Taking Risks

Posted on January 3, 2014 by bvanrysdam

It used to be that the United States of America was the land of big ideas. “We choose to go the moon” challenged us as a nation to leave the bounds of earth and set foot on the lunar surface. Today, America has embraced the slogan “just say no” (tip of the hat to the Republican favorite, Ronald Reagan). We don’t want big government, debt or high taxes.

One of our biggest leaps of faith occurred when the U.S. purchased more than 800,000 square miles from the nation of France. The treaty, commonly known as the Louisiana Purchase, more than doubled the size of the US. Many have claimed this was President Jefferson’s great accomplishment (although many Native Americans may disagree).

It may be hard to imagine today, but not everyone was in love with the treaty when it was being ratified. It was argued by some that Jefferson was a hypocrite owing that he was supposedly a strict constructionist in his views on the Constitution, yet looked the other way in conducting the largest real estate deal.

Others worried “foreigners” who came along with the purchase, were unacquainted with democracy and could become citizens, or that the purchase would be a job killer for the people of the northeast. (Makes the old saying “the more things change, the more they stay the same” even more apropos doesn’t it.)

The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes, 59–57. The U.S. ended up using $3 million in gold as a down payment, issued bonds for the balance and the rest as they say, is history.

210 years later, it would be difficult to imagine an America that stopped at the Mississippi river. There would have been no California gold rush, Manifest Destiny and no Alamo to remember; which brings us to today.

Just imagine for a moment a country like Mexico or Canada was up for purchase. How would todays Washington handle such an enormous decision? Would there be screaming matches on cable news outlets about government over-reach? Blogs expressing fear of tax increases and rising debt? Tweets about the concerns on what to do with all the people already living there? Looking back, the Louisiana Purchase seems like a no-brainer, but putting on the glasses of today makes one pause and wonder if America has the mettle to take such a gamble again.

Anthony Walton once said “America’s greatest strength, and its greatest weakness, is our belief in second chances, our belief that we can always start over that things can be made better.” Think about how we love to tear down a celebrity or athlete only to cheer them again when they make a comeback (Morton Downy Jr. or Ray Lewis anyone?). Maybe it is a character fault, but taking chances is what made us who we are in the first place.

At the risk of stealing from Dr. Martin Luther King; “where do we go from here?” Do we continue to say no to big ideas and not look ahead? Granted, looking at some of our elected officials, that could be the best choice when all is said and done.

Treating Corperations Like People

Posted on April 23, 2013 by bvanrysdam

It has been a week since America lost a little more innocence when 2 bombs were blown up at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. 3 people were killed, scores more injured and a city was left feeling violated.

While the city (and too much extent, the entire nation) is still is trying to process the tremendous amount of grief, anger and disbelief; politicians and pundits have already begun to use this incident as an argument against immigration reform. We need to protect our borders is the common theme expressed by many commentators, and while America does need to carefully determine who it lets into the country, it’s interesting that when it comes to the other tragedy that took place just days later, there seems to be no out-cry for reform.

I speak of course about the catastrophe which took place in a town called West, Texas. 14 people were killed, with more missing and injured. The cause of the explosion which took place at a fertilizer plant is still under investigation, but a story is beginning to emerge of a company that cut corners and failed to file accurate reports.

Why do we not hear the same indignation from politicians? Are plant inspections not as sexy as immigration reform in the eyes of their constituents? Could an already fragile economy be hurt by even more government regulation/interference? Is it because we care more about a large city like Boston, than we do a small Texas town? More people died in West, Texas than in Boston, yet very little focus is given to how we can prevent such disasters from happening again. Are we to just chalk this up to “the cost of doing business”? Yes; what happened in West, Texas was an accident, and what happened in Boston was intentional, but does that make any different in the end?

There was a lot of debate when the Supreme Court ruled corporations should enjoy the same rights as people when it came to campaign donations. Perhaps it is time we also hold them criminally accountable for crimes committed in the quest for profits. Issuing large fines does not seem to get their attention. Maybe a few months behind bars would.

Politician’s Use of Songs Hit a Sour Note

Posted on August 16, 2012 by bvanrysdam

In a heated campaign; words matter. The right word can sway someone who is sitting on the proverbial fence and pick a side. The wrong word can take a candidates message off target (Google “Joe Biden” and “Chains”) and be left explaining exactly how their foot ended up in their mouth.

That’s why it so surprising no one seems to be listening to the words of songs being played at political rallies. As careful as the campaigns are to protect the candidates image, you would think someone would bother to listen to the lyrics of the songs they use.

Take the use of “Panic Switch” by the band the Silversun Pickups during a recent Mitt Romney campaign stop. The Sliversun Pickups heard about it and sent the candidate a cease and desist letter, but why use a song whose chorus goes…

When you see yourself in a crowded room, do your fingers itch, are you pistol-whipped?
Will you step in line or release the glitch? Can you fall asleep with a panic switch?

Now to be fair, Romney is not only candidate to not pay attention to the lyrics. We can only assume every politician who has used Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” has never bothered to listen to anything other than the chorus. If they had, they would have discovered the song is about a disgruntled Vietnam Veteran who can’t find a job or get help from the V.A when he returns. Not exactly flag waving stuff.

Political campaigns like to play songs such as the Lee Greenwood anthem “Proud to be an American” to excite the crowd and make them look hip and relevant. Here’s a suggestion; maybe both parties should start playing “Words” by Missing Persons. If you ask me, that song, more than any other, captures the true spirit of politics today.

The China Syndrome

Posted on July 23, 2012 by bvanrysdam

The Olympics haven’t even started and already we’re being treated to trash talking and finger pointing. This has nothing to do with the games themselves, but the fact the official U.S. Olympic teams outfits were made in China (insert gasp here).

You don’t hear a lot of agreement in Washington these days, but it appears everyone can agree outsourcing the making of the outfits to China was a bad idea. Republican House Speaker John Boehner said that Ralph Lauren (who is the evil mastermind behind this sinister plot) should “know better”. Senate Harry Reid from Nevada said “the uniforms should be put in a pile and burned” immediately conjuring heartwarming images of book burnings in Nazi Germany and burning Beatles records in the bible belt.

Interesting how politics can make force one to speak out of both sides one’s mouth. Moving jobs to China is simply part of free enterprise and part of living in a global economy, but having an American company like Ralph Lauren manufacture uniforms to be worn by our Olympic athlete is simply un-American! What’s a citizen to do? Next thing you know, they’ll want to take away our iPhones!

Now before we go and burn Mr. Lauren in effigy (although one does wonder what he would wear to it), it’s important to remember that only 5% of clothing sold in the United States was actually made by Americans (that figure was 95% back in 1960). Hindsight being 20/20, Ralph Lauren could have created a wonderful “Made In America” campaign and had us all waving the flag, but than again, nobody seemed to care that the U.S. Uniforms for the 2002 Winter Olympics held in Utah were made in Canada.

Putting all that aide, I’m more irked that they will be wearing berets with strip of red, white and blue that looks more like the French flag (is that is supposed to invoke a feeling of Americana?).

And what’s up with the huge Ralph Lauren logo on the front the blazer? Those makes soccer uniforms seem classy. If we want to go down that road, why take a cue from NSCAR and sell multiple sponsorship logos? Maybe we can use that money to bring down the nation debt.

Voting to Vote

Posted on July 10, 2012 by bvanrysdam

It seems like there’s one political skirmish after another these days. The latest one centers on whether voters should be required to present a photo ID.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot claims that voter fraud is rampant. He recently wrote an Op/Ed piece for USA Today and said.…

“In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city council member who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.”

I, for one, would be curious to know exactly how long a period of time those convictions took place. Was it one year, five years? And, how many voter fraud cases went to trial that resulted in no convictions? I get voter fraud is hard to detect, but really wonder just how prevalent it is. 90% of an iceberg is submerged, so does that mean there were actually 500 cases in “recent years”?

The other side of the fence will insist this is just a ploy by those terrible Republicans to make it harder for minorities to vote for their favorite Democrat. They will tell you many minorities are afraid to have a photo ID because they don’t trust the government which ironically aligns them alongside the Tea Party (and you thought there was no common ground).

How many people who previously voted without an ID, would not vote if they had to present one? Yes, you can say one less legitimate vote is one too many, but you can make the same argument that one case of voter fraud is one too many. So what is a democracy to do?

There has to be a way to determine how many Texans don’t carry a Photo ID, and how many of them actually bother to vote. Anybody want to place on bet on which number would be higher? The number of voter fraud cases, or the number of people who vote without a picture ID.

And, putting everything to the side for just a moment, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can function in today’s world without a Photo ID. How do you cash a check? Do you live in cash only world? You certainly can’t have a back account. How does one get around? Walk, take the bus? You don’t have to have a Photo ID. to be a citizen of these United States of America, but I gotta believe it would make it much easier on you.

Let’s face it, voter turnout is a joke. We should be encouraging people to go the polls, and not run away from them, but I still don’t have a problem requiring someone to show a little proof of who they are before they vote. I just wish both sides of the debate would actually use some facts when making their case, and not spew out a bunch of speculation and presumptions. I would leave that to the experts like economists and sports bookies.

Getting Lost on the Yellow Brick Road

Posted on June 28, 2012 by bvanrysdam

Listening to the pundits try to make sense of Wall Street is a bit like riding one of those old wooden roller coasters. You begin by starting off slowly. Then you climb a big hill and just as quickly, head screaming back down. In between, you get shook around a lot and end up were you started (if you’re lucky).

Take some recent analysis from the 4^th estate…

The price of gas goes down at the pump. Drivers now spend less money to fill up their tanks. That’s a good thing, right? Wrong! Analysts report consumer spending is down because Americans are losing faith in the recovery. What happens? Stocks tumble on the news of the report. Huh?

Speaking of gasoline, the former president of Shell Oil predicted in December 2011 that gas would cost $5 a gallon in 2012. Gas prices did go up, but have returned to January 2012. Maybe that’s why he is the former president for Shell.

Several large banks get their ratings lowered because of questionable deals with European countries. That’s bad right? Wrong! Stocks go up because investors were already expecting this and like the fact it was done. What happens? Stock prices rise on the news. Say what?

The Supreme Court surprises many people by upholding “Obama Care”. This was not based on commerce, but that the government can tax just about anything it wants. The money experts on Fox and CNBC immediately screamed this would ruin the economy and kill jobs. The market did go down after the ruling was released, but only dropped around 40 points. Wonder what Obama did when the market dropped over 100 points before the announcement was made?

There is a television ad currently airing for a financial services company. Various husbands are getting ready for bed and fretting to their wives about what could happen if the economy goes south (I’m guessing the company doesn’t feel women are smart enough to be worried). The wives offer sound advice saying “it’s all noise” and we should “tune it out”.

I remember a very smart (and wealthy) financial adviser telling me to look at the market as a long term process, and not to focus on a day/week or month. I try to follow that advice, but I have to admit it’s hard to do when all the talking heads sound like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz giving me directions to find the end of the Yellow Brick Road.

Was it Something I Said?

Posted on June 23, 2012 by bvanrysdam

So here’s the scenario. A media company broadcasts something the Federal Communications Commission deems indecent. The FCC decides to revise its’ policy in response to the broadcast and then fines the media company for it after the fact. Make sense?

The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t think so. In a rare unanimous ruling, the high court threw out the fines and sanctions issued by the FCC. The court concluded that the broadcasters could not have known in advance, the broadcasts would later be deemed indecent and subject to fines. In other words, they said it wasn’t fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

The indecent broadcasts included a brief display of nudity on ABC’s “NYPD Blue” and several obscenities uttered by Cher and Bono during different awards shows. In case you’re having trouble remembering; The “NYPD Blue” episode “Nude Awakening” aired on February 25, 2003. Yes, the wheels of justice do turn very slowly.

What the court did not do is free “over the air” broadcasters from the regulations that other media outlets (Cable, The Internet, etc.) are free from. While that argument may be compelling, the government still controls the airwaves and can dictate different rules, even if many viewers don’t realize they are switching back and forth between a cable channel and a broadcast channel. It appears that, for now, broadcast outlets (television and radio) will still have to adhere to the current policy.

In case you were wondering, the infamous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was not part of this ruling. That case is currently making its way through the judicial process. The government has appealed a lower court’s ruling that threw out the fine in that case.

In regards to the case just wrapped up by the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said “it is unnecessary for the court to address the constitutionality of the current policy” which means we might get to relive the Super Bowl half-time show from Reliant Stadium all over again. Anybody want to place on bet on how that ruling will come out?

Now granted, the faster technology moves, the harder it is for laws and regulations to keep up. Social standards can also change, causing even more confusion as to what is, and what is not acceptable. Still, it seems like we just wasted a bunch of money. In the last month, the Government has lost its case against John Edwards, Roger Clemens and now this. With a record like that, they very well might end up replacing the Astros for last place.

Expensive Free Speech

Posted on June 8, 2012 by bvanrysdam

There’s been a lot of attention focused lately on Super PAC’s and their influence in this year’s elections. Their impact has been debated from the hallowed halls of Congress to the late night comedy news programs ever since the Supreme Court opened the door to a new form of free speech.

Politicians and Super PAC’s are not allowed to work/collaborate with each other (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but there is another surprising area which could cause a conflict of interest. Not between the candidates and the Super PAC’s, but with the broadcasters who air their advertisements and the revenue they generate.

Broadcasters are required by law to accept all advertising from any candidate running for a national office, but they don’t have to accept any Super PAC advertising. The dilemma is broadcasters can make a ton more money airing Super PAC ads vs. a candidate’s ads.

How so? Super PAC’s have to buy advertising at the going rate. Politicians, by law, can purchase broadcast time at a thing called the “Lowest Unit Rate”. Candidates are charged the lowest rate that any commercial advertiser paid for a spot of the same class. Broadcasters can’t bump up the rate on a candidates spot, but they can charge whatever they want to air the Super PAC’s ads. CBS President Les Moonves told a conference back in March that, “Super PAC’s may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS”.

That’s all well and good for CBS, except broadcasters are responsible to ensure ads they broadcast are truthful and not misleading (interestingly enough, this rule does not apply to candidates running for federal office, who can say whatever they want in their ads and broadcasters can’t do anything about it).

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, from the Iowa caucus through the Wisconsin primaries, over half of the 41.1 million dollars were spent on 19 ads containing deceptive or misleading claims. What could happen to broadcasters who aired those ads? They could be fined, or even get the death penalty (lose its broadcast license), but that is not likely to happen.

So can the media be trusted to substantiate claims made in Super PAC advertisements at the risk of losing revenue? I’m afraid we all know the answer to that question.

Democracy Makes My Head Hurt

Posted on May 25, 2012 by bvanrysdam

Egypt recently took another step towards democracy. The country just held elections to determine its next President. It’s an exciting time, listening to citizens take pride in the right to vote.

In the movie “American President”, Michael Douglas (who plays President Andrew Shepard) said “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship”. Johnny Cash once said; “I love the freedoms we got in this country, I appreciate your freedom to burn your flag if you want to, but I really appreciate my right to bear arms so I can shoot you if you try to burn mine”.

Let’s face it; democracy is not easy. Consider these hot-topic issues dominating the news…

The right of the church to exercise their belief vs. the right of women to have access to birth control?
The need to build the Keystone Pipeline vs. the right of property owners who say they don’t want it on their land?

“In Egypt we’d like to bring a new form of democracy where all can work together and in spite of our differences” said Abdul Mawgoud Rageh Dardery, who won a seat in the Egyptian parliament.

Work together? That does not sound like the democracy being practiced in America today. Both parties seem more interested in appealing to the base and would rather point out everywhere we disagree rather than focus on what we do agree on (we do still agree on something right?)

How do we put compromise back into the vocabulary? In the good old days, politicians would enter a “smoke-filled room”, haggle, twist arms until both sides felt a little pain and made a little gain, but those days, like VHS tapes and the Walkman, seem like a long time ago.

Dalia Ziada, the Executive Director of Ibn Khaldun Center for Democratic Studies in Egypt said “Time by time, democracy fixes itself”. I for one, hope she’s right.

Heads I Win…Tails You Lose

Posted on May 24, 2012 by bvanrysdam

I am more than a little confused by the Republican Primary race for the U.S. Senate. The two leading candidates are David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. To help make their case, both candidates have gone out of state and brought in former Governors Mike Huckabee and Sara Palin to tell us who we should vote for. Do they really think Texans are that dumb they can’t decide for themselves? Wait, don’t answer that yet.

Texans do have other choices. Also running is some guy holding up empty suits in the air impersonating George Zimmerman from the Men’s Warehouse and a sportscaster whose political career is quickly catching up to his pro football career. Sadly, they don’t seem to be drawing as much attention.

Here’s what I really need help with. Can we please come up with a clear and defined system of scoring to determine who exactly the most conservative candidate is? Is it the one brave enough to stand up to President Obama (oh wait, that’s all of them), the one with the guts to defy Presidents Bush’s order to delay executing an illegal immigrant for killing teenage girls, or the person who has the gumption to go tell the Washington Insiders to get the hell out of our state (except for you Mike Huckabee, you’re all right).

I am conservative

Ted Cruz brags that his dad was tortured while demonstrating in Cuba in one of his many ads, but it makes one wonder how he will translate that skill into action? Is he implying that he’s ready to be tortured when he enters the hallowed halls of the United States Senate? I heard it was a rough place, but had no idea it was that bad. (And yes Ted, I do care about Chinese tires, but I can’t thank you enough for picking that lady to deliver the line for you.)

Hey, me too!!

David Dewhurst meanwhile is touting the fact that he and not Governor Rick Perry has been the leading force behind leading the state in job growth, maintaining a balanced budget and, uh; sorry, but I can’t remember what the third one was. He also has just released an ad announcing to the world that he is a life-long business man all while being a politician since 1998. I have to say, coming out of the womb as a business man is pretty impressive.

All this hyperbole makes it really hard to make an intelligent decision, so I guess I’m going to have to rely on my back-up plan; flipping a coin…again.