We reap what we sow

I haven't said much of anything on the bailout situation.  My last entry was a copy of a Ron Paul article on the subject.  And I've shared a ton of articles in my "Items if Interest"\Shared Items page.  I am working on a fairly extensive entry about economics in my "RIGHT Policy" series which will address it somewhat.  But as you can probably imagine, I do have a lot of thoughts about this deal and have a little bit of time to discuss it this morning.

Basically, the title says it all.  We are reaping what we sowed.  This problem goes back to a decision in the 1990s to loan money to people who could not afford to pay it back.  Even with the timing, I do not blame that all on Bill Clinton.  We had a Republican Congress, then we elected a Republican president, and we re-elected Republicans into Congress up until two years ago.  Fact is, both Republicans and Democrats have their names all over this one.  Congress made some really bad decisions and now they want us to trust that they know how to fix it.

Even worse, people have been able to see the potential problems with this sub-prime garbage ever since the policies were put in place.  Below I have the text from an article WRITTEN IN 1999!!! about how risky it was to lower the loan approval process and loaning money to people with poor credit.  So, people who understand finances knew this was dangerous, but they were under a lot of political pressure to ignore the danger.  Bankers and mortgage brokers are much to blame here for taking on the risk of course, but they probably felt they had no choice with the promises of the reward and their obligation to their shareholders to produce a certain value.

What's the fix?  Well, I'm a bit torn here.  If Congress is partially to blame, they may shoulder some of the responsibility to help us out.  As the article below states, putting policies in place to bail us out of a mess is something that has been done before.  But at the same time if something is done to fix the current mess, we also need to do something to make sure we keep from getting into the same mess again.  That is what I see missing from the bailouts as they are proposed right now.  It's like they are saying, "we all messed up so now lets just make someone else (taxpayers) fix it."  If they do that, WHAT WILL MAKE THEM LEARN THEIR LESSON?!!  So I'm leaning toward the idea that we need to let this work itself out via normal market procedures.  The hard thing to deal with there is that things could get REALLY BAD.  Meaning many people, including myself and all of you, could suffer.

So for now, I'm going to just say I'm happy the vote failed yesterday.  I still feel like there isn't as big a rush on this as President Bush and Congress are saying.  Sure, the longer we wait, the more banks that will fail.  But someone will pick things up from there.  And if providing a ton of money to banks is the fix, then we can do that later if it becomes evident that it is the only way out.  I think we just all need to calm down a little bit and see where this goes to over the next few weeks\months.  Also, keep in mind that Congress is supposed to be adjourned FOR THE YEAR right now.  Think they might want to be pushing this through so they can go home?

Anyway, that's enough for now.  Here is the article I mentioned earlier...

 

September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

 

Ron Paul is RIGHT

Ok, I know that title doesn't surprise you at all.  But if you've been following the news commentary on the big government bailout that is being discussed, you probably have seen Ron Paul.  He's finally getting his due credit for being right over the last 15 years or so about the causes of the mess we are in.  The folks who thought he was nuts just a few years ago are seeing just how RIGHT he was.  So just about every news channel wants to talk to him right now.

Yesterday, CNN gave Ron Paul the chance to write a commentary on the bailout and where it will lead.  Full text below...

Commentary: Bailouts will lead to rough economic ride

• Story Highlights
• Ron Paul: Too much government meddling in economy caused crisis
• Paul says the bailouts are another case of excessive intervention in economy
• The government isn't letting the market adjust prices to lower levels, Paul says
• Paul: Bailout will only increase financial instability in the long run

By Ron Paul
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Ron Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas who ran for his party's nomination for president this year. He is a doctor who specializes in obstetrics/gynecology and says he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s and was elected again to Congress in 1996. Rep. Paul serves on the House Financial Services Committee.

(CNN) -- Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage homebuilding and homeownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.
Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

Are you sure, Pat?

Pat Buchanan is a big fan of Sarah Palin.  I'm a pretty big fan of both, so you'd think I'd agree with most of what Mr. Buchanan writes about Gov. Palin.  But I'm not so sure this time.  From this article, discussing Gov. Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson last week:

“Palin assured the group of her strong support for Israel, of her desire to see the United States move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and of her opposition to Iran’s aspirations to become a nuclear power, according to sources familiar with the meeting.”

...

Palin also volunteered that the Russian invasion was “unprovoked,” though Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. She followed up by saying that Georgia and Ukraine should be brought into NATO.

Would that mean America would have to go to war with Russia on behalf of Georgia in any new conflict, asked Gibson.

“Perhaps so,” said Palin.

....

In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.”

Interviewed by Alaska Business Monthly in March 2007 on the surge, Palin said, “I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place.”

That is not the language of empire or “benevolent global hegemony.”

Palin may disappoint many conservatives in the next seven weeks by having to parrot the McCain-neocon line on NATO expansion, NAFTA and a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. But the battle for Sarah’s soul is not over.

For, again, the lady is no neocon. Nor is the husband Todd, First Dude of Alaska and former member of the “Alaska First” Independence Party.

Pat, I really want to agree with you here, but I have to admit that some of Gov. Palin's comments made me wonder if she is buying into the neocon viewpoint.  I fear that even if she is not in full agreement, she will go along with what is presented to her as the more popular view.  This is what President Bush did and it has led us to where we are today.

But I understand that anyone being picked as VP has to tow the line of the top ticket candidate quite a bit.  Should Sarah Palin become president at some point, my hope would be that she will "clean house" in a way that shows where her true convictions are.  Until that happens, I'm not going to write her a blank check with my support.

The RIGHT Policy - Part 2 - Social Issues

The next bit of policy I'd like to consider in this series is social issues.  This includes areas such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.  I'll touch on my personal thoughts on these issues then talk about how the next president can influence them.

I'll start with abortion.  I've made no secret about my pro-life position in this regard.  I find no reason to kill a baby.  In the very, very few cases of pregnancies from rape or incest, adoption is a great option.  There are plenty of people out there that can provide a good home for a baby.  In cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, the doctor and mother\family should make this decision.  If the baby has to be removed to save the mother, that does not mean the baby has to be killed also.  There are all kinds of stories of babies surviving after being delivered very early in term.

As far as government involvement in this issue is concerned, I have two somewhat competing thoughts.  I'd love to see a federal ban on abortion, with some protection for doctors should they decide the mother's life is in jeopardy.  Again, not protecting doctors so they can kill the baby, but protecting them should the baby die after all attempts are made to keep both mother and child alive.  Our constitution guarantees the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Protecting the life of the unborn is paramount to that.

If a federal ban cannot be done, I'd be fine with the federal government staying out of the issue entirely.  Leave it up to the states.  Fact is, most states would ban abortions, which is definitely an acceptable compromise.  But under no circumstances should their be federal support or provisions for abortions.

Next, embryonic stem cell research.  I'm against the harvesting of embryonic stem cells strictly for the purpose of scientific research.  However, if an already collected stem cell (such as one being saved for in-vitro fertilization) is going to be destroyed, I'm fine with using it for research instead.  I read that embryos used for in-vitro can be kept for 5-10 years.  After that, they can be destroyed.  It makes no sense to me to destroy them if they can be used for some good.

Should the federal government fund stem cell research?  Nope.  The government doesn't have to be involved in this research for it to be successful.  So if the federal government can figure out a way to allow embryonic stem cell research in a morally acceptable way, I'm fine with it.  Also, there is plenty of good research that shows that adult stem cells could have as much promise and embryos.  We should put as much effort into that as possible.  But again, if an embryo is already going to be destroyed, I think it's acceptable to study it in a lab first.

And I must say this - I don't believe any embryo should be destroyed.  Period.  So yes, from my perspective in-vitro fertilization should not be done at all if it at some point requires the destruction of an embryo.  That's the logical conclusion.  I readily admit that in-vitro has helped a lot of people, but I cannot support its use and be consistent in my views.  Innocent human life cannot be destroyed for any reason.

The last specific issue I'll address is homosexual marriage.  First, homosexual behavior is dangerous, abnormal, and wrong.  And if our government can pass laws made to protect us from dangerous behavior (ie: making us wear seat belts), then there is no reason that they can't do the same related to our sexual preferences.  But this is unrealistic.  If they stopped homosexual behavior, they'd have to stop some heterosexual behavior also.  So this is not really whether or or not we can stop people from being gay.  We can't.  As Christians, the only thing we can do is reach out to homosexuals as we reach out to all sinners and try to help them turn away from their sin.  We all sin.  We all need a Savior.

So we are left with whether or not they should be allowed to get married.  To answer that, we should look at why they want to get married in the first place.  From a government\policy standpoint, it's because married people receive certain tax and insurance benefits.  Well the tax benefit is easy.  Get rid of it.  Get rid of most taxes and then it won't matter.  More on that when I deal with economic policy.  I'm not sure if the government makes the rules on how insurance companies treat single and married couples.  If so, they shouldn't.  At which point anyone can put anyone else on their plan.  Insurance companies could then handle this however they wanted.  That's RIGHT, private enterprise could actually handle something without the government being involved!  Go figure.  :) 

So yeah, from a government\policy perspective, there's not really any reason to have a law one way or the other related to homosexual marriage.  There may be some policies related to who gets what when a spouse dies.  This can be handled simply with a will.  Not much else to say there.  After that, if an organization wants to give a couple a piece of paper that says they are married, we can't do nothing about it.  The government does not have to be involved in marriage at all.

Wow, this is getting pretty long.  I do need to spend a little bit of time talking about where the candidates stand on these issues though.

Starting with abortion.  Let's get a couple of recent quotes from Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

OBAMA: 

Look, I've got two daughters, nine years old and six years old.  I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.  I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.  Now, so -- it doesn't make sense to not give them information.

PALIN:

(on the birth of her son, who has Down's Syndrome)

"We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.

"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

(on her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy)

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us.  Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.  Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

 

I have to say I find Senator Obama's comments ridiculous, deplorable, sad, etc, etc.  To even see him use the term "punished with a baby" made me lose what respect I might have had for him up to the point that I read that.  I can say with certainty that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.  I pretty much already felt that way but that quote solidified it.  I will not vote to put a man in office who has that perspective about a human life.

So what about McCain's record on abortion?  Well, he picked Palin as his VP, which shows he definitely respects the pro-life view.  He says he's pro-life and his voting record reflects that.  He does want exceptions made in cases of rape, incest,  and when the mother's life is in jeopardy.  And he has voted yes on a few bills that had provisions that would fund abortions under certain circumstances.  I haven't really studied those though, so it could be that they were thrown in as part of a larger bill that he voted yes on.  Not using that as an excuse, but it would make sense.  Overall, he definitely has a pro-life history.

Real quick on the others - McCain and Obama are both for funding embryonic stem cell research.  Neither is very conservative there.  And I've seen nothing that says either McCain or Obama want to allow gay marriage, but they do not favor a ban on it either.

 

Ok, I know I said this is getting pretty long and I just kept going, so now I'll try to wrap things up a bit.  One of the main areas where the president can influence social policy is in his judicial nominations.  And to be honest, I'm not sure what either candidate will do here. 

McCain voted for President Bush's Supreme court appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  Good.  But he was also a part of the horribly unconstitutional Gang of 14.  Bad.  I'm unconvinced he will place strict constitutionalists on the bench.  It's 50-50.

Obama?  Well, I'm pretty convinced he will not put a conservative on the bench.  And I've already said he won't get my vote because of the abortion issue.  Not really much more to say there.

In fact, I'm going to go as far as saying that one of the main reasons I'd vote for McCain would be to keep Obama out of the office.  McCain is a fairly safe bet as far as holding to socially conservative viewpoints.  Even if he's not fully on board, he wouldn't go against them because of the damage that would be caused to himself and the Republican party if he did.  He won't be as conservative as President Bush, but he'd be infinitely better than Barack Obama.  And a McCain presidency means that Sarah Palin gains more notoriety, along with her pro-life views.  I've pretty much said this in previous posts, but truly the best thing to like about John McCain is his choice of Sarah Palin as VP.

So now we are starting to get somewhere.  In summary, I don't think there is a conservative case to be made for voting for Barack Obama.  And John McCain has actually shows that he can be conservative in a very important area.  Abortion has been THE ISSUE for me in past elections.  I'm really struggling with whether or not that will be the case this year.

Next up will be economic issues.  Stay tuned...

Jason Whitlock is RIGHT

All I can really say to this is WOW!  This dude hit the nail on the head.  From this article.  Full text below:

Sad to say, but Young's problems were predictable

By Jason Whitlock

I'm going to do my best to avoid turning this into an I-told-you-so column.

But the truth is, I told you before the 2006 draft that Vince Young was primed for NFL failure. He entered the league with an attitude, mindset and supporting cast totally unprepared to survive the pressure, challenge and responsibility that goes along with the most prestigious and difficult job in all of sports.

When I explained all of this in 2006, my naive and misguided critics called me an Uncle Tom. Yeah, they ripped me for attempting to issue a young black kid a warning about what awaited him in The League and the attitude he would need to cope and excel.

Some people foolishly think it's every black media member's job to assist in the mental and emotional crippling of black youth. We're supposed to blow rainbows up the asses of every black athlete who "makes it" and assure him/her that anyone who utters a word of criticism is a jealous bigot or irrational sellout.

So, no, I'm not surprised Vince Young tried to quit in the middle of Sunday's game after throwing a second interception and hearing boos from Titans fans frustrated by his inability to read a defense or throw accurately. I'm not all that shocked that two days later Jeff Fisher called the police and asked them to hunt down his inconsistent quarterback. I'm not surprised the Titans team psychologist is apparently worried that Vince Young is suffering depression.

And I'm really not surprised that Vince Young's mother told The Tennessean that her baby boy needs a little space and a lot of love and support.

The question is, when Young rebounds from his emotional abyss and recovers from his knee injury, what kind of love and support are we going to give him? Are the people who already love Young going to replant their heads in Young's rear end and their hands in his wallet? Or will a few people within Team Vince do the right thing and level with him about what he needs to do to make it in the NFL as a quarterback?

Vince Young, like a lot of young African-American men, desperately needs to hear the truth from the people who love him. Too often we pave the road to failure for black boys by believing the cure for bigotry — and there is still plenty of bigotry in America — is the ability to recognize it in (and blame it for) everything. That cure has more negative side effects than most of the drugs trumpeted by the pharmaceutical companies in television commercials. That cure serves as a convenient crutch, and turns a talent such as Vince Young into a quitter the moment adversity strikes. That cure helped land Michael Vick in jail.

Everyone told Vince Young and Michael Vick the NFL would be easy. They'd revolutionize the QB position with their legs, and they could pop bottles, roll with a posse and pretend to be Jay-Z in their spare time.

It just doesn't work. Not for Young or Vick. Not for Matt Leinart. Not for anyone who wants to star at the position and avoid the boo-birds.

No one revolutionizes the starting quarterback position. The position revolutionizes the person playing it. Just ask Donovan McNabb. He figured it out and changed his game. Over the objection of idiots, McNabb developed his skills as a pocket passer. He concentrated on becoming a student of the game. If he can stay healthy over the next three or four years, McNabb will surpass Warren Moon as the best black quarterback ever to play the game.

Unfortunately, there are still people, especially black people, who don't appreciate McNabb. They think he let "us" down by de-emphasizing his athleticism, and they criticize him for being cozy with his organization the way Peyton Manning is with the Colts and Brady is with the Patriots.

McNabb doesn't get to enjoy the luxury of being a company man the way other franchise QBs in their prime do.

But McNabb has never threatened to quit or asked out of a game because the Philly fans were too rough. McNabb understands that in some instances the scrutiny of a black quarterback might be a tad more intense than that of a white one. He also understands that the best way to combat it isn't whining. It's performance. It's work ethic. It's professionalism.

It's not a coincidence that McNabb comes from a supportive, two-parent household.

I bring that up not to castigate Vince Young and his mother. I don't even know the story of Young's upbringing.

I raise the issue to point out that in modern professional sports — with the astronomical players' salaries — ownership and management examine the upbringing of the athletes and factor that into their decision-making.

Vick's failure, Young's potential failure and the guaranteed money they were given will make ownership more reluctant to anoint another kid from the 'hood a franchise quarterback straight out of college.

It's not about color. It's about fitting the profile of someone who can handle all that goes along with being an NFL quarterback. If I'm an owner, I spend my quarterback dollars on young men who were raised by strong fathers. It wouldn't be an infallible system, but on average I bet I'd hit more winners than if I turned over the leadership of my team to a kid who isn't used to having a strong male authority figure.

As black people, we need to ask ourselves whether we are doing a good job preparing our boys for positions of immense leadership, responsibility and scrutiny.

You are going to get criticized playing quarterback. If your instinct is to dismiss the criticism as racist, maybe you shouldn't play the position. If you are surrounded by people who spend every waking minute telling you that you can do no wrong and that everyone who criticizes you is a bigot, then maybe you shouldn't play quarterback.

The position requires thick skin and genuine self-confidence. If you need four or five male groupies with you at all times, a half million dollars of jewelry around your neck and wrists and a dozen tattoos to feel confident, then maybe you should play wide receiver or start rapping.

The average NFL fan has no idea how much time a franchise spends working on self-esteem issues with a typical player. You think these guys are self-assured. Many of them are not. They self-medicate with booze, drugs, steroids, bling, women and attention-getting stunts such as name changes.

Remember when Terrell Owens' assistant claimed he had 25 million reasons to live? It was an accidental moment of clarity and honesty. Too many players have their whole sense of self-worth tied up in their contracts.

It doesn't take much to crack a man with no real identity, especially if he's grown accustomed to having all of his shortcomings rationalized.

Quotes of the day

I read a couple of interesting opinion articles today that I thought were worth sharing.  Well, one is really more of a press release, but it's definitely an opinion.  Both have to do with the "RIGHT Policy" series that I'm working on.

First, liberal "scholar" (I guess that is the best term) Camille Paglia wrote this article for Salon.com.  It's a pretty interesting article.  She mainly wanted to address how Sarah Palin is a "real feminist".  I don't really have much of an opinion in that regard, but she make some good point.  I recommend you read the entire article, but the quote I want to share today is this one...

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.

She has some really crazy views, but at least she admits that abortion is indeed murder.  Most liberals would never admit this of course.  But she is RIGHT.  She goes on to talk about how the way liberals defend the pro-choice viewpoint will never work, so they are left with attacking pro-life women.

 

And the second thing I want to share is Ron Paul's press release today.  Some excerpts...

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

---

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

---

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates—Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo—those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice—for what it’s worth—is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.

Well, this is what the series I'm working on is really all about I guess.  I'm really torn here.  Ron Paul is exactly RIGHT that we are not going to change anything if we keep holding our nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.  But some things about the (yes, minor) differences in Obama and McCain's policies are down right scary.  Some things about liberal platform are extremely dangerous.  Can I live with voting for someone who I know will lose or not voting at all even when the consequences could affect our country for many years to come?  Tough decision indeed.

Peggy Noonan Is RIGHT

The Sarah Palin train is still rolling along.  Since McCain introduced her as his VP pick, the news media can't stop talking about her.  Many conservatives are now energized to vote.  James Dobson said for the first time that he can feel comfortable voting for McCain because of Palin.  Rush Limbaugh said he is considering giving money to the McCain campaign because of Palin.  And on and on.

Gov. Palin gave her acceptance speech the other night, and like 40 million people watched.  Almost as many watched her as watched Obama's speech, which I think was the most watched convention speech in history.  So people are still very interested in Sarah Palin and the attacks on her don't really seem to be working very well.

This brings me to Peggy Noonan's article today.  I've linked to Ms.  Noonan a few times before.  I just like the way she states things.  Some excerpts:

Sarah Palin killed. And more than killed.

Much has been said about her speech, but a few points. "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick" is pure American and goes straight into Bartlett's. This is the authentic sound of the American mama, of every mother you know at school who joins the board, reads the books, heads the committee, and gets the show on the road. These women make large portions of America work.

She has the power of the normal. Hillary Clinton is grim, stentorian, was born to politics and its connivances. Nancy Pelosi, another mother of five, often seems dazed and ad hoc. But this state governor and mother of a big family is a woman in a good mood. There is something so normal about her, so "You've met this person before and you like her," that she broke through in a new way, as a character vividly herself, and vividly genuine.

Her flaws accentuated her virtues. Now and then this happens in politics, but it's rare. An example: The very averageness of her voice, the not-wonderfulness of it, highlighted her normality: most people don't have great voices. That normality in turn highlighted the courage she showed in being there, on that stage for the first time in her life and under trying circumstances. Her averageness accentuated her specialness. Her commonality highlighted her uniqueness.

She seemed wholly different from, and in fact seemed a refutation to, all the men of Washington at their great desks who make rules others have to live by but they don't have to live by themselves, who mandate work rules from which they exempt Congress, for instance. They don't live by the rules they espouse. She has lived her expressed values. She said yes to a Down Syndrome child. This too is powerful.

What she did in terms of the campaign itself was important. No one has ever really laid a glove on Obama before, not in this campaign and maybe not in his life. But Palin really damaged him. She took him square on, fearlessly, by which I mean in part that she showed no awkwardness connected to race, or racial history. A small town mayor is kind of like a community organizer only you have actual responsibilities. He wrote two memoirs but never authored a major bill. They've hauled the Styrofoam pillars back to the Hollywood lot.

This was powerful coming from Baberaham Lincoln, as she's been called.

By the end, Democrats knew they had been dinged, and badly. After the speech they descended on cable news en masse with the dart-eyed, moist-browed look of the operative who doesn't believe his talking points. They seemed like they were thinking, "I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well." Actually they haven't seen it before in that Palin is something new, but they have seen it before in terms of what she said.

Which gets me to the most important element of the speech, and that is the startlingness of the content. It was not modern conservatism, or split the difference Conservative-ish-ism. It was not a conservatism that assumes the America of 2008 is very different from the America of 1980.

It was the old-time conservatism. Government is too big, Obama will "grow it", Congress spends too much and he'll spend "more." It was for low taxes, for small business, for the private sector, for less regulation, for governing with "a servant's heart"; it was pro-small town values, and implicitly but strongly pro-life.

This was so old it seemed new, and startling. The speech was, in its way, a call so tender it made grown-ups weep on the floor. The things she spoke of were the beating heart of the old America. But as I watched I thought, I know where the people in that room are, I know their heart, for it is my heart. But this election is a wild card, because America is a wild card. It is not as it was in '80. I know where the Republican base is, but we do not know where this country that never stops changing is.

...

 

John McCain also made a speech. It was flat.

 

Love that last line!  So clearly there is still a lot of excitement for Palin and still not so much for McCain.  I think Noonan hit the nail on the head when she talked about how Palin seems average, like someone we know.  Like I said last week, she seems normal.

I'm getting the feeling that I'm not the only one that kinda wishes the ticket could be flipped.  :)

The RIGHT Policy - Part 1 - Foreign Policy

In a blog entry last week, I said that I wanted to put together a series on policies that I think conservatives should look for in a candidate.  I decided to start the series with the topic that my perspective has changed the most on.  That of foreign policy.

If you followed the primaries at all, you'll know that Ron Paul sounded more like the Democrats than the Republicans with regards to foreign policy.  You'll also know that I was a big fan of Ron Paul.  So clearly I had to reconcile the two, as it is obvious I'm not a liberal\Democrat.

I want to start with a bit of a history lesson.  Many today think that being "conservative" includes a believe in a "strong military", mostly meaning that we need to spend a lot of money on our military so that we can face any challenge.  As is pretty obvious in recent history, many have used this ideology to promote things like invading Iraq (twice) and forming and participating in alliances such as NATO and the UN.  Something we've also seen a lot of lately is giving the president full power to send out military into an area, with or without approving votes from Congress.

However, that is not the traditional conservative viewpoint.  This is actually the viewpoint of a group of people that are now called or neoconservatives or "neo-cons".  While somewhat based on the conservative movement, neo-cons did introduce some major new ideas that was not included in previous conservative platforms.  Related to foreign policy, here is an excerpt from this wikipedia article about neo-cons:

As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

If this sounds new to you, you may be wondering - what is the traditional conservative view?  I'm glad you asked!  :)

By definition, "conservative" indicates that proponents seek to keep to the traditional way of doing things, based on a particular standard.  So there are conservative Christians who seek to use the Bible as the standard.  People who hold to a conservative political viewpoint seek to stick to the Constitution and the subsequent documents\statements by the framers of the Constitution as the standard.  With that in mind, here is a quote from George Washington's farewell address in 1796.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

And here is an excerpt from our Constitution explaining the rights of Congress (from Article 1, section 8):

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I've read that these types of declarations require a two-thirds vote, but I've not found that in the text.  So I'm going to take the "conservative" approach and not state that it does.  :)

Regardless, we can get from those two statements alone that many of our recent foreign relations moves haven't exactly been done in a traditional\conservative way.

So what am I driving at here.  Well, put simply - we should have never used the force we have in Iraq or Afghanistan (or anywhere else) without a full Declaration of War from Congress.  What presidents are doing now by seeking resolutions that allow them to use force at their discretion and what Congress is doing by granting them is just a way for both of them to skirt their Constitutional mandate.  It's basically a way for the president to get all of the blame if something goes crazy and for members of Congress to to say they didn't intend for things to get so crazy.  I believe we could have gotten such a declaration of War for Afghanistan, and I think that is appropriate.  With Iraq, I'm not so sure.  If there were a declaration, so be it.  If not, we shouldn't be there.

As for the entangling alliances stuff, I've never thought we should be in the UN or NATO.  We have no business letting agreements with other countries potentially get us into situations where we have no business.  Examples of this would be Bosnia, Somalia, and the first Iraq conflict.

Somewhat related is the placement of all of our military bases across the world.  This is something that Ron Paul opened my eyes to.  Think about this for a minute - what would we think of other countries put military bases in our country?  How would you like to have a German military base in your backyard?  And what if Germany started doing things internationally that we did not agree with while they had bases in your backyard?  Now you probably can figure out why some Muslims consider us evil.  Base in Saudi Arabia?  Check.  Huge support for Israel, a country that is considered enemy-number-one to many of the citizens of Saudi Arabia?  Check.  Making it easy for those citizens to to gather support for hating us?  Check!  So yes, I think we should get our military out of those countries, which will restore their sense of sovereignty and give them less reasons to hate us.  And bring our troops home to protect our borders.

In addition, we should end our tight alliances with countries like Israel.  They can take care of themselves.  If they are attacked, we can figure out what to do about it at that time.

Our main goal should be PROTECTING OURSELVES!  If a country asks us for help, take it to Congress.  Otherwise, STAY OUT OF IT!  We are not the world's police.

Ok, so after all of that, let's look at the two candidates.

Obama:  Well, Obama says he was against Iraq from the beginning, but I'm not sure I buy that since he wasn't in a national position at the time.  He says he'd focus on going after bin Laden.  Could be true I guess but nothing he's done supports that.  I could see an Obama foreign policy looking a lot like the Clinton policy.  Remember how we were attacked during the Clinton presidency and did NOTHING about it?  That's what I figure Obama would do.  Doesn't want to ruffle any feathers.  Also recall that Clinton had a chance to capture bin Laden and did not take advantage.  Did not even go to Congress about it.  I know Obama is not Bill Clinton but I really don't see any liberal\Democrat acting any differently.

There is one thing that I do find interesting about the Democrat platform.  From this link:

We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability-to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities

That looks a lot like the neo-con policy, huh?  But it's still definitely not conservative.

McCain:  This one should be obvious after reading everything above.  McCain is the poster-child for an aggressive foreign policy, and many of the other neo-con policies.  He's said we could\should be Iraq for 100 years.  I have no doubt he'd take us into war with Iran if given the slightest reason to do so.  In the early days of his presidency, he would probably us into stuff like the Russia\Georgia conflict just to show he's serious.  Go to Congress first?  No way.

 

So yeah, nothing much for me to like with either candidate in this regard.  Neither is going to focus on our own defense.  Both could put us into some very dangerous predicaments.  I'm pretty scared about this one.  Tensions in some areas of the world are escalating and our current foreign policy tends to stick us in the middle of them.

So I'm left with hoping\praying that something will change with our foreign policy.  It's sad to me that conservatives have moved away from the traditional ideology.  But it's not too late or too hard to turn back.  I did it.  Only 50-100 million more people need to do the same.  :)

I'll be looking at other policies to determine what the RIGHT way to vote is.  More to come...