adoseoftruth's Blog

In my blog about the Pilgrims and the history of Thanksgiving, it was brought to my attention that there is a group that considers Thanksgiving to be a "National day of Mourning" for the native Americans.

The native Americans were not treated as they ought.........no arguement............no dispute..........however, I am curious.  When do you think there will be a national, or better yet, internation day of "Mourning" for the victims of Islamic terrorists?????

Islamic terrorists haven't just struck this country, they have attacked around the world.  Most recently in India...........yet.........on ANY scale.......where's the outrage?  Seems there was alot more global "moral outrage" about actions by US Servicmen and women (who were prosecuted) at Abu Ghraib than at terrorists who kill defenseless "hostages."

WHERE'S YOUR OUTRAGE???  DO YOU HAVE ANY?????

When the Pilgrims, fleeing religious persecution in England, arrived on this countries shores on December 11th, in 1620 after an arduous journey.  They had only what they came with.   Arriving in winter, they initially struggled to just survive. 

They had come to this country financed by British financiers, and the Mayflower compact called for them to live in a very Marxian style.  All were given tracts of land and all were to take what they produced to the a common store.   They also were to take only what they needed from the store. 

The governor, Bradford, wrote about this in his journal: 

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fir for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice."

It turned out, even in a small, tightly knit group like the Pilgrims, there were those that were producers, and those that were not, and it seemed injust for those that were producers to do more work than others without any due compensation of some kind.

As a result, Bradford decided to do away with the notion of collectivism, and have each keep, and manage that which they produced..........as a result:

"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves..............and with the bounty they had sown they had the "First Thanksgiving" sharing with the Indians with whom they would establish trading posts..............

How different is this than what you thought??????

Another day, another "bailout"......

Consider that:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

The only single American event in history that even comes close to matching the cost of the credit crisis is World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion.......................

If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars.   I have also seen a documented amount that the government has actually COMMITTED up to 7.4 trillion dollars........see:

  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=i0Y
rUuvkygWs

WHEN WILL THIS INSANITY END??????

If you haven't, I would suggest that you read Mr. Obama and the Dems/Socialists Economic plan for recovery. 

Here is a news article about it:  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hE
x3tiPJhZQLVqjNmHR_oP6FZMuwD94KDSU00

You can find the full plan at:  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

My overall impression of is that it looks at our economy as if it were in a vacuum, and that there are no broader and possible quite negative economic effects from what is proposed.  And I think there would be.   For example, the plan fails to understand that lowering disposable income on anybody or organization will be negative.  The plan fails to understand that individuals and organizations need to be able to invest.  Less disposable income means less available to invest.   Lowering overall investment will impede economic growth.   He is fine with government spending the money--investing in infrastructure--just not so keen on companies and you and I being able to do so.

He proposes "jumpstarting" it by re-distributing income from oil companies, and spending federal dollars to save and increase government jobs and services at all levels.   He in effect, is also proposed a massive government works iniative/program for infrastructure development. 

From an economic point of view, is it without ANY value at all........no.  But, is seems to me to be an economic plan driven largely drven by a social agenda of cutting CO2 emissions and "green" initiatives to spur economic growth vs economic proposals grounded in basic macro economics.  

Those are my initial thoughts............what are yours???

Breaking NEWS:   Hillary Clinton will be the next Secretary of State!

Is this a good decision, on the point of Obama to offer............AND a good decision on the part of Hillary to accept??? 

Just hold onto something, perhaps a stiff drink, and watch the video in the first comment box...........

I had a blog on the California Prop 8 aftermath.  I think it was deleted by Fox6 as the copying and pasting I did violated their blogging policy.  My apologies to Fox 6.  However, I think is a very interesting topic.

Activists for same sex marriage have taken action, sometimes unfortunately violent action, against the Morman and Catholic church as a result of same sex marriages being banned in CA by Prop 8.  Activists had a day of national protesting on Saturday. 

Check the following out: 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pa
geId=81310

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nEm2idDr8w

It has been asked............why does it matter? 

What harm does it do to allow same sex people to "marry"?

In MY opinion, there is an ongoing culture war.  American culture, although FAR from perfect, is a collection of different cultures from all over this planet.  We strive to allow there to be differences.  Our uniqueness is celebrated and is often a source of great pride.  And we do have a culture that is based on the principle of tolerance.   Are we perfectly tolerant?  No, and unfortunately we never will be. 

However, there is an ongoing cultural effort to, in part replace the striving for tolerance of our differences, to intolerance for all that is not deemed the same..........or in some way "equal"...........for all.  The result of which will be a loss indvidual freedoms, assets, income, whatever given up in the name of creating greater "equality".   And gay rights activists do define this issue this way, as one an issue of "equality"........

This is why this issue matters to me.  It has nothing to do with church "morality".   In this country, there are no legal ramifications for have same sex relations.  Or people of the same sex living together..........whatever.  No legal price.   And although there may be some crazy laws on the books somewhere, I have never heard of them being enforced.

Marriage is a traditional term with relgious and legal ramifications.  Government has no business in dictating church policy as it relates to marriage.  Legally, if a state government wants to afford same sex relationships the same legal standing...........I don't really have a problem with that.  BUT, marriage is a traditional term, a traditional bond between a man and a women from which children can naturally be created.  Different term, same legal standing in a state.  No problem. 

Like it or not, we are all NOT the same, we are all not "ONE"..............and I for ONE, think that is OK. 

What do you think?

Let Detroit go Bankrupt

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.
html?ref=opinion

I tend to agree with Mr. Romney............do you??? 

If not, why not???

Stumbled upon a re-broadcast of the CEO's of Ford, Chrysler, and GM in front of the Senate committee on Banking last night. 

They were joined by the President of the UAW, and a business Professor and were there testifying about their request for 25 BILLION dollars in loans.

It was FASCINATING television.  In general, the Senators seemed skeptical.  But, it was also apparent to this observer that there striking differences in how things were viewed based upon party lines.

Democrat Senators seemed more open to the idea, but, also seemed to blame the automakers predicament on their inability to be producing enough fuel efficient cars.  More than one also raised the question of the CEO's compensation packages.

Republican Senators seemed more concerned about the autmakers costs.  In particular, pension costs, and job bank costs, which dracmatically inflate their labor costs per vehicle in comparison to other competitors such as Honda and Toyota.   Costs which are so high, it makes it impossible to produce and sell any vehicle with any profit in any economy.  This point was hammered on and illustrated several times by the business professor/"truth sqad".

The testimony will continue today, and I hope you will check it out.  It is MUST SEE TV!

See first comment box for parts of the CEO's opening comments. 

You can hear theirs..........what are yours???

One of my favorite Fox6 regular segment is "Ted's Take".  Many more times than not, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Perry's sentitment.

Last night, he addressed Wisconsin's apparent unwillingness to take "Drunk Driving" seriuosly and a viewer who had no real idea other than to attack Mr. Perry because, near as I could tell,  thought drinking and driving was perfectly fine behavoir........  

 I couldn't agree more with Mr. Perry.  Current WI state law is an embarrassment.  It is even permissable for I, an adult, to buy a beverage for either of my kids at a bar, who are 9 & 3.?!

Now, although my legal views are largely libertarian, in the case of Drunk Driving, an individual has made a very, very bad choice.  That being to DRIVE while impaired.  At which point, you are chosing to put the lives of others at risk.   You want to drink.........fine, you DON'T put anyone elses life at risk.

There has to be consequences.  Perhaps some immediate jail time, & a substantial fine, something that the next time someone has a few, one will decide it is a far better decision to just take a cab, or make a phone call. 

That's my TAKE on TED's TAKE..........what's yours?

Should you keep paying your mortgage?

If you have significant equity in your home, absolutely.

If you don't, it's getting harder to answer that question, especially when our government keeps giving people who owe more than their homes are worth so many reasons not to pay.

Last week, the government announced a program that will substantially lower payments for many homeowners who have little or no equity, but only if they are at least 90 days delinquent.

Critics say the plan, which applies to loans owned or guaranteed by government wards Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac among others, could encourage people to suspend payments.

But what about the moral obligation to pay off a debt?

Elected officials have been chipping away at that by blaming the foreclosure crisis largely on predatory lenders. In a campaign fact sheet, President-elect Barack Obama says he "recognizes that the real victims in the subprime mortgage crisis are not the lenders, but the millions of borrowers who followed the rules and whose only crime was taking out mortgages that lenders told them they could afford."

Last year, Congress started removing some financial hazards of default when it passed a bill that temporarily waives the income tax on mortgage debt that is canceled when a homeowner is foreclosed upon, sells a home for less than the remaining debt (a short sale) or gets a loan modification that reduces the principal balance.

The tax waiver originally applied only to debt on a primary residence canceled in 2007, 2008 or 2009. Last month, in the bailout bill, Congress extended the waiver until 2013.

There are exceptions: The waiver applies only to debt that was used to buy or improve a primary residence. If you took out a home-equity loan or did a cash-out refinance to buy a car, you'll still owe tax on that debt if it is canceled. For state income taxes, California has partially conformed to the federal law, but only for debt canceled in 2007 or 2008. (For more details, see my April 24 column at www.sfgate.com/ZFJS.)

The Federal Housing Administration is offering two programs to help homeowners get more-affordable mortgages, FHA Secure and Help for Homeowners. Neither requires borrowers to be current on their payments.

The program announced Monday goes a step further by requiring homeowners to be late.

The Streamlined Modification Program, sponsored by the government agency that oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and 27 loan servicers, promises to swiftly reduce payments for certain homeowners who appear to be on the verge of foreclosure.

To qualify, you must be at least 90 days delinquent and live in the home as your primary residence. You must owe at least 90 percent of the home's value. It's fine if you owe more than it's worth.

Your mortgage must be owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or held by one of the participating loan companies.

If you meet these requirements and can document your income, your servicer will reduce your monthly mortgage payment - including property taxes, insurance and association dues - to 38 percent of your gross income.

The reduction can be accomplished in one or more ways:

-- Reducing the interest rate, but not below 3 percent. (The new rate, if below market, goes back to a market rate after five years.)

-- Extending the term of the loan up to 40 years.

-- Reducing the principal on which monthly payments are calculated. Unpaid principal is added to the loan balance and due when the homeowner sells or refinances. The reduced interest payments never have to be repaid.

If you owe more than the home is worth, the plan will only reduce principal down to 100 percent of market value, according to an official for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which supervises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

If all three of these maneuvers can't reduce your payments to 38 percent of income, you won't get a fast-track modification but could still request a customized deal, says the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The streamlined process looks only at income, not assets. If you refinanced your home to buy a Mercedes or own another home, you won't be expected to sell them to pay your mortgage.

Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, predicts that many homeowners who have little or no equity will stop paying their mortgage and then reduce their income to get the biggest payment cut possible. They could stop working overtime or, if two spouses work, one could quit. After the modification, they could try to boost their income again.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Schiff says. "People are going to feel like complete morons if they don't participate. The people getting punished are the ones who never made an irresponsible decision to buy a house they couldn't afford."

The government is offering loan servicers $800 for every homeowner they get into the plan.

Schiff predicts that loan agents "will be cold-calling people trying to get them into it. Just like they encouraged people to overstate their income to get a bigger loan in the first place, now they will encourage them to understate their income to qualify for a smaller loan."

To prevent fraud, the government says a borrower "must certify that he or she experienced a hardship or change in financial circumstances, and did not purposely default to obtain a modification."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008
/11/16/BUQR1442LQ.DTL

Comments?

• NEW YORK – MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a Fox News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

"The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air," said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. "We recognized the error almost immediately and ran a correction on air within minutes."

Gaines told the Times that someone in the network's newsroom had presumed the information solid because it was passed along in an e-mail from a colleague.

This political year has been astounding when it came to journalism.  Never has their been such a transparent media infatuation with a political candidate.  And never has their been such transparency in their disdain for Sara Palin.

I ran a google search of Sara Palin and Africa, and got link after link after link after link about this so called "story"...... 

Of course there were hundreds, if not thousands of published stories that has just assumed first, that the story is/was real, relying entirely on "unnamed sources", and second, that this individual who recently  "claimed" to be the source of the story  to have been real.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i
e=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2008-33,GGLJ:en&q=Sara+Palin+and+
Africa

The above "story", and admittance of incompetence is something we should all take note of.  If the day has come that "an email from a colleague" suffices as validity for a story.........how much of what we see and hear can we really believe to be true? 

Is Journalism dead??

I heard a news report yesterday about a lady, who, largely out of curiousity voted twice in Wisconsin for Obama.  She then reported to the authorities how easy it was.......as result, she will not be charged.   But, she (an Obama supporter) was justifiably concerned about how easy it was.

Now, I am not trying to make the case there was enough voter fraud to null the results of this years election.  BUT, if you don't believe there was alot of voter fraud out there, you are living in a cave.

I also find it interesting that in 2000 and 2004, the left was SCREAMING about fraud.......this year........nothing.........ever wonder why that is?

Noticed this AM when I was out and about, that gas is selling below $ 2.20 a gallon in my area.  A year ago, I would have never guessed that I would see a price nearing $2/gallon in my lifetime again.

Why is that.............???  I think there really are only number of potential reasons,

1) Market, and global economic conditions

2) The US oil companies have become altruistic.  And aren't interested in making any money.........at least not right now.

What do you think?

How low do you think gas will go?

Without trying to get into a pointless debate on whether or not there is some sort of "man made" global warming, or climate change...........it seems most of us out here have pretty firm opinions about it, and you can find plenty of science to both support  and rebute the theory..............this is puzzling.  

If 70 percent of Americans believe global warming is a big problem, why is it still ranked it near the very bottom of their list of top 25 concerns??

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minute
s/main3974389.shtml

That seems rather odd to me, given the fact that if you really, truly,  and fully buy into man made global warming/climate change, the prognosis IS DIRE...........

Why is that??????