what if?

Goodbye to a Gentleman

Dick Freeman was one of the original "whiz kids" who also happened to be a brilliant bridge player - and a gentleman in a most competitive atmosphere.  The New York Times remembers our friend after his death Monday night. 

(The photo was taken by yours truly in White Plains a couple of weeks ago during our Team Trial competition to select two teams to represent the U.S. in international competition.  Dick's team will be one of those teams.)

The Day Journalism Died

Now it's official.

Minnesota's New Senator

Instapundit perfectly captures my opinion about Al Franken:

Caligula sent a horse to the Senate. Minnesota is just sending part of the horse.

Some more in depth thoughts from the Wall Street Journal, too.

The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.

But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.

What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel's findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn't demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn't lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact.

That Pesky First Amendment

You might think that this is from The Onion, a favored satirical site. 

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, California's Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass responded to a question about conservative talk radio by calling show hosts terrorists, and openly wondering why we allow people to call politicians and give their opinions (via The Corner):

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words.  The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards.  Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society.  Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else.

It boggles my imagination how many people actually believe what Bass is saying.  They seem to think that the First Amendment is only for the "proper" kind of speech.  In reality, the First Amendment is to protect speech; period.  The notion that politicians should be judging what is and is not OK for people to express is the point behind it.

Ed has another post today at HotAir about McCain-Feingold and more on free speech.  Although McCain and Feingold are two politicians whom I admire in a number of respects, this bill was the worst either ever produced (and black marks to GWB for signing the bill.)

When newspapers and television stations and radio have restrictions on what they can say, then the people can be restrained and not be allowed to spend their dollars on getting their viewpoints heard.  Freedom of expression is part of the bedrock foundation of our nation.  Destroy it, and we are well on the way to ruining a significant part of what has made our country a great nation.

Something New at Costco

One feature of Costco's success is surprising new merchandise every day.  They were not offering Blue Fronted Amazon parrots inside the store.  Still, the opportunity to meet this young fellow and his dad outside Costco on Saturday was quite a treat!

 

 

 

And in case you are wondering, this birdie's wings have been "clipped."  Ergo, he is unable to fly away.  Don't worry; doesn't hurt a bit.  Like going to the barber for a haircut.

Here, Kitty

Want to drive yourself slightly nuts with a cute puzzle?

Here you go!

Health Insurance, USA Style

When I decided to stop writing and writing and writing a PhD dissertation on idenity in logic and the Morning Star and the Evening Star (don't ask), a discipline which I found most compelling was that of the ethics of health care.  Thus, discussion of what our government may do or not do with health insurance I find fascinating.

Do I think that our system of health insurance and coverage needs an overhaul?  Yes I do.  I could ignore my real estate and bridge and friends and photography and write about this topic for a few weeks.  Suffice it to say, I am not one who says "all is fine" and leaves it there.

Nevertheless, the solutions that I see do not, for the most part, rest with the government taking over what I believe should be choices in the private sector.  It's not because I'm selfish or stupid or hard hearted (see my most recent post below) - but because I do not think such a system would work better than what we have now.  Yes, I think it would be worse.

But, why listen to me?  Here is a fellow who studies the economics of such problems masterfully at Harvard.  I give you Professor Greg Mankiw on the pitfalls of a public solution.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder, but nothing about a government-run health care system strikes me as fair. Squeezing providers would save the rest of us money, but so would a special tax levied only on health care workers, and that is manifestly inequitable.

In the end, it would be a mistake to expect too much from health insurance reform. A competitive system of private insurers, lightly regulated to ensure that the market works well, would offer Americans the best health care at the best prices.

The health care of the future won’t come cheap, but a public option won’t make it better.

Stranger in a Strange Land

As a libertarian-sometimes-conservative living in Minnesota, this piece absolutely captures my life.  A quick excerpt below, but be sure to read the entire column!  (If you're not a New Yorker, just plug in "MN" or "CA" or "WI" in appropriate spots.)

Conservatives living and working among the liberals, among them but not of them, are not unlike field reporters for "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom"; we know them better than they know themselves. Since there is an approved left-of-center position on every subject -- just check out The New York Times or NPR -- We know in advance how they'll react to every controversy, every utterance by a public figure; we anticipate, politically and public policy-wise, their sighs, their frowns, their ups, their downs.

Yet, as we are frequently reminded, they know us hardly at all. What they think they know is this: Conservatives are greedy and hard-hearted -- when we're not busy being racist, sexist and homophobic. We're not merely wrong. We are evil.

Dirt Into Diamonds

Suppose Congress passed a bill legislating that dirt would soon be turned into diamonds.  We'd be laughing like hyenas.

Well - essentially, that is almost exactly what Congress did on Friday.  Instead of dirt to diamonds, however, Congress had the ultimate chutzpah to think that they could mandate what the weather is.

Jim Lindgren, law prof, has the ridiculous details at the Volokh Conspiracy.

As you undoubtedly know by now, Congress voted on Friday to change the weather — or more accurately, the climate. The idea that a government of one country could appreciably change the world's climate over the next 40 years is the ultimate hubris. Legislators may think they are God, but they're not.

The blogger Maxed Out Mama captures the silliness:

This is the most bizarre thing I have ever seen in my lifetime.

Let's hope it can be stopped in the Senate. Even if it is, our nation has lost something here, and that something is the principal legislative body's grasp on reality. It is as if the House of Representatives suddenly passed a vote to reduce gravity by 10 percent in order to lessen the costs of obesity to putatively cut Medicare costs in the future. Truly amazing.

With the Climate Bill, if someone had to waste as much money and destroy as many jobs and as much wealth as possible — and still have only a trivial effect on the environment — the Climate Bill would be pretty much the ideal piece of legislation.

Maybe next week they can pass a bill turning cockatiel poops into gold bullion.  I could make good use of that bill.

Up In Smoke

As a child in the fifties, I remember when both of my parents smoked.  My mom was drop-dead gorgeous, and dad wasn't exactly chopped liver, either.  Dressed up to go out for the evening, those angled cigarettes were the perfect accent for a sophisticated look.  Mom's would be highlighted with a burst of red lipstick on one end.  Both would be enveloped in a swirl of elegant smoke, as their cigarettes punctuated conversation.

No one really knew the long term dangers of cigarettes in those early days.  But hints - strong and painful ones - began to arrive.  In our family, that time came when one of my mom's best friends succumbed to lung cancer.  My mother told me how Ethel, dying in the hospital room, would beg them both to stop.  "Look at me," she said in her last days.

My parents took it to heart.  Although giving up those smokes was excrutiatingly difficult and a long process, they did it.  The combination of my mom's friend and seeing my little playmates with no mother were strong incentives.  Yet, it surely was worth the price.  Decades later, my parents are about to turn 88 and 84.  Had years of smoking continued, the odds of this would have been greatly diminished.  Additionally, I was never tempted to start smoking in the slightest.  The combination of motherless friends and viewing what my folks went through to quit was a double incentive.  Finally, my dad calculated what they saved by not purchasing cigarettes for over half a century:  hundreds of thousands of dollars!  Yes, quitting was a spectacularly good decision.

Now we turn to an addiction that some states have had for decades:  high taxation and spending.  So-called "progressive" politics in many ways seems wonderful.  And, for a while, so it seemed to be.

A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts.

But ...

All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.

So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.

It sounds good on the surface:  highly tax the "wealthy," protect workers at all costs, borrow for "excellent" projects.  Yet, now in the states that were the most sophisticated and admired, we can see the flaws in this thinking.  Yes, too much of it was smoke and mirrors.  Read the entire article.

"Progressive" politics should be retired.  It will be very tough to do it in states where it's been the practice for years - the "habit" for years.  Yet, it really must be done.  Surely the rest of our country shouldn't take up bad habits that we see can kill our economy and burden our citizens.

Mom and Dad gave my sister and me a fine object lesson.  May these states be that same "object lesson" for the rest of us.

Fat Genes

Almost every woman I know has some "fat clothes" - often, specially a pair of "fat jeans."  When she's had a few too many burgers and fries, or simply finds herself unable to fit into her smaller sizes, "fat jeans" come into play.

Now we learn, however, that perhaps our need for "fat jeans" has more with the genes inside our brain and body than we formerly appreciated.

A variation in a gene that is active in the central nervous system is associated with increased risk for obesity, according to an international study in which Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University played a major role. The research adds to evidence that genes influence appetite and that the brain plays a key role in obesity.

The researchers examined data from eight studies involving genes and body weight. These studies included more than 31,000 people of European origin, ages 45 to 76, representing a broad range of dietary habits and health behaviors.

After analyzing more than two million regions of the human genome, the researchers found that the NRXN3 gene variant ─ previously associated with alcohol dependence, cocaine addiction, and illegal substance abuse ─ also predicts the tendency to become obese. Altogether, researchers found the gene variant in 20 percent of the people studied.

You are what you eat.  Maybe what you eat, though, is strongly affected by something more than your will power.

Striving for Mediocrity

Valedictorian of your class?  No way.  Competition is "unhealthy," say school officials.  (Someone should alert my bridge league to this concept!)

A seventeen year old girl says it best.

For school officials to say students can't handle competition or that competition is unhealthy is a very "out there assumption," she said.

"How would anybody succeed at anything if there's not competition?" she said. "You get what you work for and that's all there is to it ... Why wouldn't the school want us to have that kind of mindset?"

Why do some seem to embrace mediocrity rather than encouraging everyone to do their best and improve?  I have no answer whatsoever.

THE Best!

So - you're fairly libertarian.  He's a devoted liberal.  No chance for happiness?

Sure there is!

My blogging buddy, Andrew Tobias, Treasurer for the Democratic Party, is one class act.  I sent him an email, telling him to "be brave" and write about how GWB built an exceptionally "green" home.  Many with a strong devotion to their party (on the left OR the right) wouldn't do it. 

Not my Andy.  Of course, knowing what a superb fellow Andy is (even if he is misguided on a number of issues :)) - I am not shocked.

YAY BUSH:

Peg:   “It WOULD be nice to give GWB a plug for something he did quite well.  I’m talking about his home that is conservation in action.  Here is a link to the snopes post about it.”

 ☞  Kudos to him for his energy-efficient Crawford house.  The reader may supply his or her own devastatingly caustic follow-on line.

 

The Fault, Dear Brutus

Perhaps if you were living under a rock recently, you heard nothing of the Governor Mark Sanford debacle.  For the rest of us, depending upon perspective, we are left to feel pity, amazement, vindication, sadness, etc.

John Dickerson focuses, however, not so much on what would cause a man with presidential aspirations who preached fidelity and conservative values to risk - and lose - it all on a woman in Argentina.  Instead, Dickerson looks at those who gain pleasure from the downfall of another.

In the e-mails and Twitter entries and blog posts I read in the aftermath, Sanford's human ruin was greeted with what felt like antiseptic glee. The pain he's caused, the hypocrisies he's engaged in, seemed like license to deny him any humanity at all.

Sanford's fumbling efforts to explain how he's tried to rescue himself with his faith offered some people an opportunity to make fun of his religion, as if a confused, lost, flawed person were the right spokesman for anything. People tend to think the most awful thing about a person is the most true thing. They also apparently think it's the most true thing about his or her associations. So an e-mail arrived asking, "[I]s there any Republican not sleeping around?" Maybe Sanford should have been a presidential candidate. He apparently represents an entire party and an entire religion.

What Mark Sanford seemed to be trying to say is that he screwed up, in the biggest possible way, because he lost his bearings. He lost his self-control. He was indulgent. He forgot that there were other humans in the world. Yet in the constant flow of abuse, joke-making, and grand conclusions about his failings, it seemed everyone having a good time pointing at his self-indulgence was also engaging in a form of it.

I long have believed that the miracle of incredible communication capabilities in our modern era leads to an awareness of every minute detail of those who run for office.  Unlike the past, when a president could "discreetly" have his dalliances, today, the odds of such activity remaining secret is low. 

Be clear; I am no apologist for Sanford and the choices that he made.  Still - sometimes I wonder if the transparency of our modern era has led to a notion that our leaders must be perfect human beings.  It will never happen.  Whether a politician has feet of clay in their marriage, with other appetites of addiction, or other unsavory connections at some point in life - be sure that each and every one will have some aspect that is not worthy of admiration.

Of course, some flaws are so deep and substantial, they remove that person from being able to serve.  Still, I wonder.  First, should we remember that all of us - irrespective of our role in life - will make errors, some large - and all of us at some point will hope to be granted a modicum of forgiveness?  Second - should we feel such schadenfreude when someone who doesn't share our world perspective is struck down by their own hand?

Perhaps, as Dickerson believes and Shakespeare poetically stated, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

Another Time; Another President

OK; I got refreshed :)

Once, we had a Democratic president who uttered these words:

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.	3
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.	4
This much we pledge—and more. Today?  Today, we have a Democratic president whose words and actions caused Representative Thaddeus McCotter to say this: In the grand strategy of our War for Freedom over terrorism, how we aid pro-democracy Iranians’ will remind the world who we are - we are Americans: the revolutionary children of freedom who have lived and died defending our liberty and extending it to the enslaved and oppressed. We will do no less today in support of our Iranian brothers and sisters. Today, Neda’s voice calls to our consciences and warns that the fate of Iranians’ liberty is entwined with the fate of Americans’ security. We must not miss this generational chance for freedom - again one that ensures a rogue regime’s implosion prevents a nuclear confrontation; and that Neda and all liberty’s martyrs shall not have died in vain. As Americans, we must seize this moment and help Iranians seize their freedom. That’s what we do.

2 Busy 2 Blog

Client brochures.  Emails.  Sales meeting.  Brochure delivery.  Phone calls.  Housewarming gifts.  Errands.  Bang trim.  Disclosure delivery.  Phone calls.  Emails.  Real estate research.  Birthday party.  Addendums signed.  Sold sign delivered.  Phone calls.  Emails.  Home.

Too busy - too tired - to blog!

Day After Dad's Day

A remarkable Father's Day story, sent to me from a remarkable father.

My own.

Thanks, Daddy!

I've Got Rhythm

Actually, I really do not.  But - this cockatoo sure does!

Wonder if Mr Mollo could learn these moves.......!?!

Congratulations, Mrs. and Mrs. Egan!

Today, the daughter of dear friends went from a blushing bride to a "Mrs."  Since the bride and her now husband shopped with me for their first home, I know them quite well.

In addition to being able to attend a glorious wedding, it was my honor to be able to photograph the festivities.  My "virgin" wedding - and I had a marvelous time! 

Here comes the bride - and - her new husband!

Happy Father's Day

To all those great dads out there - Happy Father's Day!

Of course, it was my incredible good fortune to get the best father ever.  But hey; sometimes you do get lucky!

The Little Giant

Milton Friedman may have been small in stature.  Nevertheless, he was a giant in economics.

Although Friedman is no longer with us, gratefully, his ideas are.  Most remain as fresh, vibrant and correct today as they were when Friedman was alive.  How to address our health care issues is not the least of many.  Though this paper is eight years old, it is still quite relevant.

A more radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

This reform would solve the problem of the currently medically uninsured, eliminate most of the bureaucratic structure, free medical practitioners from an increasingly heavy burden of paperwork and regulation, and lead many employers and employees to convert employer-provided medical care into a higher cash wage. The taxpayer would save money because total government costs would plummet. The family would be relieved of one of its major concerns—the possibility of being impoverished by a major medical catastrophe—and most could readily finance the remaining medical costs. Families would once again have an incentive to monitor the providers of medical care and to establish the kind of personal relations with them that were once customary. The demonstrated efficiency of private enterprise would have a chance to improve the quality and lower the cost of medical care. The first question asked of a patient entering a hospital might once again become "What’s wrong?" not "What’s your insurance?"

My thanks to Professor Mankiw for the link.  And, do yourself a service and read the Whole Thing.

Critical Funding for Science

Many of my liberal friends believe that massive government spending on scientific issues is critical for our nation.  I wonder.

Almost half a million dollars to fund a study about why men don't want to wear condoms while having sex.  And here I coulda told 'em for a mere $80,000 to $100,000!

The news gets better. 

But the $423,500 grant for the study is just a crumb in the NIH pie. The NIH spends $29 billion each year to help fund thousands of health studies at home and abroad.

But some questionable queries have come under close scrutiny, including a $400,000 study being conducted in bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk; a $2.6 million study dedicated to teaching prostitutes in China to drink less while having sex on the job; and a $178,000 study to better understand why drug-abusing prostitutes in Thailand are at greater risk for HIV infection.

$400K to figure out why drunk gay men have risky sexual behavior....  And we wonder why we're going broke!

More Tooth Fairy Legislation

The end of poverty.  Peace in the middle east.  Eradication of cancer.  Attractive jobs for all.  All housing debt vanished.  Sounds pretty good, eh?

Would be nice if it could be accomplished.  Unfortunately, however, this is the Real World - not The Land of Tooth Fairies.

Unfortunately, however, someone didn't tell Congress.  My friend and fellow Realtor from Greenwich, Christopher Fountain, alerts us that Congress just passed a health reform bill that will cover 95% of Americans.  Sounds fabulous!  Only minor detail is they have no clue whatsoever what it's going to cost (more zeroes than your brain can imagine) nor how we're going to pay for it.  (Hey Peg; that's what printing presses are for!)

As Chris says, Congress might as well have passed legislation making it a Perfect World while they were at it....

Sometimes It's Tough Being a Minnesotan

No, I am not talking about minus 23 in January, nor blizzard conditions - nor even about our state bird, the mosquito. 

I am instead referring to our political representation. 

The House overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday in support of Iranian dissidents as that country’s top cleric warned protesters to end demonstrations.

Essentially, the House asserted solidarity with those exercising free speech rights which all ought to enjoy, without fear of harm or even death.  Not surprisingly, the bill passed, 405 to 1 - with two absentions.

One of those abstentions was our own Rep. Keith Ellison.

“It’s important to not allow the Congress to be used in what is essentially an internal fight in Iran,” said Ellison, one of two Muslim members of Congress.

Surely it is a philosophical question every time our nation gets involved with what is happening in another nation.  But - is it really harmful for our House to pass such a resolution?  Is it better to be silent when demonstrators are being bludgeoned and sometimes killed for speaking in a manner that Americans take for granted?

When does it become impossible to not speak out against injustice?

You tell me.

By Definition

Thomas Paine said that government "is a necessary evil."  And so it is.  Those who think we could do without it are as misguided as those who think anything and everything should be blessed by the overseeing of our government.

Take this example.  Three shelters in South Bend, Indiana, are going to lose the ability to get food from the government resource, Food Bank of Northern Indiana.  Were the shelters corrupt?  Were they treating those who came there intolerably?  Were they mismanaged?  No, no and no.

Apparently, the reason the food deliveries will be suspended is because the shelters were charing very modest fees to some who came there.  Guests who had been at the shelter for over 45 days were charged $1 per day for housing.  In addition, those guests who had food stamps had to use food stamps, or pay up to $5 per day, or do chores.  Children were charged nothing.  As one center's director said,

“The fees were truly not in response to the economy,” says center Director Steve Camilleri. “It's part of a strategic plan to make our guests more accountable.”

Some may not be aware.  But, for those who are struggling with addiction or alcoholism, part of recovery involves accountability.  Charging a tiny fee helps them to battle their afflictions.

Yet, as is so often the case with government, by definition it is difficult to have "common sense" rules and avoid a "one size fits all."

Jaworski says she offered all three agencies the opportunity to charge a fee that the rules would allow. But it would have to be a general fee for all services - not just food - that applies to all residents, she says. Shelter directors didn't pursue that.

Baechle says it isn't feasible because it would conflict with rules for other government money the YWCA receives.

She's been talking with state and federal officials to see what could be ironed out. She hopes she might be able to separate food costs and charge a fee for just part of it. That will be tough, Jaworski says, because the rules state that whatever Food Bank food is offered to one must be offered to all.

We have organizations devoted to helping those who need help.  We have our tax dollars supporting a government agency that can deliver food to those who can benefit from it.  But because of the enormous wheels of governmental bureaucracy, the good being done will end.

A "necessary evil", indeed.

Worse than the Great Depression?!

Yes in some respects.  No in others.

Today I got my hands on alarming graphs from the folks at VoxEU (via a column by Martin Wolf) which convincingly demonstrates that, for the much of the world, 2009 looks, without question, just as bad, if not worse, than the first years of the Great Depression.

The study, which you might have seen, by Barry Eichengreen and Kevin H. O'Rourke, assumes the starting date of April 2008 and compares the current worldwide recession to the worldwide depression that began in June 1929.

One thing to note is that the percentage of industrial drop-off in Italy is already worse than the UK's 40-month low in 1932.

The good news is that the world is responding much quicker to the crisis of 2008-9 compared to the Great Depression. Central bank interest rates rates are lower all over the world and monetary expansion has been much more rapid this time around. At the same time, Martin Wolf cautions that world governments will be faced with a rock-and-a-hard place dilemma with regard to fiscal stimuli and monetary policies. One the one hand, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of 1937 America or 1990s Japan and double dip into recession by pulling back too soon. On the other hand, the danger of stimulus being withdrawn too late is "a loss of confidence in monetary stability worsened by concerns over the sustainability of public debt, particularly in the US, the provider of the world's key currency."

Yet one thing is clear.  Speaking of "respect" - we ought to have it for the magnitude of the world's difficulties right now.  All of us must do our part in grinding our way out of it.  And we must recognize that there are no easy answers - no matter what anyone tells us.

A Rose by Any Other Name

We all know Shakespeare's line - it would smell as sweet.

But - what about the other way around?  If someone stinks, do they stink no matter what you call them?  I think so.

Case #1.  Barbara Boxer chews out a general for the heinous deed of referring to her as "Ma'am" instead of Senator.  Ooops!  I meant Senator Barbara Boxer chews out ... yada yada yada.  Or - do you think I should have said Her Royal (pain in the you know what) Highness?  Too bad the general didn't return the favor with "You should call me "general," Senator.  I worked hard to get this title....!"

Case #2.  I'd never heard of this woman before, Elizabeth Becton.  What can I say?  Sometimes, you get lucky.  Just a small segment of Emails from a Lunatic.

Speaks for Me

The good news:  I've been pretty busy with my real estate work, some deals are appearing to jell, I've got new clients on the horizon and lovely homes to market.  On top of that, I'm preparing to photograph my first wedding (!!) and - of course - there's always bridge. 

The bad news?  Doesn't leave lots of time for reading and blogging.  Sigh.

But - I did get to read this today.  Whistful and sad as it is - alas; I think much of it is true.  And I do "remember when."

Even before there was a United States, the land we call America was a different place. In America, a peasant could own land. A slave could fight — literally — for his freedom. An Irish cop could arrest an English criminal.

In America, a Russian could speak his mind, an Italian could renounce the Pope, a Serbian could marry a Turk, an Asian or an Indian could find space to move, a Catholic could get divorced, a Jew could eat bacon, and a housewife could get a job. A … well, pretty much anyone could do most anything. Maybe not at first, and certainly not without ridicule if you chose do something really silly — but the choice was yours.

In America, you were free.

Here was a New World. No kings, no knights, no dukes, no earls. No titles, no shackles, no pales of settlement. Some of us, shamefully, owned slaves. But when push came to shove, Americans were willing to kill and die to make other men free. It was true in the Civil War. It was true in World War Two. It remains true today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We were never perfect, but we were always working on it — at least when we weren’t trying to make a buck, or maybe just trying to avoid attention. America was the land of promise, and the land that delivered on that promise.

American freedom was a huge, sprawling, messy, brawling thing. It consumed everything and anything, and spewed out an unimaginable bounty. For some, the freedom was about growing their business and making money. For others, it was about growing their hair and making love. But it was always here, for anyone willing to risk the journey and leave behind the Old World and its old ways.

But now that we have this wonderful place, this precious idea — what are we doing with it?

Already, the government runs our children’s education and our parents’ retirement. Now we’re allowing it to usurp our banks and nationalize what remains of our auto industries. Within weeks, Washington promises a plan to dictate our health care. To do all this, we’ve let Washington run up enough red ink to impoverish our grandchildren. As if all that weren’t enough, the president still found the time to kick our friends in London and Tel Aviv while courting a genocidal, election-stealing maniac in Tehran. He even gave a speech in Cairo — that oppressed, impoverished Old World megalopolis — in which he assured the world that America really is no better than anywhere else.

Well, once upon a time, we were.

Absent a warp drive, a wormhole, or some other science fiction escape to an uninhabited Earth-like planet, it’s impossible to recreate the conditions which allowed the creation of these United States. It can’t be done; there aren’t any New Worlds left to discover. Our maps are all filled in.

If the Old World comes here, where does the New World have left to go?

When the Puritans were persecuted in England, they risked everything to come to America. When young Germans faced the Prussian army’s grip, they gave up their ancient towns to come here. When Jews faced the Czar’s pogroms, they gave up their bucolic steppes for the slums of New York. Rather than accept stagnant lives in their own countries, Latin Americans risked uncertain lives in America. Rather than accept far milder impositions than our own, America’s Founding Fathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor just to sign their names on parchment.

Anyone with nothing to lose and everything to gain — and bearing wits and character enough to risk it all — came here. They ventured here. To America.

Whatever liberty we have right here, right now, in America … well, for all practical purposes, that’s all that’s left anywhere. If France had our freedoms, there would be no French here. If China had it, there would be no Chinese here. If it existed in Latin America, there would be no Spanish spoken here. And so it goes.

A Joke

Our media.  They are a joke.

ABC News has announced plans to put Barack Obama in prime time again from the White House to push his health-nationalizing agenda for an hour — and then another half-hour on "Nightline."

ABC will broadcast live from the White House for "World News" and "Good Morning America," interviewing both Barack and Michelle Obama.

It's bad enough that NBC News just gave Obama two hours of fluffy promotion in prime time (followed quickly by two hours of prime-time fluff reruns).

Dissent Not Tolerated

Now, ABC isn't going to promote how Obama buys hamburgers for the staff and has a cute puppy. They're going to help him sell his hard-left "Prescription for America."

Forget participation. ABC isn't allowing time even for any official Republican rebuttal. Republicans will have to hope they find a spot or two in the audience ABC News selects with the promise of "divergent opinions in this historic debate."

ABC also promises the participation of its medical correspondent Dr. Tim Johnson, who's been a blatant cheerleader for a European-style "right" to health care.

No Close-Up For Bush

More conservative White Houses have not been awarded a supportive network platform. Does anyone remember that ABC prime-time special that allowed President Bush to sell Social Security privatization in 2005?

Or the two-hour, 2006 prime-time Bush White House special promoting the War on Terror? Try not to laugh too hard at the impossibility of such a concept.

No wonder newspapers are dying.  No wonder many Americans now get their news from the Internet and a wide array of respected blogs.

Before It's Too Late

Hot dogs with mayo?  French fries with gravy?

No, we are not talking Jenny Craig; we're talking "500 Things to Eat Before It's Too Late."

Too late?  Someone on their deathbed?

No.  Authors Jane and Michael Stern think many foods beloved by Americans may be as verboten as wicked tobacco one day.

So, even if you're like me, trying to keep the battle of the bulge from becoming a lost cause, you can read the book and salivate from afar!

Oh!  And if you want to stop by Minneapolis to visit me and Hell's Kitchen - here you go!