Any fool can make a baby...

Happy father's day.

As an echo from Laurence Fishburne's 'Furious Styles' in Boyz in the Hood (1991), "Any fool with a dick can make a baby, but only a real man can raise his children."

Cost Benefit Analysis of Terrorism

I am a big supporter of cost benefit analysis. For those that shy away from any sort of economics or math a few examples are best:

1. You can go to a fine dining resturant and get a burger for $20. You could go to a chain resturant and get a similar burger for $10. Cost benefit would suggest you should go for the $10 burger becuase you save half your money but only sacrifice a bit of quality.

As you can see cost benefit can be very useful when applied to certain situations. For example, I can do no work and get a good grade or I can do 4x as much work and get only a slightly better grade. I will take the less work. Cost benefit analysis can help people make certain decisions.

However, the main problem of cost benefit analysis is that you need to fix a price to something. In applying the rational to anti-terrorism measures we must attach a certain value to a human life. This task is inherently difficult. For example: Say that I could spend $1 million and reduce the risk of a given terroism attack that would kill 20 people by 10%. Is the measure worth it? Mind you, we don't know who those 20 people are. I for one do not want to be one of the 20 so I will approve the spending. However, I also point out that the risk is not completely eliminated only reduced. Let's say another million would reduce the risk another 5%. Would I do it? Most likely.

As the previous paragraph points out this is essentially the mathamatics of fear. We can all agree that terroism is a random event much like being hit by a bus or struck by lightning. However, we can spend money to reduce the risks. How much money? The how much is the question becuase it is impossible to attach value to life. There is even an argument we should spend nothing becuase such spending does not even eliminate the risk.

Although this piece offers no answers, I merely suggest that anti-terrorism measures take an economic toll as well. It is common for government to use cost benefit analysis to decide how much money to spend on certain projects. However, in deciding whether to fund increased anti-terror measures the theory doesn't work as well. The mathamatics of fear is a tough varible. At which point do anti-terror measures produce diminishing returns measured in restricted freedoms, loss of revenue, and lack of spending on other projects? The question is simple, but with hefty implications: How much would you spend to save a life?

Using Game Theory to Define the Housing Crisis

I was reading an interesting article the other day (hat-tip Congolmerate) on the housing crisis and the best time for investor who can't pay their mortgage to sell. This got me to thinking about game theory a bit.

Here are the basics: Remember when you used to play Monopoly as a kid and someone wanted to trade you a couple properties for your "Boardwalk". Now the boardwalk would give the other guy a monopoly, but the trade would also enhance your position by giving you a monopoly on a "weaker" set of properties. The debate was always whether you should do the trade and bank on the fact that you could get your hotels up and running before the other guy. I also should point out that by not doing a trade you could essential eliminate yourself becuase a 3rd player already had a monopoly and you did not. If you refused the deal you essentially allowed the other guy to win. What a dilemma. How much can you get for the guy you wants "Boardwalk?" Maybe you can get more. However, how long can you afford to hold out before you are gobbled up by the 3rd player?

I posit that many of the same decisions go into make a decision on whether to buy or sell a house. You are in the same position. You have a high mortgage and presumably can't afford the payments. You might be in a better position if you sold the house and "downgraded." However, much like the monopoly analogy, you think of whether you can get a better deal. Maybe by holding out a bit longer you might be get a "better" property. However, if you hold on too long you will be "gobbled up" by the third player (read Bank - who with foreclose). It appears from my observations that many people are stuck in this situation. Do you hold out in an an attempt to gain more, or do you make the "trade" an potentially improve you position, but lose out on the possibility of more short term gain.

Unfortunately, I do not know enough about mathamatics to justify what the best decision would be. I just remember my monopoly strategy. Becuase a trade would put me in the best position, I would usually do it. Considering the other players in the game (in the real world investors), generally seek to hold out for more, the "trade" might seem to be the more viable option. Although the thought of losing the current "property" is tough, it allows the owner to cut their loses and move into a new place that better suits their means. In Monopoly terms, the trade at least gives you a shot at the win.

- ps. If any math majors/professors read this please feel free to add on. Like I said, I'm no math major.

Legal Impacts of Endangered Polar Bears

In case you have not been following the news, on May 14 the Bush administration listed the Polar bear as a "threatened species" "becuase of" global warming. It is unclear what this listing means for the future of polar bears, but I want to explore the legal ramifications of such a listing.

The language that troubles me in the listing, is the "becuase of" part. I note that the admistration went further than listing the polar bear as simply an endangered species. By giving the reason for the decline of the polar bear, the administration has opened up a whole "legal can of worms."

The reasoning is simple. By declaring the source of the threat to the polar bear, the ESA can challenge companies producing greenhouse gases in an effort to thwart the spread of the global warming. Additionally, it would not suprise me if certain environmental groups such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth switched tactics and brought lawsuits based on the Endangered Species Act. Prior to declaring the polar bear endangered, such groups had already been bringing litigation against companies for production of greenhouse gases. Declaring the polar bear endangered "becuase of global warming" opens a whole to new tract of litigation that I believe will develop in the near future.

In a prior article currently availible on SSRN and pending publication, I explored the ramifications of global warming lawsuits on corporations and their insurance carriers. I look forward to seeing how this new declaration will impact global warming lawsuits. I suspect there will be an significant increase. However, I wonder if any plaintiff can win on something as nebulous as a global warming lawsuit. Presumably, plaintiffs would have to show that greenhouse gases directly and proximately caused damage to polar bears. Given the science, I doubt sucess is likely, but greenhouse gas emitters should be aware of yet a new wave of lawsuits on the horizon.

I would like to further explore the success of lawsuits asking the courts to slow greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to save an endangered species. However, this is a topic for another article, but I am interested in seeing what readers think.

The Colvin Report: Wrightgate -- Obama Reacts

Judgment. Change. Hope.

Well, its about time.

Take a look at the Washington Post.

He described Wright as his pastor and a man "who provided valuable contributions to our family." He said the Wright who spoke to the press club "is not the person I knew for 20 years."

"When he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries; when he equates the United States's wartime efforts with terrorism; there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans..."

Obama said he was "particularly angered" by Wright's allegation that the candidate was engaging in political posturing when he denounced the minister's earlier remarks.

"If Rev. Wright considers that political posturing, then he doesn't know me very well," Obama said. "Based on his comments yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either."

Now, here is my last problem with the Wrightgate.

It has been known for over a year that Wright was asked not to attend Obama's Presidential Bid Announcement because Obama's advisors knew who Wright was and what he would do to Obama's campaign if associated early.

But what has come out from Wrights recent statements is that although he was asked not to attend Obama's Presidential Bid Announcement, he met Obama and Michelle in the basement to pray.

Can you imagine... Obama felt that he was too controversial to be out in public with him, so he had to hide him in the basement.

This draws to question, was Wright correct in saying Obama is just playing politics? Does it really seem like Obama was unaware of these statements?

Remember, Wright did nothing more then affirm his earlier statements that Obama has been well aware of for years. Wright hit a nerve with Obama and he struck back. The problem is that Wright hit a nerve with America, and Obama could no more disown Wright then his own family.

The Colvin Report: Victim Wright

There isn't much to say on this one. Wright now thinks he is a victim of a "public crucifixion" and that his words were taken out of context.

I'm not sure how statements blaming the U.S. for 9/11, claiming white people invented HIV to bring black people down, calling the USA the U S of The KKK A, or any of the other outlandish comments recorded on video could possibly have been justified by context... but okay.

He contends that he "describes the conditions in this country...[and] Conditions divide, not my descriptions."

So, apparently Wright believes his outlandish statements were truthful and that the media is to blame for making unedited video look bad.

To Wright, "This isn't an attack on Jermiah Wright, it's an attack on the black church." However, as I recall the statements were made by Wright not a church body and had nothing to do with religion.

He calls it an honest dialog about race... but it sounds more like crazy talk by extremists to me.

More disturbing... again Rev. Wright receives standing ovations and goes unchallenged.

The Colvin Report: Whose To Blame In The Housing Crisis?

I was watching the news this morning when Howard Dean started to attack McCain's plan for dealing with the housing crisis on the basis that McCain said that the ultimate source of the problem rests on the individuals who took out loans they couldn't afford.

I am not going to address the plan itself or what sort of regulation is needed to prevent this from occuring in the future, but I want to address Howard Dean's response.

According to Dean, there is no need for individual accountability. He believes the government should bail people out and the problem will be solved.

However, the source of the problem has to be recognized and accounted for, it cannot be ignored.

The fact of the matter is that many of these home owners took out loans with variable interest rates, knowing the interest rates were at an all time low and would soon rise. They chose these variable interest rates because they could not afford the payments on the loan at the fixed rate. These were people that would not have been able to afford to buy a house without the low interest rates and the banks relaxed credit policies.

Yes, that is right, these people took out loans when interest rates were at historic lows, while there was a 100% possibility of interest rates rising and then these same people were baffled when they couldn't make payments at the higher interest rates.

Maybe banks should have looked deeper into the candidates reported income and ability to repay when the interest rates fluctuated, but the underlying problem is accountability. These individuals are ultimately the ones who over-stretched their finances and in some cases lied to banks.

To suggest it is somehow improper to ask individuals to be accountable for their decisions is unreasonable. Battle over a solution, but don't blame McCain for stating the obvious reality.

Accountability, an interesting concept.

The Colvin Report:Obama The Debate Dodger

Obama is back to dodging debates again.

No "change" here. He is back to the same excuse. "I'm not ducking. We've had 21"

But, much like most of Obama's rhetoric, it is just rhetoric.

One-on-one, Obama and HIllary have debated 4 times and they haven't turned out so well for Obama. Apparently "Yes We Can" doesn't encompass debating one-on-one with opposing candidates.

In the latest debate dodging debacle, HIllary even offered to have a 90-minute debate unmoderated, Lincoln-Douglas style, to ease Obama's fears of being called out on his questionable connections to terrorists, racists, and extortionists.

Not enough for Obama. Perhaps it is playing good politics, but isn't that what Obama is suppose to change?

Its the equivalent of saying you don't take lobbyist money to run your campaign, but then giving them physical posts in your campaign and encouraging their wives and employees to donate to the campaign. It just doesn't add up.

Any other election season, a debate this late in the game would be unneeded, but that is not the case right now. The democrats still have two horses in this race and supporters from both sides are not backing down. The people need to see the candidates face to face and hear their plans for America. A speech is nice, but people want to hear him take tough questions and watch him respond without a script.

I believe Obama is making a big mistake, especially when an overwhelming percentage of Hillary supporters say that they would support McCain in a general election over Obama.

The Colvin Report: Trinity United Church of Chicago

In all likelihood Obama will be the Democratic nominee, unless something drastic happens. So, I wanted to look a little deeper into Obama's church because it will receive attention in the national election.

I have heard many say that the sound bytes were a few stupid things cherry picked from 40 years of sermons and that they in no way reflected upon Obama himself. But, I wanted to look a little deeper into the foundation of the church, who they are modeled after, and what their vision really is. So here it is.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Here is a tidbit of James Cone: "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community… Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

Yes... that is what Cone, the inspiration of Obama's church foundation, thinks about religion. Coincidentally, be believes white church's are the antichrist.

In an interview, when Cone was asked which church most embodied his message, he responded "I would point to Trinity first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Cone is cited on the Trinity website and his visions follow the posted "black value system."

So now i ask, if these sound-bytes we have heard follow the vision of the church, then how is it that Obama didn't know and how is it that Obama didn't quit this church.

You have to question a mans judgment when he makes such a bad decision. Extremism is bad on every spectrum and it is not something our politicians should embrace.

Even if we accept the argument that he joined the church for political reasons, that still shows bad judgment.

We can get some insight from Dwight Hopkins, a Trinity member and liberation theology professor at the University of Chicago's divinity school "As a community organizer, would people join Trinity? Yes!"

However, "someone who wanted to run for public office would think twice about intentionally using Trinity as a leverage," Hopkins said. "When it's Election Day, all the politicians come to Trinity. But not every day."

Again, I am not saying Obama follows these views, but it does cast doubt on his judgment and his integrity as he continues to play off of plausible deniability.

JEDI MIND TRICKS

In the spirit of keeping things fair, I'm posting this video that while being funny is actually how a lot of non-barack obama followers really see the situation.

The things Obama has overcome would have destroyed any other politician in history and some of us look for a reason.

Some say he is running on a movement instead of a platform.

Others call it cult like.

But some credit Jedi mind tricks.

Baracky: The Movie

The Colvin Report: Student Playing Hooky Lands Mom Behind Bars

An interesting legal matter has developed out of Kentucky, where a mother was convicted of truancy and sentenced to one week in jail for allowing her middle school aged child to miss excessive school days, 16 unexcused to be exact. Perhaps unsurprising here, this was her second conviction for truancy.

Maybe it is a harsh stance to take, maybe it is the state pushing a little too far on parental responsibilities, but it does send quiet the message.

Here in America, at least in the past few decades, accountability has become a real issue. I mean, what 12 year old kid actually enjoys going to school? Not very many, but thanks to the scorn and persistence of a good parent, most of us make it to school and end up doing better in life as a result.

As children we can't take care of ourselves. The state may not be able to provide everyone with an equal home environment, but they can at least provide a formal education so that children can grow up with a fighting chance to succeed.

Here the mother stole that chance and she isn't alone. Thanks to the ACLU many things are off limits, but I think the Kentucky court made the right decision here.

Perhaps with a little more accountability and a little tough love the education system could improve.

While I doubt it would ever happen, I propose taking this a step farther and punishing parents when children consistently act up and disrupt class for everyone else.

Maybe its radical, but my guess is that you would have a lot less violence in every school, from inner cities to the farm lands, if parents could be sent to jail for the repeated acts of their children.

Can you imagine the kind of beating that Little Jimmy would get after his dad just spent a week in jail for his sons bad decision?

Maybe that is the answer to improving our school systems. What do you think?

McCain, Not This Guy, Should Be Giving His Top Ten Reasons for Dropping Out

Un-electability??

I return from my brief hiatus to discuss the electability of presidential candidates. Most people would agree that Obama has a lead in the race for the nomination. However, after many weeks of debates, campaign speeches, and news articles, I am wondering whether Obama has not shot himself in the foot.

Let me point out a few things. The first is that perhaps some of Obama's comments were taken a bit too far. However, I must note that this is a man running for the highest office in the land and perhaps he should choose his words more carefully. The second thing to note is that the longer the race draws on the more I find out about Obama including his ties to Rev. Wright, among other nefarious characters.

Obama's patriotism has even been called into question, and I know that his will be hammered home if he should win the nomination. I confess, I do not know Obama personally. I've never met the man, and for all I know he could be a good guy. However, in a country of around 3 million people I doubt many people know Obama personally.

Much like me they will be forced to read the news, and listen to the debates. I wonder after listening to all his rhetoric when people will start asking for answers. McCain has already started outlining some of his plans. Granted Obama has said some stuff, but I wonder how long the wave of "change" can last. After his comments in the past months, it looks more like it is Obama himself that is mired in the ways of old.

Michelle Obama to Colbert: "My husband has a better voice."

Click the picture to watch Michelle Obama's appearance on The Colbert Report.

McCain Tries to Show That He Does Understand the Economy

What Is In a Name? Everything.

I just blew the dust of my old, 7th-grade history book, and it tells me that the South's secesion from the Union was for the most part the result of the South wanting to maintain and expand the aberration that was slavery and the North not.

It also reminds me that the President of the South was a man by the name of Jefferson Davis. That, of course, makes him the racist of racists, bigot of bigots.

Well, yesterday a Geoff Davis apologized, as if that were enough, for calling Barack Obama—a 46-year old man—'boy' over the weekend.

Ain't that something.

In case you forgot, Southern whites degradingly called blacks 'boy' during the Jim Crow era to assert a position of superiority.

Geoff is a Congressman from Kentucky—a state that arguably seceded from the Union. But even if not, Kentucky had a pretty active lynch mob.

And with that, it all makes sense. The only difference between the President of the South and that Congressman from Kentucky is how they spell their first name.

The Colvin Report: I Am Bitter!

I find myself here, in State College, small town Pennsylvania, pondering why I am so bitter while I smell the sweet aroma of gun oil that lingers in the air as I clean my Glock 30 subcompact pistol with my aged white t-shirts.

I had just got off the phone, where I told my parents to pray for me and rejoiced over the blessings that my family has received over the past few years. You see, my 7 year old niece, who nearly died in a horrendous car accident, involving a run-a-way driver (who was probably an illegal alien), had just completed her last session of physical therapy. It was a blessing by anyones measures, or at least an ignorant bitter small town boy like myself.

After that, I couldn't help but complain about why I was still unemployed. Why did all the jobs leave Pennsylvania 30 years ago to never return? Why did George W. provide for a lower average unemployment rate than Bill Clinton, but I still didnt have a job?

Finally it came to me.... I would embrace the conservative party and cling to my bitterness as a way to solve my problems. Alas, I figured things out. Now I can put my gun back together, say my prayers, and go to sleep.

Thank God for Annie Oakley.

Completely Self-indulgent Post

I admit, this is only interesting to Obama supporters, like myself. But, this is another difficult test for Obama, and I think this is sharp, and funny, response. Again, self-indulgent, and totally biased post. Had to do it. (sorry, it's long, but try to watch the whole thing)

The Colvin Report: Finally, The Democratic Battle Solved

The World Wrestling Entertainment "WWE" has extended an offer to Obama and Clinton to finally finish things once and for all, the American Way -- in the wrestling ring.

“Forget about who’s better prepared when the phone rings at 3 a.m., and find out who’s better when the bell rings.”

Finally, an answer to our problems.

Someone Explain this McCain ad

This has got to be the worst political ad of the last 5 years. Individuals this ad reminds us of:

Thomas Edison (b. 1847)
Ted Williams (b. 1918)
Theodore Roosevelt (b. 1858)

Did McCain go to grade school with these guys?

And what the hell is with the multi-colored smoke? And the History Channel narrator? And the misquoting of the honor code? And the headless rockstar? Did McCain's media shop really make this?

D-Vitt avoids speaking about his "serious sin"

Slate's Deathwatch

McCain: 'I Made a Mistake'

Say what you will about John McCain, but the man gained some respect for me today when I glanced at my television, which was tuned to CNN, and saw McCain standing in a Memphis rain shower at what used to be the Lorraine Motel where Martin Luther King was gunned down.

I wondered if I'd had too much to drink last night.

You see, it's no secret that Republicans don't court the black vote, almost snubbing those black Americans who might share their ideals--a move that troubles me to no end, but that's a subject for another post.

To see McCain standing in what for him is hostile territory giving a speech and humbly admitting to a mistake was impressive and admirable.

If you don't know, over 20 years ago McCain voted against an MLK Holiday. Today he called this move a mistake, and his admission drew boos, rightfully so, from the crowd. One lady, though, can be heard saying "We forgive you." Another man can be heard saying, "We all make mistakes."

I commend John McCain for his candor. As I watched his speech, what I saw was not just a tense situation to which he was willing and brave enough to subject himself, but I also saw a manifestation King's dream.

I saw an attempt at reconciliation on the very day in which 40 years ago the most resounding voice that ever dared our nation to make good on its promise was silenced.

What is undoubtedly true is that racial tension is rooted in misunderstanding. Many whites don't understand blacks and their perspective, and many blacks don't understand whites and their perspective. To know this to be true, I need only look back to Rev. Wright's comments and the backlash that ensued and to what I saw McCain doing on television today and the boos I heard as he was doing it.

What is important, then, is that we do our part to move beyond racial impasse to understanding. And though that'll never be easy, that it is not will never mean that we shouldn't try which is just what King would want us to do.

Today, McCain tried.

Remember the Man, Live the Dream

Fourty years removed, I imagine that it is easy to take for granted, or maybe even forget, what it is that this man did not only for black America but for all of America.

I imagine that it is not easy to comprehend the ridicule, the difficulties, the plain hatred that he endured and the passion that, despite these things, wouldn't allow him to sit idly, that wouldn't deny him the wherewithal to first go against the grain and then to do it not violently, not angrily but peacefully.

King died fourty years ago today, but his dream lives on.

He was and is the greatest catalyst for social change that our nation, that our world has ever seen, and but for his being bold enough to stand for justice and but for his audacity to dream that dream, I, a black American, wouldn't be where I am today.

We must not forget, though, that King dreamed not in black, white and brown. Rather, King dreamed in red, white and blue.

And on his beliefs, his teachings, his words and his dream we, America, shall overcome.

Obama and Race

To me, the most interesting stats related to race and primaries:

Solutions in Iraq

Given the recent outbreak of violence in Iraq, I think it is time the U.S. reevaluated its position and reduced its push to make a "full democracy" from the ashes of Iraq. The Bush administration seems bent on making Iraq a democracy in the mold of the U.S. However, I wonder if Bush or those close to him have ever opened a history book.

What many fail to realize is that before the federal form of government we enjoy today, the U.S. was governed by an "Articles of Confederation" where all states were equal and each State was entitled to one vote. Back in the day, citizens of New York would have been just as angry about being lumped together with South Carolinans as Shites are at being put together with Kurds and Sunnis. For awhile, we plodded along under the Articles of Confederation until we woke up and realized a system where one vote couold be a veto was senseless. We came together in Philadelphia and realized we had much more in common than we previously thought.

I propose we let Iraq follow the same path. Right now Iraqis identify with their regional association whether Kurd, Sunni, or Shite. If we let them form 3 states they would probably be happy. They could work together under a United Iraq much like we did under the Articles of Confederation. Given several years, I would bet that many of them would start to remember that they have more in common than they think they do right now.

We seek to impose a federal form of government on a nation that has little experience with such things. In doing, so we seem to have forgotten where we came from. We had to create a nation from the ground up much like Iraq is trying to do now. We formed a federal form of government after we realized that was the best thing. Even embodied in that document are the compromises of our forefathers. Slavery, although the scourge of the Constitution was a product of compromise. Same thing with the Senate and the House of Reps. We need to let Iraq work through their problems the same way we had to. The time has come to look at history and realize the struggle it takes to form a "more perfect Union."

The Colvin Report: Bill Clinton at Penn State

After hearing the former President I have solidified my belief that Hillary would make a good President. Of course I want McCain to win, but HIllary really has done a lot for this country.

Some of Bill's main sticking points involved her grassroots efforts with disabled children to follow their health care, being the first to act in aiding Katrina victims when FEMA failed, and the great things she has done for womens rights all around the world.

She has been the first to see things, developed plans, and acted on numerous occasions but I cannot say the same things for Obama. Really, he hasn't done anything constructive for leading legislation in the US senate and his Chicago record only shows failed initiatives at extreme gun control.

Obama doesn't even give to Charity and to me that is important. He didn't give over 1% of his AGI until 2005 when he was a US senator and even then his controversial church was the main benefactor. If you are worried about helping those less fortunate that seems like an easy outlet. The Clinton's have always helped the people.

While I don't believe we should unconditionally pull out of Iraq, I have to share this analogy Clinton gave.

If your neighbors house burns down, anyone in here would let them stay for a week, a month, or maybe even 6 months but when it comes to 5 years, its not about the fire, its about being comfortable on the couch. To some extent I think that is right, the Iraqi military and government has become complacent and has not met our bench marks. They need to realize that they need to rebuild their own house.

As Clinton pointed out, the President is the most fortunate civil servant in the United States and they can't forget that... they can't forget the people.

Delaware Courts: Stuck between a Fed and a Hard Place

By now I'm sure that everyone has read about the JP. Morgan bid to aquire Bear Sterns. JP Morgan is set to bid for 39.5% of the Bear Sterns outstanding shares, and recently increased the offer from $2 per share to $10. Presumably, JP. Morgan thought this would alleviate any concerns by shareholders in approving the transaction.

However, several organization including pension plans has filed a tempory restraining order against Bear Sterns alleging that the deal is "preclusive and coercive" and in essence avoids a shareholder vote and entrenches management. The action was filed in DE chancery court because Bear is a DE company.

Ultimately, the Delaware courts are faced with a tough decision. Apply the law or do what the Fed wants. On one hand the DE law dictates that if the deal is preclusive of other deals then the transaction should be overturned. On the face, the deal seems preclusive becuase JP Morgan is given the option to buy the Bear Sterns building as an asset acquisition even if the deal falls through. Additionally, JP Morgan has pushed the deal through swiftly as a result of the Fed backing the deal. Furthermore, Bear is precluded of looking for other bidders.

However, the Fed is promoting the deal. In fact trading hit highs after the announcement of the deal. However, I wonder if another bidder could be found. JP Morgan agreed to acquire Bear as a result of the Fed promoting the transaction. Did such Federal promotion squeeze out other potential bidders that now believe they can't acquire Bear? Should Bear executive at least be allowed to shop for higher offers? It would seem not considering the deal is set to close very quickly, and many Bear executives want to approve the deal. However, this squeezes out minority owners. The last time I checked, directors owe a duty to all shareholders.

It seems that the Fed. might have over meddled, and might force DE law to change. I wonder is someday in the future, I will be reading another acquisiton attempting to apply the "Bear Sterns Exemption"

The Colvin Report: Gallop Poll Says My Dem Or McCain

According to a new Gallop Poll democrats say they will either support their democratic candidate or they will vote for John McCain and back the GOP. Of course there is still time for party unity, but this should worry democrats.



Among people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters, 28 percent said they would vote for McCain if Obama is his opponent.

The same poll found that 19 percent of Obama supporters would switch sides and cast ballots for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

The survey interviewed 6,657 Democratic voters nationwide between March 7-22 and had a margin of error of 2 percent.

Does Hillary want Obama to lose?

Read and discuss...

"To inflict serious damage on the likely nominee in order to pursue a one-in-ten chance of securing the nomination is, ipso facto, an act of extreme selfishness. Whether she sees the damage to Obama's prospects as a feature or a bug is interesting but beside the point."

Backlash?

Guilt by association. So convincing, maybe we should write it into the constitution next time.

But seriously, if you've ever heard anything offensive, or intimately know anyone offensive, bring your earmuffs to politics.

Update: Here she goes... Bring this one, Hillary. Make yourself look like a fool.

To Carville, Richardson Like 'Judas'

I'm sure you've heard by now that former Presidential candidate and Governor of New Mexica Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama.

Likewise, I'm sure you've heard that in response Clinton supporter and strategist to the Bill Clinton Presidential campaign James Carville likened Richardson, who serverd as Ambassador to the United Nations and as Secretary of Energy under the Clinton Administration, to Judas.

Ok...

What's most troublesome, though, is not that Carville likens Richardson to Judas, but that in doing so he likens Hillary to Jesus Christ.

Yikes.

Let's stop using prisons for potheads...

...to make more room for the murderers. Thanks for succumbing to rationality, Congressman Frank.

The Obama Doctrine

Enlightened foreign policy. What a concept. If you've got some lingering questions about Barack Obama's foreign policy platform, be sure to read the American Spectator's concise preview of the policy and message.

"...American dignity promotion as an anvil on Al Qaeda..."

"...Killing Bin Laden wherever he may be..."

The Stakeholder Society: What's At Stake? Oh, Just Our Freedoms

In their book, The Stakeholder Society, Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott--professors of law at Yale and Harvard, respectively--make a simple proposal: the government should, as a matter of right, give every American that finishes their high school studies and has no criminal record eighty thousand dollars that is paid over four years and that may be used however each individual chooses.

From the authors’ perspective, the conclusion that necessitates their plan is that every American citizen’s opportunity to succeed is far from similar or equal. Their plan attempts to achieve better levels of justice, equality and freedom by adequately redistributing wealth, claiming, of course, that this improves the equality of opportunity. They argue that with this right to a stake of eighty thousand dollars each American now has a fair opportunity to succeed.

America has always prided itself upon the theory of capitalism, and at the core of the capitalist economic system is the concept of the “invisible hand.” The hand of the system that the authors propose is, in contrast, anything but invisible. But the authors never intended for it to be. They don’t think that the equality of opportunity can be left to an invisible hand. And to that extent, though it serves a worthy and noble cause, their proposal is at first un-American, sounding in fact a lot like the formulation of some sort of socialist, even communist, society.

While I think it is true that equality of opportunity cannot be left to an entirely invisible hand, I also think that the hand of the plan of the authors becomes entirely too visible. I imagine, then, that to the authors I’m a “skeptic” or a “hardheaded libertarian.” Notwithstanding, I think there is something to be said about the invisible hand, and, as I see it, their proposal reaches its hand too far into the lives of Americans.

Pointing to a dramatic increase in economic inequality over the last few decades, the authors declare the failure of trickle-down economics and market their proposal in a way that seems to dare America to make good on its promise of equal opportunity. That opportunity, of course, could never easily be made to be perfectly equal, and the grant of eighty thousand dollars doesn’t do much, under certain circumstances, to equalize opportunity. Taking everything that Ackerman and Alstott say as true, their proposal, as it is, can fall short of its lofty goal. Even if every American is given a stake of eighty thousand or otherwise unfair results--or, put more appropriately, instances of unequal opportunity--aren’t beyond imagination.

Take, for example, Jagger, a well-off and academically successful eighteen-year-old high school basketball star. Because Coach K prophesizes that he may need Jagger to beat West Virginia in next year’s NCAA tournament, Jagger receives a scholarship to play basketball at Duke. Now, Jagger will (if he’s smart, and he is) invest his eighty thousand, because he does not need to apply it to his tuition.

Meanwhile, Rori can apply some of her eighty thousand for her tuition at Florida State but not all eighty thousand because she has a child to take care of while in school.

Worse, Garfield cannot apply any of his eighty thousand for his tuition at Georgetown because he has to use all of his eighty thousand to cover large medical expenses. He may not even be able to go to college.

This is the problem of equaling only the opportunity while disregarding the circumstance. And if the authors’ plan is altered to consider circumstance, it becomes that much more difficult to administer. What do you do? Give Jagger no money? Give Rori one hundred thousand? Give Garfield one hundred-sixty thousand? While it would undoubtedly make implementation all the more difficult, I don’t see how the Ackerman-Alstott plan can be implemented without taking into account how individuals use their money and make their decisions.

Jagger, Rori and Garfield all at least attempt to make good use of their stake, but that others will waste their stake is a real possibility and one that the authors brush off. If the redistribution of wealth as a combatant to economic inequality is a good thing, then redistributed wealth (taxpayer money) ought not be wasted. For example, if Alexis, an already wealthy citizen, gambles her stake away at a craps table in Las Vegas, her deep pockets make her indifferent. And the system (assuming she doesn’t gamble away a substantial amount or, worse, all of her wealth) can still get the eighty thousand back at her death. But if two tables over Robert, a citizen who isn’t already wealthy or anywhere close to it, gambles away his stake, his not-so-deep pockets render him very much affected. Robert has failed. And the system cannot get that eighty thousand back at Robert's death because the authors’ repayment plan considers ability-to-pay (i.e., where a citizen has no ability to repay his stake, he isn’t required to).

What happens then is that Robert’s kids don’t get to enjoy any fruits of his success. Robert, now without anything to show for his stake, can’t improve his children’s opportunities, as the authors say stakeholding will enable parents to do. Nor can Robert use the money to “provide [his] children with much-needed stability in their home environment.” That stability will have to come, if at all, from somewhere else. To this extent the authors’ plan has failed to provide arguably Robert but more clearly Robert’s children with equal opportunity.

Further, if everyone gets eighty thousand, no one gets eighty thousand. The playing field is just as equal, or unequal, as it was in the non-stakeholder society. As the authors say, America promises opportunity. This falls short, of course, of guaranteeing success. Giving eighty thousand to each high school graduate furthers the promise of opportunity without doing anything else to guarantee success. It is as if the authors suggest that we take two steps forward, only to take two steps back. We end up back where we started.

What I mean to say is that if the authors are concerned that the children of parents with high incomes have privileges of family, environment and education, attend elite private schools or “particularly inspiring” high schools in the suburbs and, therefore, have more opportunity than those who don’t, their proposal alone does little to right what they conclude is wrong.

Economic inequality is, of course, real and should be addressed. The question, then, is what should be done to help the most vulnerable Americans. I’m not convinced that the authors’ proposal is the way to do it and disagree with a basic premise of the proposal. That is, I do not agree, as the authors argue, that every American has the right to share in the wealth accumulated by previous generations. Again, that sounds like socialism. That said, I do agree with some of the authors’ premises, especially when they suggest that without adequate equality of opportunity the freedom of some may be pressed by others.

The challenge here is designing a plan that takes individualism seriously and that recognizes that equal opportunity starts with similar educational and economic opportunities. And because I believe that education in a lot of ways begets economic opportunities, I offer that taking a look at education, a fix that the authors dismiss, is perhaps a more appropriate approach.

If opportunity is the door, education is the door knob. I imagine, then, that if Americans had an equal opportunity to turn the door knob, they’d have an equal opportunity to open and walk through the door.

Fixing education begins with making an elite education more available and more affordable. This way, Rori may be able to raise her child and go to school without worry of tuition costs, Garfield can go to Georgetown and Robert’s children don’t have to suffer because their father gambled away their future.

Ackerman and Alstott set out to create a social engineering mechanism that furthers libertarian principles. If freedom comes from government handouts, I imagine they accomplish what they intend to. But freedom is when the government does not interfere in the lives of citizens.

At once, the authors advocate for a reduction of governmental action in people’s lives while pushing paternalism, and profess a respect for private property while requiring involuntary transfers of wealth in their plan. The grant of eighty thousand dollars to young adults means little more than improving consumption possibilities, not equalizing opportunity.

I don’t, as the authors do, dismiss fixing education to do more to equalize opportunity, and I couldn’t agree more with the authors when they say that “our society’s failure to make such basic investments in its youngest and most vulnerable citizens is simply scandalous.” And to that end, I am of the opinion that fixing the very broken education system of this country will do wonders to equalize opportunity and to help America make good on its promise.

But I’m no Ivy Leaugue professor of law.

The Colvin Report: Obama's Passport Stink

The CEO of a company whose employee, the subcontractor, which is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign.

I said it a few days ago. Obama was making a big deal out of nothing. He said it was an evil plot by the Bush Administration, but turns out it was his own campaign.

He demanded an investigation and an apology while Clinton and McCain brushed it off.

Judgment you can count on... Think again.

It took the Bush Administration to discover the breach and the culprits.

This Is a Racist

I hesitate to broadcast such garbage. This idiot and his reoccuring case of oral diarrhea do nothing to advance the state of race relations, and over the course of nine cringing minutes he spews his ignorance without seemingly batting an eye. If you believe that Obama is a black nationalist with an agenda or is unpatriotic, this racist contradicts that.

Yet, he does find time to praise the Clintons.

This is ignorance at its finest--truly a waste of time, bandwith and a Sunday morning.

'A Faith Footnote'

Of course, if you cut and paste snippets of a video you can mischaracterize anyone. The GOP sees Wright as a path to defeat Obama, and will do anything to do just that. This includes misleading the electorate by cooking up unjust resentment against Obama.

Perhaps, you should watch a larger portion of the sermon and think for yourself.

And do 'Meet the (White) Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon.'

What This Photo Shows...

...is that you can be friendly with someone and not share his ideals, and that's not from Bill Clinton's perspective it's from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's perspective.

Over the past few weeks, he's been portrayed as a racist. But here he is at a Clinton White House prayer breakfast (a members-only event, I'm sure) shaking hands with not only a white man but with the very subject of some of those snippets that were played over and over and over again.

Assuming that Wright is a racist and not much a patriot, that here he is in this photo being friendly with the white President of the United States reaffirms what Obama has been saying: you can be friendly with someone with whom you don't always agree

And how long one knows another is irrelevant; the only thing that is relevant is if he shares the views and positions of the other. Obama has said that he does not. I reiterate; I have friends whom I do not agree with on every issue. You have friends whom you do not agree with on every issue. So does Obama.

Hold me accountable for what comes out of my mouth. I'll hold you accountable for what comes out of your mouth. And we should all hold Obama accountable for what comes out of his mouth.

The things Wright said didn't and wouldn't come out of Obama's mouth. And no one--not Hillary and not the GOP--believes that it would.

Further, that Wright was invited to the Clinton White House suggests that the clips that we've seen over and over again do not completely represent Wright. I can't imagine that Clinton would invite a racist, non-patriot to a prayer breakfast.

And in all of this, especially now that this photo has surfaced, I'm most disappointed with Hillary for not stepping up and vouching for Obama like Obama and Clinton did for Biden during the Des Moines Register Debate when he faced questions about comments he'd made regarding race.

None of this mess has anything to do with the issues, I see no reason why HRC couldn't say, "I know Barack Obama have worked with him and dealt with him throughout this race to the Presidency. I have no reason to believe that the views of Rev. Wright are the views of Barack Obama."

That's what HRC would do if she were concerned with winning on the issues, but because she's willing to win at any cost, she hasn't.

Shocking.

The Colvin Report: Some Dumb Moves By Obama?

Obama has made two poor choices to divert attention from his Rev. Wright scandel.

First, as seen in the photograph above Obama's camp has released a photograph of Bill Clinton shaking Rev. Wright's hand during an annual prayer breakfast with religious leaders. There is nothing in the picture or anything even asserted to suggest that Bill. Clinton had met Rev. Wright prior to the White House meeting or that he or Hillary knew anything about Rev. Wright’s views (afterall, she isnt the one who knew him for 20 years).

I think this is a poor move by Obama because he is basically saying, look Rev. Wright is a bigot who hates America but thats okay because the Clinton's invited him to one event. To me, this makes the 20 year case look even more appealing. He went out of his way to say that he was not attacking the man, only a few statements... but what is he implying about Rev. Wright now that its in the Clinton context?

Moreover, it is in poor taste after the Clinton's left this issue alone. I think he just invited more controversy from the Clinton camp.

Second, Obama has come out hard blaming the Bush Administration because of the conduct of a few independent contract workers who had access to a passport program. These workers were curious and it could happen to anyone in any field where there is confidential information. Just look at the staff of medical personnel that were recently fired over snooping at Brittany Spear's medical records. Even more serious, the name Valerie Plame comes to mind.

This passport viewing has nothing to do with an evil plot by the Bush Administration. Executive Agencies enact regulations but they cannot force employees to always do the right thing.

Maybe it was wrong for the independent contractors, which are employed in most airports across the country, but this isn't the Bush Administration fault and Obama made a poor decision in trying to make it an issue.

Two more tallies against the "judgment" column in my humble opinion.

Another Approach to Regressive Taxation and Regulation

For those keeping up with the news and interested in a fresh economic prospective to reducing dependance on foriegn oil here is an idea. Government bounties for technological innovation. The private sector has already began exploration with the Branson X-prize for fuel efficient Jet liners, and most recently the 10 million dollar bounty offered by an insurance company for a fuel efficient car getting at least 100 miles per gallon that is both marketable and safe. In fact, the annoucements of the prize has already induced 8 teams to compete with more sure to follow.

The idea of bounties to spur technological innovation is no unheard of. When the British Empire was looking for a way to measure longitude for their ships in the 1700's the Parliment established a bounty for anyone interested. Sure enough, the current measuring system we use today was soon developed.

Perhaps the real question is why we have politicians encouraging regressive taxes including taxes on fuel among other resources used in production. A tax on gasoline only hurts those that already have trouble affording fuel. As I already discussed, the idea of a carbon tax would only serve to limit economic growth and punish those in low income brackets. However, the solution of a government imposed prize for technological innovation would not handicap those groups of people. In fact, the economy would experience no real change from tax pressures. Additionally, there might even be extrinsic benefits as companies interested in the bounty employ workers and scientists to help. Investors might be more willing to invest.

Finally, there is also the argument that mistakes are the mother of invention. For those companies that fail to win the grand prize, I most certainly guarentee they will have established some marketable technology along the way. Marketing the "mistakes" would only serve to enhance the company bottom line and thereby increase profits and investor confidence.

I feel that these government sponsered prizes would work the more I read about them. We should impose regressive taxes that handicap the economy and injure poor American. We should use the many we have to create jobs and better technology.

-I would like to thanks Joseph Adler, whose views helped inspire this posting. The full article of his views can be viewed here.

The Colvin Report: How Not To Rebuild the Economy

Well, I may not be an economist but I have a few views on things.

First, as discussed by my colleague, I believe the corporate tax should go the wayside and individual taxation should make up the difference in form of dividends and capital gains received from corporate investment, which should be taxed at the ordinary income tax rate.

The current preferential treatment really only helps the wealthy while the high taxes on corporations raise prices for consumers and lower wages for their employees. The average investor wouldn't be effected a great deal.

Second, I believe raising taxes on commodities and income alike is a bad decision. With the corporate restructuring, this wouldn't be necessary.

Mainly, I am dumbfounded by a recent proposition by Michigan's Democratic elect John Dingell to raise gas taxes by an additional 0.50 a gallon. I wouldn't expect this from the motor capital of the world and I wouldn't expect it at a time when gas prices are at an all time high. It is almost as ridiculous as carbon taxes.

You want to do something, get the SEC to step in and stop allowing the selling of gasoline on the futures market. The future market alone account for 20 or more dollars per barrel of gas. And I point out, these returns on investment are taxed at 15% while a median income family is paying over 25% of their income to the IRS with absolutely zero chance of taking advantage of preferential treatment.

Do I believe in ending foreign dependence on energy, of course, but taxing Americans is not going to have a long term effect on consumer habits. It is only going to make their lives a little harder. Right now, thats the last thing we need.

The IRS needs to be drastically restructured, but raising the highest tax bracket alone is not going to solve the problem.

Why did Obama Stay?

A quick response to my colleague concerning Obama's reticence to leave his church. I mentioned Hagee and Wright in the last post to prove a larger point, but I don't intend to conflate the two. Obama had his conversion experience at Wright's church, so that's much more significant a relationship that McCain's is with Hagee. Obama's been going to Trinity for his entire life in Chicago. My only point was organized religion has a very strong tendency toward hypocrisy, and I'm very wary of that fact. So, I digress. I'm much more interested in talking about Obama's foreign policy speech today (and McCain's bungling of Iraq 101...). We'll save that for the next post. Back to the matter at hand...


I believe he stayed for two reasons, both equally strong, one pragmatic (although you might find it opportunistic), and the other completely honest and whole-hearted. While I think this is a mark on Obama's record, I assert the basic calculus on Obama has not changed. He is the same man I expected him to be, and the same candidate that I believe is best suited to lead this country.

First, Obama is a religious man, a Christian who had a religious rebirth at Holy Trinity. As many of you know, this can be a powerful force. I don't see a reason to doubt this occurred, and he's spoken and written about this transformative experience. This bound him in some ways to Rev. Wight, for better or worse. I think he should have dropped him like a bad habit years ago because I find him repulsively unpatriotic. But, I also believe in Obama's honest religiosity, just as I believe in President Bush's. If you confirm you are born-again, that you have had a spiritual experience, this can be enough to keep you coming to a Church whose pastor you don't happen to agree with, if only because you see good things happening ("God's work"). It's not easy to drop someone to whom you owe your spiritual life. Conversely, it's very easy, in the abstract, to call for Obama to drop this moron and to ignore the truth that the Church may have given something to Obama beyond the mere sermons.

Even providing the above, I can agree that it simply doesn't excuse (in the political world) Obama's continued attendance. The second reason I believe Obama stuck around was simply because he was a Chicago politician from "the neighborhood". The Church is the most powerful outlet for community involvement. Call me cynical, and call Obama the same, but do realize the relationship with and reputation in his community Obama earned by attending and interacting with his neighbors and friends. Obama is, above all, a morally courageous politician (and more so than Senator Clinton, or Gov. Romney, for example, by an immeasurable amount), but he is not perfect. I do not pretend that he is, although many do. It would have been an enormous and, probably, politically deadly choice to walk away from church years ago. He would not be where he is today without the community's support in his earliest days in Chicago as a local organizer. As they came to owe him, he came to owe them. No man is an island, they say.

If this is the worst of his political expediency, then so be it. There are few reasons to believe that he makes a habit of such acts. On countless other measures, he has been apt to say and do the impolitic. By nature, he is an unlikely candidate for office, with a foreign-sounding name and an unusual journey. If anyone would need to use expediency often to cover his glaring "flaws", conventional wisdom would say it would be a guy named Barack Hussien Obama. Yet, he has most often refused to take that route. I needn't recount the numerous examples of this but only to say this:

That if I were to bet on the sanctity and sincerity of just one candidate's character, intelligence, judgment and demeanor, it would be Barack Obama's. In all that has been written, by Senator Obama himself and by others, in all that I have observed and heard, I cannot conclude otherwise. My trust, however, is not important, and I know it will convince very few. I only hope that in this coming election, after all (and I mean all) is said and done, the American people will find what I have found and elect Senator Obama to be our next President. Stay tuned.

About those churches...

Before we all get past whose Church is worse (Wright or Hagee, and both are pretty horrible, in my estimation), I thought this little article warranted a mention. It's probably only interesting to progressives and/or Clinton-bashers, but it is a rather odd coda to this whole situation. Who knew Hillary Clinton hangs around a "cult"?

Hillary's Nasty Pastorate

"Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker..."

The Colvin Report: Obama's Charge Against Race

Obama's speech today got me thinking about things. He refused to disown the man who had been his preacher for 20 years and on his campaign committee until a few days ago. Its understandable, but I think it might be a bit hypocritical.

Obama claims to transcend race and stand for change. He wants frank communication about race issues in a hope to bring things to an end. I commend him for that and in all honesty, I believe it would take a strong black leader like Obama to truly transform thought patterns of Blacks and Whites alike. Al Sharpton and the likes work to divide, but Obama seems to really want to change things. An observant eye looking to the reactions of the crowd in Wright's church shows how deep the problem truly is, at least in some parts of society. Obama is right, people are bitter on both sides for many reasons and it doesn't help anyone to hide it.

However, I am still discomforted by his relationship with Rev. Wright.

And the reason why I think this all seems a bit hypocritical of Obama, and thus worthy of criticism, is that he was the first politician to come out and call for Don Imus to be fired for his infamous nappy headed hoes comment.

Direct from Obama: “There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America.”

And I agree, what Imus said was stupid. He is controversial and I do not listen to him or blame Obama for calling for him to be fired.

My problem is that In the case of Wright, Obama denies ever personally hearing his pastor give sermons that damned the U.S., blamed the U.S. government for creating HIV to kill the black race, etc., etc.

But yet in his speech today, he said he knew Wright had made controversial remarks. He says he would have left the church if he heard the things "repeated," but what does that mean? Isn't knowing he said it enough? Even with the outcry, his speech today did little to acknowledge the remarks and he went out of his way to make it clear that he was not disowning or condemning the man, just a few words.

That just isn't enough. I want a real explanation. When Oprah left the church because it was too controversial, Obama should have followed suit. Either Obama went to this large church to build his political career or he shares the church's views... which is it?

Hey Hillary: Here's a History Lesson

After the speech today by Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton said the following:

"There have been detours and pitfalls along the way, but we should remember that this is a historic moment for the Democratic Party and for our country. We will be nominating the first African-American or woman for the presidency of the United States, and that is something that all Americans can and should celebrate."

The part I'm concerned about here is that last sentence saying we could potentially be nominating our first women to run for president of the U.S. Well, Hillary might be correct in recent times but obviously she has never read about Victoria Woodhull, who was actually the first woman nominated to run for president. Victoria Woodhull was nominated to run by National Radical Reformers on the same ticket as Fredrick Douglass. Although Ms. Woodhull did not win, Hillary's statement is still a bit off point.

And they say those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.... (take from that what you will).

"A More Perfect Union"

Watch and listen (or read), then discuss.

Update: A fact I mistakenly excluded, but bears mentioning for various reasons, is that Obama wrote this speech himself. Although this isn't revolutionary, most candidates don't write their own material (see McCain and Mark Salter/Charlie Black, Clinton with Penn and others, , and while Obama does write his own stuff more often than others, as the Deval Patrick dust-up revealed (See Axelrod), the campaign trail isn't a great writing environment.

The Colvin Report: Where Was Obama on July 22, 2007?

I am going to take a neutral role on this and just present some of the facts.

Obama says he was in FL on July 22, 2007. Facts show that he was there at least by 1:30.

From Fox News: A National Council of La Raza official recalls Obama arriving on time that day for a 1:30 p.m. event that was part of the group’s annual national convention.

So where did the controversy arise, Bill Kristol and the NY Times aside?

NewsMax writer Jim Davis reported on August 7, 2007 that Obama and his Secret Service detail had been among the parishioners attending the July 22 sermon in which Wright spoke of the "white arrogance" in the “United States of white America” and blamed the Iraq war on “Bush administration bullshit." He said that many in the congregation, including Obama were nodding in agreement.

Since the story broke on Sunday by Ronald Kessler and on Monday by Bill Kristol, NewsMax has issued a notice that Davis stands by his reporting that Obama attended a service in July fitting the description he first reported, but he no longer was sure it was on July 22

It is rather discrediting that they cannot prove the day, I would think that would be something they would write down. Heck, he would probably be typing the story on his computer that night.

But, being fair to Jim Davis's Integrity, Is it possible that Obama was in both places on the same day?

Well according to the church's website, they hold Sunday services at 7:30am and 11:00am. If the service was over around 10, Obama and a private jet could have made it, but it would have been pushing it.

Just reporting the facts. Whether Obama attended, we may never know. But seeing as says he would have quit going to that church had he heard Rev. Wright say these things, you can bet reporters will be looking for something.

The Future of Sub-Prime Lending

We can all agree that the current downturn in the economy is at least partially caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis. For those who have been living under a rock, this is basically when banks give homeowners adjustible rate mortgages, so they can buy homes. At first glance this doesn't seem like a huge problem, but the real problem is that banks performed no due diligence when lending money.

Basically this lack of due diligence procedures has led to the current crisis. Joe homeower pretty walk could walk into the bank and say he made 100K and the bank would take him at face value. The problem was Joe Homewoner really only made 40K but decided he wanted a house for the value of his "theoretical" 100K salary. The bank gave Joe the money, but Joe couldn't keep up with the payments. Additionally, with even a minor downturn in the economy, the bank adjusted Joe's mortgage and made Joe's payment schedule that much more difficult to meet.

All these homeowners living above their means in fancy homes default on loan payments, and help create the current banking crisis. (Banks make money on loans).

My suggestion is that the government pass a due diligence law that applies to banks, which would force them to comply with certain procedures and credit checks before issuing loans. These more stringent procedures would catch people like Joe Homeower discussed above.

Much like the Enron scandal spawned the creation of Sarbanes Oxley, I expect the sub-prime mortgage crisis will have a similar result. I only hope that things get done quickly so peope that actually have good credit and don't lie to banks about income can get the homes they have worked hard for.

Bill Kristol is a Moron

Other than being a blood-hungry chickenhawk, and a terrible writer, he's also flat wrong in this Sunday's NY Times editorial "slamming" Obama for Rev. Wright's comments.

Check your facts Bill. You've been wrong so often, it's like it's a pattern for you. It sort of diminishes your credibility, just a bit...

Red Monday

Lost in the midst of all the political drama is the currently reality of just how desparate the economy has become. On a Sunday, the American cinsumer saw two unprecedented events. The first was the federal reserve cutting rates from 3.50 to 3.25. The second was the announcement of JP Morgan Chase's bid to buy failing investment bank firm Bear Sterns for simply 2 dollars a share.

The federal reserve cut is difficult to swallow simply becuase it occured on a Sunday rather than waiting until Monday morning, when such things are usually announced. This potential could indicate that the government really does think we are in desparate straits despite all the rosy rhetoric of the White House.

Second, is the bid to buy Bear Sterns. Although, the bid is perhaps reasonable, the government's willingness to approve the acquisition in light of traditionally extensive regulatory review indicates again that something is amiss.

Both events coupled together could make for a desolate Monday on the trading floor. Perhaps it is time that those in power recognized something is wrong with the economy and do something about it. What we need is a long term economic policy that puts America back in competition on the world market. Unfortunately, I only expect to see worse as time progresses.

The Colvin Report: The Credibility of Obama's Denunciations

Obama had to come out and publicly denounce the statements of Rev. Wright as soon as he saw them... or thats what he says now. He would have quit the church if he had ever heard the statements repeated.

But what is the truth?

I find it amazing that a man could take his family to the same church for 20 years and never hear the anti-american and anti-white rhetoric. A Reverend who openly travels to Cuba and Libya and maintains a close relationship with Farrakhan. A man who could even consider the proposition that "the white man" created AID's to kill black people. The man who said Bill Clinton "did to black people what he did to Monica Lawenski, he was riding dirty (add thrusting motion)." But somehow Obama missed it. For 20 years he had no idea, even though he credits Rev. Wright for shaping his religious foundation. Heck, Obama even named his book "The Audacity of Hope" after a Rev. Wright sermon.

Thats judgment we can count on?

No, thats the same judgment that entered into a land deal with Rezko after hundreds of papers reported on illegal activities that lead to his federal indictment. (But on a side note, Obama did have the "judgment" to get Rev. Wright to come to pray through and bless his chicago home).

If Obama had no idea about the Reverend, why did he withdrawal his invitiation to Rev. Wright to speak at his presidential candidacy announcment ceremony the day before? The answer is that his senior staffers warned him.

Lets take a closer look at beginning of his campaign. In an effort to build consensus between his new politics and faith, Obama's campaign launched a new Web page, http://www.faith.barackobama.com that prominently featured a testimonial from Jeremiah Wright. Now this has been removed, as Rev. Wright has stepped down from Obama's committee of religious advisors.

This drew a quick rebuke from the Catholic League wherein the organizations President Bill Donohue stated that Obama knew his spiritual advisor was so divisive that his inclusion could cloud the ceremonies. He further noted that "Wright has a record of giving racially inflammatory sermons and has even said that Zionism has an element of 'white racism.' He also blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy."

This letter from Bill Donahue is irrefutable proof that Barack Obama is lying when he claims no previous knowledge of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's hate speech.

But lets not jump to conclusisons; lets look at things closer. Wright stated in a quote to the New York Times, "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," and "I said it to Barack personally, and he said 'yeah, that might have to happen."

Well, why distance himself if Obama had no idea? Interestingly enough, that article dated April 30, 2007 mentions several of these anti-american and racial sermons with direct quotes.

Seems odd to me that he just found out about this. Harvard law, top of his class... and he missed all of this? If thats the case, he wouldn't have made a very good lawyer because a 20 year lapse in judgment would amount to malpractice.

Take off the shades and take a good hard look because the great light that came to save us all is not as bright as it seems.

From the source....

This Rev. Wright stuff is terrible. I'd walk out if I were at church and the preacher started spitting this. But Americans will make a judgment, and I don't believe in guilt my association. I have plenty of associates who say offensive things but have redeeming qualities.

I'm satisfied to take Senator Obama's word on his association and knowledge of these sermons, because having read all of this autobiographical materials, and countless profiles and stories, I've never once detected anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.

This is politics, a story that has been around for a year is like blood in the water. Soon enough, the sharks will smell it.

See for yourself, from the Obama Campaign:


Oh, and the Chicago Tribune, not the friendliest Obama Paper, is satisfied in putting the Rezko issue to rest. Explain to me again about the Obama media bias?

The Colvin Report: Obama Denounces Preacher's Remarks

After the widespread publication of the recent controversy, which I first addressed several weeks ago when it was being ignored by the main stream media, Obama has come out to publicly denounce the statements from his spiritual advisor.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies, ... I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue."

My questions is, when you chose to go to this church for 20 years, is denouncing his continual attitude in wake of controversy really good enough?

There has to be another church in Chicago that Obama could have went to.

But he did not attend another church, he went to this church under this preacher for 20 years. Rev. Wright married Obama and Michelle and he baptized their children. Obama has spoken candidly about his christian faith, his involvement in the church, and close relationship with Rev. Wright; he had nothing negative to say until recently.

Maybe I'm a critic, but his relationship with his church just doesn't sit right with me. Fair is fair, bash McCain for his evangelicals, but at least they are proud to be American's.