakistan border.  The rationale - the unlikely probability of success.  This region has been in an almost continual state of conflict for about 160 years.  It was first a territorial dispute in which England and Russia battled for the bragging rights to to this land of questionable worth.  Later it was the USSR that eventually left in an embarrasing defeat at the hands of the Mujahadeen, (yes the Mujahadeen was supported by the US and OBL)

Now it is Barack Obama, wearing his military hawk hat; charging headlong into the hinterlands of the Afghan / Pakistan border; claiming the offensive in the real war on America's enemies and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin.  A realistic evaluation of this strategy struggles to find a way that it can succeed.  It is hard to visualize a scenario in which conventional forces can defeat an non-uniformed nomadic guerilla force that is irregularly dispersed throughout some of the most treacherous terrain on earth.  Is it not more likely that this advance into Afghanistan be an advance into the very "quagmire" that the left has been lamenting since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003?

It is far easier to imagine the Afghan war in terms of domestic politics.  The military increase helps keep the right wing in check, and offers some level of cover for the media idiots who continue to call this President a "moderate."  It allows for a slow but steady rumbling by the anti-war left; which also adds to the "moderate" credentials of this Statist President.  Then after two plus years of increasingly damaging losses of troops in Afghanistan, all with little or no impact on the marauding tribal fighters - Obama announces the withdrawl of US forces from Afghanistan.  The military humiliation becomes Obama's "proof" that even with his "uniquely qualified superior judgment" - military action is simply ineffective in today's world.  His newly found "superior judgment" will be heralded by the world as virtual omniscience, the anti-war left will re-embrace it's returning prodigal leader, re-united families will praise the great wisdom of Obama on nightly news clips of returning troops, and money will flow like never before into the coffers of the OBAMA 2012 campaign fund.

Surely, this cannot be the possible.  No President could want a US military defeat for political expediency.  No human could be that brazenly duplicitous.  Really .... remember:

"we have not interest in running General Motors."

Meanwhile, the military will be humiliated, demoralized, depleted in funding and supplies, and soon to be relegated to a second class status among the worlds military elite.  The US will no longer be a superpower.  For Barack Obama:



 

In true "Poltergeist" fashion . . .  Theyyyy'rrreee   Baaccckkk,

The proponents of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," that is.

During the fall of 2007 the pro-immigration forces of the left, joined with the sympathetic forces of the right (Bush, McCain, Graham, etc.), and came within an eyelash of passing a thinly veiled "amnesty" bill.  Only a ferocious public response lead by the voices of talk radio, stirred enough opposition to defeat the proposed legislation.  That was when Republicans held the White House, and a near tie in the Senate.  The numbers are different now.

Obama supports sweeping immigration reform, as do Pelosi and Reid.  Republicans have no numbers in the House, and they spot the Democrats at least two, and probably four votes in the Senate.

In other words - this time, "Immigration Reform" will happen.

The only bargaining chip left for those that oppose blanket amnesty, is to attempt to gain some measure of restriction on immigration in return for making the legislation appear "bi-partisan."   This isn't much, but it may be enough to get at least some concessions from the Democrats to hopefully retain some restrictions on immigration and amnesty.  The question, this time is not win or lose, it is - What can we do to limit the damage ?

This blog comes from a different point of view than many conservatives on this subject.  Having lived and worked near the Texas / Mexican border for more than two decades, this writer has had mostly positive experiences with Mexican immigrants - both legal and illegal.  San Antonio, for example,  has had a majority Hispanic population for decades, yet remains one of the countries most popular tourist destinations.  Similarly the city of Laredo is populated with over 90% Hispanics, yet is as hospitable and friendly to Caucasians as any city in the world.  Despite the recent problems of violence in neighboring Nuevo Laredo, one would be hard pressed to find a city that boasts a more industrious and productive population than found in Laredo.  The point here, is that this writer does not believe that increased Mexican immigration is - in itself - automatically a bad thing for America.

That is not to say there are not problems.  There are. 

The problem is "Assimilation".

We simply don't do a good job of requiring recent immigrants to assimilate to our culture and values.

Ironically, we have the same failure with our own youth.

Our schools don't only do a poor job of teaching American traditions, values, and goodness to immigrants.  They don't do a good job of teaching such things to our own youth. 

Could we possibly address both issues at the same time ?

Most conservatives don't like the idea of a Federal Department of Education.  But we have one, and it seems unlikely to go away any time soon.  If we are going to lose the immigration debate, perhaps we can leverage what little bargaining power we have to gain some ground in the "assimilation debate."  In return for supporting immigration reform, we should require that every 6th grade student pass a full year long course that studies the "Federalist Papers", and that every graduating High School student pass a full year long course on "The Constitution of the United States."  The requirement should further condition the design of the course work to follow a fairly concise curriculum that would preclude anti-American interpretations of these historic documents. 

If every graduating High School Senior was taught specifically of the struggles and arguments that make up the founding documents of our country, and the unique value of the individual liberties designed to be protected by, not in fringed on, by our Government - it would matter very little if the graduate were Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, or Black.  Perhaps it's a pipe dream to think that Department of Education could be legislated into requiring students to learn an accurate and vital aspect of American History.   Most High School graduates currently don not even know that the "Federalist Papers" exist.  Many are taught the 3/5ths clause of Constitution as an example of inherent racism, rather than the truth of its origin and purpose. It seems imperative, if the conservative movement has a chance to survive, it will need to get a some control over the liberal indoctrination process we now call "Public Education."  This seems as good an opportunity as any to do so.

It would appear to be politically difficult for Democrats to oppose a "Comprehensive Education" requirement as a concession for "Comprehensive Immigration."  It is, after all - "for the children."  Additionally, if the public debate could be steered toward the subjects of "Federalist Papers" and "The Constitution" perhaps it might inspire some adults and educators to take a moment to read these documents, and realize the extent to which our precious liberties and individual freedoms are at risk.


 

Audio version Pt. 1
Audio version Pt. 2
President Barack Obama's stimulus bill has so far, done little to stimulate anything but debate about the efficacy of Keynesian economics.  The proponents of the "Stimulus Bill" argue that they are employing fundamental "Keynesian principles", while opponents of the bill are generally arguing that Keynesian priciples do not work.  While the opponents argument may be valid, it's irrelevant - because the "Stimulus Bill" is a perversion of Keynesian theory.

The history of civilization provides us with numerous examples of those who seek power, twisting the teachings of  a legitimate belief system into a tool to serve their own quest for power.  The teaching of Christ, for example, are steeped in peace, goodness, kindness, and even somewhat in  pasivism.  Yet there are countless examples where Christian principles have been the rationale for war, hangings, burnings, or lessor aggressions.  While many will argue that Islam has violent roots, few would argue that it directly teaches the mass murder of innocents - yet hardly a week passes without some demented individual blowing himself to bits in the hope of killing as many others has possible - in the name of Allah.

The current Administration is to Keynesian economics, what Osama Bin Laden is to Islam. or the Salem Witch Trials were to Christianity.

As an undergrad student of economics, this lowly future blogger spent many hours laboring over the writings and works of John Maynard Keynes .  His theory of a Government role in supplanting lagging demand in the private sector during a trough of a business cycle is a reasoned theory, which may be argued convincingly for and against, but it bears no resemblance to the current Administration's "Stimulus Package".   Keynes argued that during periods of economic downturn, productive capacity was abandoned to adjust to the diminished demand, and then later adjusted upward to meet increased demand as the business cycle rebounded.  Keynes saw these shifts in the productive capacity as grossly inefficient.  To eliminate such inefficiency, Keynes  argued that Government should step in, make up for the diminished demand, keep the productive capacity at a high level, then step back out as demand returned.  This is what many Keynesian's  teach as "priming the pump" of economic growth.

Such Keynesian theory is in stark contrast to the current "stimulus" theory.   Elkhart Indiana is where the President chose to shill for his stimulus policy, and it's a great example of the contrast between Keynesian economics and Obama's radical Keynesian Jihadist policies.

Elkhart Indiana is the center of RV manufacturing in the United States.  Demand for such vehicles has been devastated by a combination of economic events.  If Obama were practicing Keynesian economics, he would have taken the podium in Elkhart and announced that the Federal Government has just placed orders for several hundred RV's with various manufactures in Elkhart, and most of Elkharts citizens will be recalled to their old jobs soon.  He would have further announced that by the time all the orders were completed, there were very likely to be enough private sector orders to keep all employed for many years.  Were he to have done so, he doubtlessly would have been cheered mightily and been hailed by the residents of Elkhart as the Savior and Messiah in which they now so firmly believed.  This would be a true Keynesian policy.  While some would still argue against it on pure economic terms, the immediate impact would be significant and positive - at least in Elkhart Indiana.

Obama's policy however, like his answers during the "rally", were quite different,  The lord and merciful did not announce a government order for the productive sector of Elkhart to gear up and start cranking out RV's, rather he spoke of "providing" health care, unemployment assistance, food stamps, and school construction.  Not surprisingly, most of the people of  Elkhart were puzzled and responded with respectful yet limited applause.  In the current administrations perverse adaptation of Keynesian theory, the Government does not directly purchase from producers to supplant lagging demand, but rather it pours money into government sector, social services programs, which are designed to ease the pain of unemployment.  The rationale, in this Keynesian perversion, is that the money spent by those receiving government stipends will eventually increase lagging demand in the private sector.  One need do only a  superficial analysis of this logic to find it to be flawed at best.

There have been study after study showing the inefficiencies of government sponsered benefits.  Even the most optimistic studies concede that about half of the expense of programs such as food stamps and unemployment insurance are absorbed by administrative costs.  Yet the proponents of this Administrations Keynesian Jihad pontificate about something they call "the multiplier."  They then apply this "multiplier" to the program in question to justify the allocation.  Stimulus apologists cite multiplier factors as if they were the imperical equivalent of a proven mathematic axiom.  While in fact,, "multipliers" in an economic sense are an abstract and unprovable theory.  In truth, they probably exist, but not in this context.
 
The multiplier theory in economics is used to explain the differing impacts of various economic activities.  Hard manufacturing is generally thought to provide a high "multiplier."  That is, a dollar spent on manufacturing a tangible product, will be multiplied due to the necessary support industries required by manufacturing.  Service oriented work requires less outside support, therefore has a smaller "multiplier."  The exact  values of these multipliers are the subject of endless debate among people that debate such things, and there is only vague agreement among most about the relative order of  multipliers per type of economic activity.  Oddly, most place "banking deposits" among the highest of economic multipliers, but the administration has used the possibility that tax cuts might just be "saved" rather than "spent" as a reason to avoid tax cuts.

In short the Obama administration has perverted the fundamentals of Keynesian theory to include ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING - with little concern about on what the money is being spent.  By this definition, money spent by government cannot be "wasted", it can only be spent and it will be returned to the economy in greater numbers due to economic "multipliers."   Even a child can see through this inexplicable logic.  If it were true, stimulation of the economy would be easy and risk free.  Simply announce that every checking account has an extra $1,000.00 in it tomorrow.  If that doesn't effectively stimulate the economy in a few months, just do it again - maybe using $10,000.00 next time.  Even if it doesn't adequately stimulate the economy - it will at least be returning at the "multiplier rate."  No harm done - right.

As stupid as the above proposal sounds, it is quite consistent with the Obama position on stimulus - which is ALL SPENDING IS STIMULUS.  Thus equating to a perversion of Keynesian theory equal to the perversion of Islam to support terroism, and using Christianity to support witch burning. 

In conclusion, remember, Obama' is  not a  Keynesian, but a  radical Keynesian Jihadist.

Audio version Pt. 1
Audio Version Pt. 2
Audio Version Pt. 3

Most believe that the Federal Government should take an active role in hastening the end of the current private sector recession.  While the benefits of government spending are hardly conclusive; there exists an almost unanimous agreement that "something" must be done.  What Congress and President Obama don't seem to understand, is that in the self declared "war on recession"; government has a limited number of "trillion dollar bullets" to fire in this war.  Each such successive "bullet" carries the increased possibility of backfiring into a period of rapid inflation, which could escalate into hyper-inflation thereby devastating the value of the currency.  The total devastation of the dollar would destroy the U.S. as we know it, and possibly destroy civil society world wide.   

One such "trillion dollar" bullet has already been fired with the TARP bailout legislation.  At best it grazed the enemy. Congress is now preparing to aim it's second trillion dollar bullet, (the pending Stimulus Package)  with the third such bullet (a trillion dollar deficit budget) being loaded and readied.  Given that Congress and the President are ignorant of the fact that they are playing with the equivalent of "nuclear economic" options, it is absolutely vital that these trillion dollar bullets be aimed accurately. 

To direct the aim of government spending, it may be educational to review the spending done during the Great Depression.

Much has been made of the role of government spending and it's effect on either shortening the Great Depression or making it worse.  While there is not universal agreement, many economists now believe that the accelerated government spending of the Roosevelt administration, hindered, rather than hastened recovery.  Most that believe the New Deal was ineffective, often claim that the Great Depression was ended by WWII. 

If that is so, what is it about WWII that ended the Great Depression ?

We didn't invade the depression.

We didn't overthrow the depression.

We didn't nuke the depression.

During the 1/21 broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, Rush read a letter to a Green Bay radio station from a Green Bay teacher, who is identified only as "liberal anal teacher" (herein after known as LAT.)  The text of the letter is as follows:

"Dear Mr. Bader:  My name is [liberal anal teacher] and I contacted you via phone message earlier today.  I just wanted to put into writing my complete and utter disappointment in your radio station's choices during President Obama's inauguration speech today.  I understand that Rush Limbaugh built his career around his opinion and commentary.  But I thought that even he would have the decency to honor such a historical and momentous event in our country's history.  I am a teacher at a middle school in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  It was highly unfortunate that when our school decided to broadcast Obama's speech over our PA to our student population of 1,200, our administrators randomly selected Mr. Limbaugh's program.  My students were shocked, angered, and saddened by the interruption of what was a respectful event, truly the most momentous moment of their young lives." 

It seems that the esteemed LAT is upset that Mr. Limbaugh injected some editorial commentary during the speech.  Anyone listening to Mr. Limbaugh would have to agree that his commentary, during the Obama's speech was almost non-existent, and certainly not inflammatory.  However there is a peculiar irony to the distress of our dear LAT, and it is  in light of such irony that the following open letter is offered:

Dear LAT,

I'm sorry that you were upset by the freedom of speech exercised by Rush Limbaugh during the broadcast of his own show, which your school chose to rebroadcast throughout the school.   There are, however, several things you should consider while stewing in your victim-hood of the "random choice" of stations from which to experience the "most momentous moment" of your life.

I wondered at first why the school didn't simply tune in TV coverage, but then realized that it would be quite difficult, without having 1,200 TV's, to provide an "equal experience" for all the students.  With TV, some would be sitting close, others far, such inequality could never be tolerated.  By contrast, with radio rebroadcast through the school PA, all students would have an equal experience - and the school has nothing to buy.  Now, only to choose the station.

The choice however is far from random.

 Radio signals are broadcast in two different varieties.  They can be tuned in either by Frequency Modulation (FM) or Amplitude Modulation (AM).  Since most FM stations are music oriented, it's unlikely that there was any choice but to tune into an AM station.  Most schools are made of steel and concrete.  These materials make it difficult for an AM signal to be clearly received inside such a structure, therefore it requires a relatively STRONG AM signal to bring the students the "most momentous event of their lifetimes."

Broadcast signal power is measured in kilowatts (kW.)  There are three AM stations in Green Bay.  They are:

While observing the current media frenzy over the "Historic" aspects of tomorrows inauguration; it is difficult to not recall the similar, if slightly smaller, media frenzy over the "Historic" nature of Major League Baseball's first black Manager. 

Frank Robinson, a certifiable superstar player, was named as manager of the Cleveland Indians in 1975.  The media spoke loftily about the racial breakthrough and positive historical implications this event held for all Americans.  To make matters even more dramatic, Frank Robinson was to be a "player / manager."  That is, he would be managing the team on the field,  and also be playing a position.  This added something to the drama of the first black manager, not only would he be seen in the dugout and walking to the mound, but he would actually be at the plate, taking his swings. 

When opening day came in Cleveland, every square inch of the enormous, cavernous, Cleveland Municipal Stadium sidelines were filled with reporters, photographers, and TV cameras.  Keep in mind this was before the existence of cable and internet news - if such an event were to take place today, the 80,000 person capacity stadium might not even hold all the media .  Indians fans, while enjoying the hype, had more serious thoughts in mind.  The Cleveland Indians were, at the time, perhaps the most discouraging franchise in all of professional sports.  Cleveland fans were filled with "hope" that this "change" would lead their team to new winning ways.

When Frank Robinson strode toward the plate for his inaugural at bat as a manager, the near capacity crowd rose to its feet in a thunderous ovation, camera flashes came from everywhere, the frenzy seemed to have peaked.  Robinson then drove a towering fly ball to left field,  the already frenzied crowd exploded into a euphoric roar as the ball bounced triumphantly behind the fence, and Robinson took his historic "home run" trot around the bases.  Some choked back tears of joy as they cheered their new hero.  Others cried openly, unable to suppress  the overwhelming emotional belief that this single event  marked an emphatic exclamation of racial justice and equality.  Some found themselves once again believing in the goodness of God. 

The Indians went on to win on Opening Day, and the euphoria continued for about 3 months.  But alas, results in sports are objective and empirical.  No amount of "hype" can turn a strike-out into a hit, or loss into a win.  Soon Frank Robinson found himself subject to the same issues all managers face.  After a two and a half mediocre seasons, Robinson was fired.  Nothing much changed in Cleveland, or in baseball for that matter.  Robinson went on to be a mediocre manager for four other Major League teams, twice finishing as high as 2nd, and never managing a post season game.  The Indians continued their poor to mediocre performances until a new Stadium and ownership breathed life into the ailing franchise.  There have been many black managers since Frank Robinson, and their will be many to come.  

The reason that nothing much changed in baseball, was that there was  not any real racial barrier in 1975 to blacks being managers in Major League Baseball.   While there may have been some reluctance on the part of owners to be the first to hire a black manager, the overriding reason for there being no black managers was a simple lack of qualified, eligible, and interested candidates.  When Jackie Robinson became the first black Major League player it did change everything.  There were Negro leagues where hundreds of qualified, capable, black players plied their trade without hope of ever making it to the segregated Major Leagues of baseball.  Once the barrier was broken, qualified black players were steadily welcomed into baseball, changing the game forever.

Such was not the case when Frank Robinson became manager of the Cleveland Indians.  Being a major league manager requires a very narrow set of skills and experiences that can only be acquired over long periods of time.  Since, blacks had only been playing major league baseball for less than 30 years, their were very few blacks that had both the qualifications and the desire to be a major league manager.  By 1975, it was inevitable that there would one day be a black manager, just as it was inevitable that there would one day be a black NFL quarterback, or NFL head coach.  There were no institutional biases to prevent these things, only the lacking of an available talent pool prevented blacks from entering those roles. 

Consequently, while everyone remembers Jackie Robinson, few remember Frank Robinson as baseballs first manager, fewer remember Fritz Pollard as the NFL's first head coach, fewer still remember Marlin Briscoe as the NFL's first black quarterback.  This is because while they were the "first" blacks to reach certain positions, there were no institutional barriers being broken.  Black managers, coaches, and quarterbacks have come and gone since, none of which has had any serious social or professional impact. 

It is likely that much will be the same with Barack Obama.  While, as in the cases of Frank Robinson, Fritz Pollard, and Marlin Briscoe, the media has hyped the occasion of a black rising to a new position as a moment in history; it really is simply the occurrence of an inevitable event, given that there exists no barrier for a black person to become President.  There are not "leagues" of competent black politicians languishing in wait of a break through.  Blacks have been involved at all levels of political activity in this country since the civil rights movement and the unrest of the 60's.  The battles over racial injustice have been fought and won for a long time in the United States.  There has been no institutional, nor significant voter bias against a black President for many years.  Rather to the contrary, the country seemed to bend over backwards to elect the first plausible black candidate to run for President, when no white person could reasonably be expected to be elected with the resume of Barack Obama.

In conclusion, it's likely that the election of Barack Obama reinforces the true reality that few racial barriers exist in the United States rather than to actually break down an existing race barrier.  As a result, it's unlikely that there will be any significant "change" associated with the racial aspect of the Presidency, and once the media hype dies down - we can return to business as usual.   Perhaps even the media will resist  making "race" the issue every time a person of color achieves something.  Now that's a change for which we can all hope.

Just in time to derail the then surging Republican candidate for President, George Bush, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson announced to the world the the United States monetary system was on the brink of catastrophic failure.  Such failure, we were told, could only be alleviated by immediately creating and injecting 750 billion dollars into the financial markets for the purpose of buying "toxic assets".  The Senate recognized the urgency and demanded an additional 100 billion in pork projects to finally pass the bail out bill.  John McCain did his part by reacting to this "crisis" in a totally incoherent and inconsistent manner - but that is the stuff of another post.

We know now that the afore mention three wizards of smart, were either wrong - or lying.  We don't need any outside confirmation to know this.  By there own admission, they did not buy "toxic assets."  The economy did not collapse.

What the hell are we doing ?

-The financial sector needed 750 billion - or we were all dead.
-The auto industry needed 40 billion - or we were all dead.
-Now the Government needs to spend a 2 trillion dollar "stimulus" - or we're all dead.

In the mean time - back on planet earth (which somehow continues in its rotation without additional spending), the U.S. economy "plunged" to a record setting level of unemployment.  That level is about 3% above theoretical full employment.  Most small and medium sized businesses are responding prudently to signals of economic slowdown.  They are cutting non-essential staff, seeking lower cost vendors, and re-focusing their market strategies toward a public with smaller discretionary income.  This is not a crisis.  This is a vital phase of the private sector business cycle.

It seems that the "wizards of smart" are so completely self centered, they've forgotten that they and their predecessors had little to do with the past 25 years of economic expansion.  The people that drove economic expansion over the past three decades are not, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Volker, Greenspan, or Bernanke.  The people responsible have names like Dell, Jobs, Gates, Ellison, Torvalds (sorry couldn't resist), Page and Brin.  This is not to say that government did not play a role - it did.  Howerver, the driving force of economic growth is innovation and production.

That is, a useful item is invented, then it's produced - adding wealth to the economy; and defining the business cycle.  Since 1980 we've created major industry segments that didn't even exist in the 70's.  Personal comupters, cell phones, dvds, dvrs, gps, web servers, mp3 players, etc etc.  These innovations account for billions of dollars in economic expansion.  This is why we have a business cycle.  We have a period of innovation, followed by production, and as the market becomes saturated with the new innovation it reaches a point of maturity.  At this point there is little growth by adding new sales, but sales are sustained by the replacement of old and worn out products.

This is where we're at right now.  Most of the innovations of the past have reached a point of maturity.  That is, most of the people that want personal comupters, cell phones, dvds, dvrs, gps, web servers, mp3 players, etc etc. - have them; and there's been little advances in these technologies in the past two years to entice people to discard their current devices in favor of new ones.  For example, since 1995 it was almost axiomatic that businesses replace most of their desktop computers every three years.  The quickly advancing technology meant that failing to keep pace with the latest technology made it difficult to read, exchange, and communicate with those that did keep pace.  Currently, there is no functional difference between a computer purchased in 2006 and 2009; consequently they'll be replaced when they break not because they're obsolete.

Much the same is true for many industries.  The Government would have us believe that we all went out and bought Ipods and plasma screens because the nation appeared to have a sound monetary and fiscal policy.  Such thinking is abusrd.  People bought Ipods and plasma screen tv's because they're really, really, cool.   It is foolhardy to believe, however, that a prudent person would discard his perfectly good plasma screen tv and buy an new one just because the Congress passed a "stimulus package" that put money in a persons bank account.  

This places our economy in a "trough" of the business cycle - not a crisis.  It must be noted that the current "trough" is deeper due to the simultaneous  bursting of a government induced real estate bubble, and a spike in gas prices that absorbed huge amounts of disposable income.  No amount of "stimulus" is going to cause a prudent person to make an imprudent purchase.  Currently, people are behaving with full rationality by being frugal.  Given that there are few compelling innovations that pique the interest of the consumer and the Government is screaming that we are in a "crisis;" it is completly rational for both business and consumer to remain frugal.

The idea that the Government can embark on a totally irrational spending plan with the objective of spending enough money to cause people react equally irrationally - is nothing short of insanity.

Government's role in a free market economy is to provide a positive business environment by enforcing equitable laws of commerce fairly and consistently throughout the system, and to maintain the quality of the currency through sound fiscal and monetary policy.  That's it.  Such Government actions provide a high level of confidence in both investors (foreign and domestic) and innovators.  It is stability and confidence that provides the proper climate for the innovation that yields economic growth.  When peoples confidence in fair, equitable laws of commerce, fair taxation, a stable currency and financial system returns; so to. will innovation and production return.  Only then will we be on our way to recovery and prosperity.

There are those "Keynesians" who insist that the Government must "Prime the pump" with deficit spending.  This is at best debatable.  In any case, one must remember that the "pump"  is the economic climate made of sound fiscal, and monetary policy, buoyed by a sound currency and equitable enforcement of laws of commerce.  Government actions should be focused on correcting deficiencies in these fundamentals of our economy.  No amount of priming will fix a broken pump.

Much has been made in previous weeks about Caroline Kennedy's lack of qualifications for Senate.  She's never held elective office, and she seems to say "you know" a lot.  Ipso facto, so the logic goes....... She's not qualified to be a Senator.

This logic seems rather peculiar.

It seems many have the mistaken belief that there are extensive qualifications required to be a Senator.  Few things are farther from the truth.  There are, in fact, almost no qualifications required to be a Senator.  More importantly, the tasks required of a Senator are breathtakingly simple.  The only thing a Senator actually does, is vote.  There vote is either yes - or - no (or I guess "present" if you're really stumped).  There vote is never more than 1 in 100, and in almost every case the vote is cast along with the already established "Party Position."  To be sure, there are a few "Maverick" Senate votes, but far fewer than one might imagine.  One can vote along party lines more than 90% of the time and still claim to be a "Maverick." 

So, about those qualifications . . .

It seems that by "qualifications" for Senate what is commonly referred to as qualifications is the ability to parlay legislative influence into campaign contributions to further solidify ones political power and stature.  The only other observable "qualification" would be to become adept at guiding mal-invested public funds to ones own state for the purpose of garnering greater public support for re-election.  Is it really so terrible that we might have a Senator that lacks these "qualifications ?"

From a practical standpoint, Caroline Schlossberg is an attorney, she has written extensively, and served on the boards of several non-profit organizations.   While this resume may not be overwhelming, one must also remember that there don't seem to be any bright red flags in the background of JFK's daughter.  She has no apparent history of shady real estate deals with convicted felons, there don't seem to be any admitted terrorists in her "posse", her religious inspirations haven't come from America hating wacko's, and she's not been involved in a U.S. attorney's office sting for trying to buy the Senate seat. 

Face it people, she's as qualified and capable as any of the other pompous, self centered, ego- manical, occupants of Senate.  Besides that, she's not half bad looking.  What's the real problem ?  Many states have customarily made the wife of a Senator the acting Senator in the event of a death in office.  Surely Mrs. Schlossberg is as qualified as most Senator's wifes. She'll have to actually "run" for the office in 2010 - if she's so bad - she'll get voted out.

Let's back off of Caroline Kennedy and rather use the opportunity to explain how there are no real qualifications required to be a Senator, which in turn means; being a Senator for a long time is not really a qualification for anything - especially the Presidency of the United States.

How big is the world ?

How crowded is the world ?

Overpopulation, pollution, carbon emissions, global warming; are we killing our planet ?

We, as humans are somewhat self-centered by nature.  Additionally, it seems we're all biased by our immediate observations.  That is we tend to look at our surrounding environment, and imagine the balance of the world looks much the same way.  This is perhaps reinforced by the fact that we humans often move about from place "A" to place "B" with both "A" and "B" looking very much alike.

For example, one can board a plane or begin a drive in Austin Texas, and travel 1,500 miles to Cleveland Ohio, and observe much the same surroundings.  That is, at both locations one would see a metropolitan area consisting of single family homes, businesses, shopping centers, restaurants, streets, traffic lights, etc. etc.  One would also see people living and moving about in roughly the same density.  That is, about the same number of people per square mile. 

That density changes somewhat from city to city.  New York, for example is characterized by a quite dense population, while Kansas City is much less dense by comparison.  Yet, in either example one would observe several thousand people per each square mile of area.  We tend to develop the perception that the worlds surface is rather uniformly populated with several thousand people per square mile. 

This common perception can be illustrated by asking this theoretical, yet simple question:

If all the worlds population stood shoulder to shoulder, heal to toe (in crowded concert style) how big an area would it take to hold all the people of the world ?

The answers most often heard are; North America, China, half the U.S., or some other significantly large land mass.  When the answer is presented most people are stunned.  Many question it's truth, even when confronted with the rather simple mathematical proof. The answer goes like this:

Assume every person stands in a 1.5' x 2' square.  This can be done quite comfortably.  This allocates 3 square feet per person.  Assume there are 6.75 billion people in the world - this is the estimated population for January 1, 2009.  One can determine the requisite number of square feet by simply multiplying 6.75 billion by 3.  Once that calculation is complete it's useful to convert the number to acres by dividing by 43,560.  Or dividing by 5,280² to get square miles.  Either way one can then consult a common variety almanac to get the area of a particular country, state, county, or city.

Since this writer resides in Travis County Texas, an average sized Texas county, that seemed like a good place to start.  As it turns out, the entire population of the world can fit into about 71% of Travis County.  The calculations are:
-->

World Population	6,750,000,000
Number of sf to stand in	3	sf
World pop stands in	20,250,000,000	sf
(divide to get sq. miles)	27,878,400
Conversion to Sq. Miles	726	sq miles
Travis County TX total area	1,022	sq miles
World Population fits in	0.711	pct.	of Travis County Texas

There, in 3 simple calculations, and two simple fact references (world population and area of Travis County) there is irrefutable evidence - the world is far from overcrowded.

Of course, there are those that will argue that this is purely theoretical, and that we could never really put that many people in Travis County.  This is probably true, but one must also remember that this is all on one level.  Using multi-level structures to hold people is not even considered.  In any event the point is that the common perception is that the worlds population  could cover large swaths of area, occupying large countries or even continents; and that common perception is very, very wrong.

Excerpted from "The Emergency Economic Bailout Act of 2008"

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States; and
(2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that—
(A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings;
(B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth;
(C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and
(D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.

And so ended the era of free market capitalism.  

That free market era began with a humble upstart nation in 1776.  That nation grew to a world power in the 20th century, and thundered to a roaring crescendo of wealth and productivity at the turn of the 21st century.  Yet, the end came swiftly, and almost without warning.  It came as a result of the greatest attack ever perpetrated on freedom and liberty in history.  The attack was as vicious and premeditated at the 9/11 attacks of 2001 - only wildly more successful.

When the plan was first conceived may never be known, but the first salvo in the attack came with an announcement by President Bush, flanked by Treasury Secretary Paulson.  Many pure capitalists were never comfortable with Secretary Paulson.  The successor to Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert Rubin as CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson epitomized the "crony capitalist".   The almost seamless morphing of high ranking cabinet members into Financial Sector CEO's had been going on for at least three Presidential administrations.  Like Corzine, Friedman, and Rubin before him, Paulson made a career of parlaying governmental influence into personal wealth.  He, like his predecessors, relied heavily on his influence rather than his business acumen to achieve business success.

In mid-September of 2007, Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke announced that without the "The Emergency Economic Bailout Act of 2008"; the U.S. economy would fall to ruin within weeks.  The explanation for the urgency of the crisis was the existence of "toxic securities" backed by defaulted mortgages.  This crisis was detailed in some depth here in this blog.  It now seems like it was something of a ruse.  While the pretext of the crisis was plausible, it now seems to have been exaggerated.  In effect, George Bush was "rolled" by Paulson and Bernanke.  The President seems to have regained some economic bearings and talked extensively about the merits of free trade - but the damage has been done.  We are now beyond the tipping point, and well on our way to a centrally planned, rather than a private sector economy.

Worse yet, we're heading into an era where the new President is the most naive, inexperienced, and economically illiterate person to ever hold the office.  To be sure, if the wall street crony capitalists could "roll" George Bush, baffling  Barack Obama will be like taking candy from a baby.

The next wave in the attack on liberty came with the "Auto Bailout" which is still being negotiated.  It will most likely take place in a series of attacks.  With the Senate and the President now showing signs of resisting the creation of US/UAW Motors, and the auto makers decrying their eminent demise with out Federal billions, the likely action will be Paulson and the TARP funds to the rescue.  The CEO's of the "Big Three" are not experienced "car people".  They're finance and securities people.  Nardelli, came from Home Depot, Mulally came from Boeing, Wagoner is a long time GM employee - but clearly a bean counter, not a designer, organizer, marketer type.  These three have essentially given up on the idea of correcting their business models, and chosen to pettition Congress for cash and in return will allow Congress to take over strategic control of the companies.  This will almost guarantee the demise of this domestic industry.

There are two more big attacks currently being planned.  One will be based in Universal Health Care, the other will be environmentally based in "green jobs" and carbon "cap and trade" programs.  The future of Governmental Health care can be seen quite clearly in many current examples.  We can look to Europe, Canada, or our own Medicare system to see the grim future.  Perhaps more importantly, expect medical breakthroughs to come to a vitual halt.  With only a single customer to call on, innovations in treatment, drugs, and equipment will be replaced by hiring the most skilled lobbyists to get Government contracts for medical goods.

The "green revolution" will be the final blow in the destruction of our economic power and failure of capitalism.  With strict Cap and Trade carbon emissions limits in place, coal, oil, and gas, will have to be augmented by solar wind and other carbon free alternatives.  These alternatives won't really produce any electricity, but they'll provide enough carbon credits to run the coal, oil, and gas facilities to serve the shrinking demand.  This results in a gross mis allocation of wealth and resources.  Both public and private wealth will  be diverted to the building of stupid wind farms and solar fields, non of which will produce any reliable power. 

Yes, through all this - fortunes will be made.  Fortunes based not on market and merit, but based on Government selection.   This will eventually devestate the value of the dollar, and plung the U.S. into at least a second tier economic status, and the fortunes based in dollars will become of little consequence.  Our military will follow close behind, and the world - once safe from despotic agression under a vast umbrella of U.S. military might, will once again be in peril.

Can the death spiral of Capitalism and Freedom be stopped ?

Yes.

But to do so, there has to be at least some one left, other than this writer - who believes that it's worth saving.

Perhaps Dr. William Bennett is the most fond of stating with almost smug conviction, "We are still a center / right country."  This phrase has often been repeated in the wake of the most recent election results, usually while citing the vote to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage in California. 

Does no one else see the nonsense of using this as as evidence of a "Center / Right" society ?

In order to make sense of this term, one must consider how far left the center has moved.  In keeping with the example of homosexuals and there treatment in society, let's review the history of the "Center", so to speak. 

In colonial times, homosexual behavior between men was punishable by death.  That was the "center" position.  In 1682, that liberal bastion of Pennsylvania became the first and only one of the colonies to remove homosexuality from it's capital crimes.  Instead, they limited punishment to whipping, forfeiture of 1/3 of one's estate, and six months of hard labor. The law was amended in 1700 to life imprisonment or castration.  Oddly, this "liberal" view of homosexuality was inspired by the prevalence of the devoutly religious Quakers in Pennsylvania who favored forgiveness over punishment.

Take heart dear conservatives, in 1718 Pennsylvania revised it's laws to move back to the political center, and re-instituted the death penalty for homosexual behavior. 

Of course, during this era, the Colonies were somewhat more progressive than the right leaning homeland of England.  In the case of R. v. Jones in 1776, as the defendant was convicted of a capital offense after obtaining money from a victim under the threat of a public allegation that the victim was a homosexual.  During that period in England, simple extortion was a misdemeanor, but extortion under threat of public allegation of homosexuality was considered more deadly than to put a gun to ones head - hence it was robbery, and therefore a capital offense.  In short, in England one could be hanged for accusing one of being a homosexual - if one demanded payment to silence the allegation.

While these laws are difficult to imagine in modern times, it would seem that approximately 1/3 of the sovereign nations of the world have laws prohibiting homosexual behavior, and about 1/7 of the worlds population consider it an offense punishable by death.   Here in the U.S., laws prohibiting homosexual behavior existed until very recently.  In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court in "Lawrence vs. Texas" essentially ruled that States have no authority to prohibit homosexual behavior. 

The point here, is that the "center," as it relates to homosexual behavior, has moved from hanging offense, to rarely used hanging offense, to felony offense, to rarely enforced felony offense, to misdemeanor offense, to rarely enforced misdemeanor offense, to legal; and now the push is  for parity with traditional marriage.  If the fact that 60% of Californians don't believe homosexual relationships are the complete legal, social, and moral equivalent of thousands of years of traditional marriage is evidence that we are a "center right" society - then it's also evidence that the center has moved way to the left.