The Japanese were right

When the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, they were convinced that Americans were too weak, too divided, and too complacent to fight back. They were right – just 50 years too early. The America that they foresaw has come to pass. Elitist, divided, complacent, subverted by wealthy influence from other nations in Europe and Asia. The biggest story is the mortgage bailout deal, brokered by the government because people who made stupid decisions can’t pay for them. Rather than suffer the consequences, the government throws the burden on those who made conservative financial choices and lived within their means. It’s insidious, rewarding those who have poor judgment and punishing those who have any business or financial sense. It’s like bailing out people who built houses in the path of hurricanes, or in a flood plain, or on a mountainside. If people can’t make sound financial decisions or assess risk, how can they fight a war? Remember, these are the same people who whine about Iraq on a daily basis.  

The seeds of this were built in the 70s, where labor was ascendant and government bailouts became commonplace. Big labor controlled the auto industry, where workers had the best blue collar salaries in America, lavish benefits, and generous retirement programs. And it wasn’t enough. They complained about the supposedly terrible workplace conditions and resisted every effort to make the industry competitive with the Japanese and European auto imports. Take this job and shove it! And when you’re not shoving those jobs, the government had better protect those jobs, because no one should be laid off or fired, regardless of how lousy their performance is.

The inevitable result is the dumbing down of people and a slackening of standards and personal responsibility. After all, if the government will bail you out, why be responsible? Be reckless, go to Vegas, bet it all on black! The government will confiscate other people’s money to save you. And the crime of it is, these people have no idea how to run a business or create wealth. Everything they have is a result of the entrepreneurial spirit that created this country, and they are systematically destroying it.

And what’s the result of this? The Chrysler bailout only postponed the inevitable. Labor destroyed the auto industry in America. Ford and GM stocks now have “junk” ratings. And there’s a lesson to be learned here. Jobs cannot be protected by government intervention. The way to keep your job is to improve your skills and stay competitive, whether you run your own business or work for an international conglomerate. That’s why Unions are the poisoned utopia, providing short term instant gratification (protect my job, sue the boss) in exchange for long term pain (the destruction of entire industries).

Sure, the government can put a bandaid on the mortgage crisis. They can manufacture claims of deceptive loan practices to take the heat off of greedy borrowers who gambled wrong on the housing bubble. Once again, instant gratification strikes again. Just remember, the long term price is that bailout money comes from increased fees for those who get stable, fixed mortgages. People like you.

Bourne Ultimatum

Today, we went out to see the Bourne Ultimatum. It was very entertaining, with nonstop action. Which is a good thing because the plot made no sense.

Much of the movie shows a CIA deep cover anti-terrorism unit trying to track down Jason Bourne from their New York Headquarters. It demonstrated the issue of centralized control and the problems that come with it. For example, I started counting the number of times the CIA operations leader said "What the hell is going on? or Where the hell is he?" Well, you're not giving operational control to your people on the ground, or at least to a local operations center. So what do you expect when you try to micromanage things from New York?

The other thing is, I know too much about Information Technology to enjoy this movie. Supposedly the CIA operations center can get into every camera, every phone(except a recently purchased one) and every computer system they need to. A firewall is only mentioned once(incorrectly, since denial of access in the real world is done by account authentication or file/folder privileges, not by firewalls). And no mention of different technology platforms is made, it makes no difference whether you have Sprint, Nextel, Blackberry, or any other type of phone or service, "they" can access it all.

In another instance, a computer is shown with Norton protection. I had to laugh, because I've tried Norton - good luck trying to do anything quickly while it scans EVERY item on your computer. Or the time a character said "Give me EVERYTHING you have on so and so on screen one!". Have fun sifting through all those files on one screen.

But it's even more than that. The implication is that the government can spy on you everywhere. This omits the main fact of modern life - your voice is too small to be heard. You wish you were important enough for the government to spy on, but in reality you're just a number in the queue buried by thousands of others. As long as you pay your taxes and avoid murder, child molestation, and racist epithets, no one will ever notice you.

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/19/07

“Contested” immigration bill

Today, there’s a story out about a “contested” immigration bill in France. The legislature approved a bill that requires language tests and possible DNA testing for potential immigrants to France. The reason the article is “contested” is that it “may make it more difficult for families to join loved ones in France.” Accusations of Xenophobia are rising, particularly because the bill also establishes minimum income levels to ensure that immigrants have financial support. Meaning they won’t just show up and use up services for free.

The really bothersome part of this is the idea that “families” are being kept apart. France did not force the first member of the family to sneak into the country. They willingly split up the family, using one member to gain residence or citizenship to use as leverage to get the entire family in. There’s enough to go around, right?

 Sorry, but there’s no free lunch. That’s why the legislature passed this bill, because there isn’t enough money to support all of these people. You see, France is our future – when taxes are so high that there’s no more money to confiscate. They have universal health care and generous benefits and long vacations, the utopia that liberals promise us in the United States. For the entitled citizens, working in France is optional – they can go on public assistance when they turn 18 or they can choose to work. But there’s a price tag to all these benefits, and the butcher’s bill is coming due. They have all the money they’ll get, and it’s not enough – even with a minimal defense budget provided by the presence of US troops in Britain and Germany.

Sure, right now in the United States the economy is good, and the only thing both parties want to fight over is how to split up the pie. It’s just assumed that revenue will continue to increase as it has for the last 25 years. Problem is, spending has outstripped tax revenue for most of that time. Which reveals the old adage – the more they get, the more they spend. Until they get to where France is right now. Faced with the inevitable, the forces of self righteousness cannot admit that they were wrong about their utopian vision. No, it’s racists and xenophobes and right wing wackos and conservatives who are trying to take their candy away – there MUST be more money somewhere! Isn’t there? That’s the most dangerous liberal assumption of all, that there’s always money to grab from the defense budget and the rich and the greedy businessmen.

Which brings up another issue – redistribution of wealth. Remember the tobacco settlement? All the self righteous talk of getting the tobacco companies to pay for the health care of those addicted to smoking? Where’s the flood of money into the health care system to lower medical premiums? Last I checked, our medical costs still go up every year.

Well guess what? The money was taken from the tobacco firms, but the lions share didn’t go to healthcare. No, it went to advertising firms for anti smoking ads. And to the legal firms who piled up the billable hours pushing the case. Which means that wealth was taken from greedy tobacco businessmen and given to greedy advertising companies and greedy lawyers. Last I heard, redistribution of wealth was supposed to be from the top down, not sideways.

It’s like the state lotteries – a token amount goes to schools, and the bulk of the money goes to administrative overhead. Or the money from gasoline taxes. A token amount goes to fix the roads, and the rest gets diverted elsewhere. Talking about health care and schools and families is just leverage to get you to enable the diversion of funds.

That’s the truth about the 21^st century, a hard emotional sales pitch up front, which provides instant gratification to liberals and the feeling that they’re dong the right thing, followed by the diversion of funds from their intended purpose.

So next time you hear the hard sales pitch, count me out – I know where the money’s really going. And I’m not interested in instant gratification.

Andrew Vander Dussen

10/23/07

Today, I saw that pop singer Gwen Stefani performed in Malaysia, with the proviso that she covered up - no midriff baring tops, long pants, and sleeves. This satisfied Muslim dress requirements, which she agreed to do.

Think about it. What if Christian groups had asked her to "cover up" in the United States? The media would have been outraged, charging Christians with religious oppression and violations of the free speech amendment and so on. And Stefani would continue to perform in her skimpy outfits here to loud cheers from the liberals.

What's the difference between Muslims and Christians setting decency standards? If you listen to the liberals, it's all about diversity. But the real reason is fear. Muslims, after all, have threatened and killed people who disagree with them. Despite the media's rhetoric about how "dangerous" Christians are, no one has anything to fear from them. This is shown by liberal’s contemptuous disregard for Christian attempts to set parental controls on television, video games, sex education in public schools, and a host of other decency/obscenity related items. Under assault on multiple fronts by the media, the ACLU, corporations, feminists, Hollywood, gays, government, and the diversity police, Christian influence is fading rapidly. 

The problem is, Christians forgot the realities of the world - force rules. They bought into their own rhetoric about peace and love and including everyone. The Muslims have not - their religion is backed by force. Neither has the ACLU - they have armies of lawyers and sheriff's deputies to enforce their will. For all the talk about the power of the religious right, it's liberals who have society's levers of power in their hands.

Corporations understand this as well. For all whining and complaining that companies do about Microsoft, they fear them and understand what will happen if they don't pay the licensing fees. Corporations that are no longer feared, like GM, Ford, and Chrysler, are disappearing. Look at the leaders of society. In sports, you have the George Steinbrenners and the Al Davises. In the media, you have Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. All effective leaders, no matter how charming and photogenic they are, inspire a little bit of fear. Name one Christian leader who is feared today. Anyone?

The whole idea of separation of church and state in the West has defanged Christianity. And without some sort of force to back it up - meaning troops, lawyers, sheriff's deputies, or a defined place in government - Christianity will wither away and die.

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/24/07

Today, I’m reading an article about Lily Allen, the British pop star who had her United States work visa revoked. She’s all unhappy with Bush, dropping swear words at him as liberals like to do. And it brings up comparisons to the Dixie Chicks, who famously slammed Bush, and then infamously faded from sight, complaining about their “freedom of speech” all the way.

The thing is freedom of speech only guarantees you the freedom to say what you want. It does not prevent you from the consequences. If you lie under oath, you may be charged with perjury. If you lie in business dealings, you may be charged with fraud. If you make disparaging comments about other people, those other people and their friends may respond with disparaging comments about you. They may even stop doing business with you. If you want to make boatloads of money performing in a foreign country, it’s probably not a wise move to disparage that country or its leaders, even if other performing acts have done so and gotten away with it. Because you might end up on a plane back to your own country, with diminished revenue prospects, whining all the way.

But that’s the underlying problem with liberals. While we see a land of opportunity to make a successful career, maybe start a business and raise a family, they see it as a chance to “get over”. To push the boundaries with shady lawyers and edgy performances. And according to them, why not? After all, corrupt politicians and greedy businessman get away with it, so why shouldn't liberals take advantage too? Everybody’s doing it, join in the fun!

The thing is, the middle and lower classes are seeing the politicians and wealthy get away with things, and are not at all happy to see someone else skirting the law too. Middle America still demands honesty and fair dealing, not only from the wealthy, but from everyone else too. This confounds liberals to no end - they expect to be cheered like bank robbers during the depression, and end up with their albums thrown in the trash and their public image besmirched. When reality finally strikes, they expand their insults and hatred to include their "disloyal" fans, who they never liked anyway, except when they cashed their checks.

Another problem for liberals is their own ideology getting in the way. Every time they get caught by the law, they complain that they were "singled out". Now remember, liberal ideology states that 'everyone is doing it". That means that law enforcement has cause to arrest everyone, since we're all supposedly engaging in illicit behavior. So why complain about the law - they have every right to arrest you, and you committed the cardinal sin in a large society - you got noticed. You stuck your head up and got hammered down. But that's the price you pay for making "STATEMENTS" that you want to change the world. If you don't want the border officials and other agencies paying you special attention, stop calling press conferences begging for special attention.

Because you see, liberals aren't all that unhappy about being singed out - at least they made headlines! Because the worst thing for them is the existence that you and I have, a quiet life with nobody taking notice of you. Even if they have to take their medicine when they don't want to.

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/20/07

Mortgage and stock market crises

More stories are appearing about the mortgage crisis and sub prime mortgages. And with the stock market down last week, the gloom and doomers have added that to their list of woes. Which begs a question. Why does a market correction in housing and/or the stock market cause such fear?

Let's say you bought a house for $150,000. Market appreciation raised the value to around $300,000, but you didn't sell because you live in it or have it rented as investment property to someone else. So the market corrects and the value goes down to $225,000. Sure, you've lost some paper wealth. But you're still $75,000 ahead. But that's not how it's reported. It's reported as a wave of adjustable rate mortgage foreclosures, ignoring the growing industry of refinancing ARMs to fixed rate mortgages. Supposedly the public has no other option but to watch the ARMS explode in our faces with nothing they can do.

How about the stock market. Let's say you've been investing in your 401k or IRA. For the last few years, the market has risen nicely, and you're 50% ahead. Now when the market corrected last week, you lost 1/2 your gain so you're only 25% ahead. Sure, you're not as far up as you were, but you've still got a nice gain.

But once again, that's not how it's reported. The news networks do not factor in prior gains in either the investment or real estate markets. Every loss is from ground zero, the value you have right now, and is seen as a "crash" or "meltdown".

And it's more than that. If the much hoped for crash or meltdown doesn't occur, they can whine about how greed is sweeping the country. That's the problem, too many opportunists playing both sides against the middle, classifying you as either greedy when things are going well, or crying Chicken Little that the sky is falling when there's a correction. You know what? If you can't handle a correction that's part of the normal market cycle, you shouldn't invest in anything and keep your money under a mattress.

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/21/07

            Yesterday, the NFL fined Bill Belichick $500,000 and the Patriots an additional $250,000 for videotaping opponents signals. The Patriots will also lose draft picks, either a first rounder if they make the playoffs, or a 2^nd and 3^rd rounder if they don’t. Opposing players are talking about past games, both regular season and playoff games, where they suspected the Patriots were stealing signals. Now their suspicions are confirmed.

            Being an old Rams fan, I have a dog in this hunt. Watching the Patriots beat the Rams in the Super Bowl a few years ago, I wondered how the Patriots always seemed to be in the right coverage. Now I know – they were cheating!

            Belichick issued a statement that gave the usual non-apologies, barely mentioning the videotaping “procedure”, indicating that it was a misinterpretation of the rules, and that it was not done to gain a competitive advantage during the game. Then he held a press conference. He refused to address the issue, saying it was over with and didn’t matter and didn’t anyone want to ask about the Chargers game? Everything was in the same monotone. I half expected him to say, “next question”.

            The $500,000 fine speaks volumes about this. You don’t fine that amount if it’s an isolated incident. And it’s not. Opposing coaches have complained on more than one occasion that their sideline headphones failed at critical moments during the game. This brings back memories of the old Boston Garden and the tricks the Celtics would play on opposing teams, from turning off the showers and turning off the air conditioning in the visitor’s locker room, to having workmen interrupt the other teams practice schedule, to turning on fire alarms in the other team’s hotel.

            But what really got me was Belichick’s attitude. He’s not remotely sorry about what happened. He tried to pretend that the Patriot’s preparation for games will be normal. Really? Won’t you get fined a ½ million again if you do the normal procedures you’ve been doing? And if you didn’t do it to gain a competitive advantage, why did you do it at all?

            A TV commentator, asked about the veracity of the claims, stated that the Patriots preparation and work ethic were superior to any other team – implying that the videotaping of signals had no effect on the outcome of prior games. There’s no way to prove that the Patriot’s preparation is better, it’s just a perception they have created in the media and in the public’s mind. And that perception is very powerful, strong enough to ride them through this crisis. The fact remains that whatever shenanigans they’ve pulled, they’ve gotten away with it. No amount of criticism now is going to take away those super bowl rings. And that’s too bad, because they probably cheated to get them.

Andrew Vander Dussen

9/14/07

On golf

I played my weekly round of golf today. The more I play, I realize how many nice people there are out there.

Today, my fellow golfers were Ken and Terry. Ken is from New York, outspoken but a nice guy. Terry was more reserved, with a well placed joke or comment here and there. And they were both great to play golf with.

Since they hadn't played the course before, I clued them in that some of the yardage markers were wrong. They reciprocated by giving me swing tips. Ken told me that I don't swear enough when I hit bad shots! Don't worry, he made up for it on his bad shots.

Last week, my friend Harry and I played with Han and Peter. Han was hilarious, cracking jokes at every turn and encouraging us to hit second shots since we were waiting for the group ahead of us anyway.

I've been in the San Jose area for over six months, and have yet to run into a rude golfer. Some are good players, many are not, but all are out there to have fun. And I really appreciate the sportsmanship and good courtesy that golf provides. No rules lawyers or corporate types here - they must all play on the expensive courses.

It's important to meet nice people, particularly when we are bombarded with negative images by the media every day. I don't watch the news anymore because I don't need to hear about every rape, murder, and robbery that happens in the world. I'd much rather hear real stories from real people, rather than manufactured crises and chimera epidemics. The worlds always on the brink of disaster, until you go out and meet the real people on the ground.

Andrew Vander Dussen

9/1/07

On Marriage

Being one of the last holdouts, almost all of my friends are married now. When I analyze it, some of the marriages are happy and some are not. And it's an interesting dichotomy.

The unhappy ones talk of lowered expectations and how it doesn't change your life. How their spouse changed after they had kids. The happy ones, by contrast, talk about how it's the best thing that's ever happened to them and how grateful and lucky they are to have found the love of their life. So it seems that marriage does change your life - if you marry the right person.

And how do you marry the right person?

1) Don’t settle. Don't get married because you're afraid of being single. If you have to think about the decision too much and keep asking friends for advice, it's the wrong choice.

2) Spend lots of time with your prospective mate before you marry. Make sure you know them in and out before you marry them. The last thing you want to do is be surprised.

3) Have a sense of humor. If you can't laugh about life with your spouse, you'll have a long life of misery.

4) Understand that there may be one flesh, but there's always two heads. Don't expect to get your way all the time.

5) Maybe it's just my perception, but the good marriages seem to be people with common values but opposite personalities. One spouse seems to complement the other, filling in strengths for the other persons weaknesses.

6) Which leads me to my next point. There needs to be a desire to improve yourself. If you don't want to be a better person, how can your spouse make you a better person? It starts with you. If you can't make your own life better when you're single, your spouse won't be able to help either.

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/30/07

The lessons of the English Civil War

            When Parliament went to war with King Charles II of England, it was the culmination of decades of resentment against the Stuart monarchy. The resentment came primarily from 2 forces. One was the well known protestant pressure of the Puritans against the Anglican church. The less well known cause was the gentry, newly wealthy from overseas ventures, pushing for a seat at the table of power.

            The rhetoric from Parliament and the gentry was poisonous and vile, using a broad brush to paint Charles II with anything that would incite the populace against the monarchy. And incite the public it did – bringing in religious zealots like Oliver Cromwell into the fray. And once Cromwell’s army was ready, it defeated every royalist army it faced, as well as other armies in Scotland and Ireland.  

            When all the King’s armies had been defeated and his plots had failed, Parliament had to decide what to do with him. Given their list of complaints and crimes they had compiled against the King, you’d think they would have been ready to execute him. But they were not – they were for compromise and a negotiated settlement. This infuriated both Cromwell and the army, who responded by purging Parliament, putting the King on trial, and executing him.

            Parliament was finally exposed for what it was. Not a force for freedom – they had no interest in the peasants or modern democracy in any sense of the word. Not a force for the law or justice – they could care less about everyone who died in the Civil War. No, they were simply craven opportunists who manufactured outrage against the King to leverage themselves into power. And they didn’t care who or what they used to get power, the peasants, religion, the army, all were just tools to be manipulated. Once in power, they were quite happy to stay with the status quo and work with the King again, regardless of what he had done. Since the army was no longer needed, Parliament contemptuously withheld their pay and tried to disband them.

            Seen in this light, the outrage of Cromwell and the army is justified. Thousands dead, property destroyed, and for what? Just to rearrange the relations between Parliament and the King? Small wonder that Cromwell threw the whole lot out and seized power.

            Like spoiled children who ate too much candy, Parliament pointed the finger at Cromwell as the source of all that went wrong in the Civil War. But the responsibility was theirs for inciting revolution, and they bear the responsibility for what the revolution turned into. If all they wanted was a negotiated settlement with the King, they shouldn’t have waged years of war to achieve that.

            What lessons can we draw to today? For one thing, the Democrats hysterical rhetoric against Bush and the Iraq war is eerily familiar. The Democrats played the “get out of Iraq” card right up until they seized control of Congress, after which they backed off and started to negotiate with the President. As it turns out, they could care less about the cost of the war, or the injured and dead soldiers. They just leveraged those things to get a piece of the action, and they are satisfied with that. The talk of impeachment and abuse of power has died down too, in inverse relation to the Democrats increasing share of pork barrel legislation.

            We are not, as the English were, on the verge of civil war. But we are in an era of hysterical charges, smear campaigns, and the utilization of public outrage to gain power. The modern media is ready to incite the public for any false drama it can generate, be it bird flu to SARS to contaminated food. And who can forget the stories of looting and rape and pillaging from Katrina, later proved to be false? Those who stir the forces of revolution should take care, lest they find themselves pushed aside by the zealots they produced, and consumed by the hysteria they generated.