When a Blond Teaches You a Lesson.

As I do on most mornings on my way to work, I stopped in to the Starbucks on Alicia Parkway for my Grande Skinny Cinnamon Dulce Latte. I understand that if one could measure a person's masculinity by the type morning coffee they drink I'd probably rank among the lower portion of the scale, but let's move one. Anyway, as I walked into the coffee house I noticed a young blonde woman, who I assumed was an employee greeting all incoming patrons. My mind is still in the typical pre-caffeine haze that is the morning commute, so I didn't really pay attention to the friendly blonde that greeted me.  I simply approached the counter, muttered the order for my drink of choice, paid the lady and took a seat on one of those comfy leather chairs where hipsters usually stare into their netbooks, or the tailored-suit types peruse the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte

I was once again approached by the welcoming blond that I casually dismissed moments earlier.  She took a seat next to me, and instantly explained that she noticed so many people buying ham and turkey at the supermarket next door.  I avoided eye contact and pulled out my blackberry to scan through my work e-mails; mostly to get an idea of what I was to expect upon arrival at work but partly to indicate to this talkative blond woman that I was not in the mood for chatter. It appeared that my social artifice worked and she quickly turned her attention to another arriving patron.

While I wait patiently for the announcement of my name to indicate that my drink was ready, I observe this blond greeting machine of a woman. She greets everyone in exactly the same manner and if anyone responds or lingers nearby after the greeting, she instantly goes into the same one-way conversation she tried to start with me. The one about all the hams and turkeys being sold at Ralph's Market. At that moment I noticed her face.

I'm not sure what her condition is called, but the features on her face indicate to me that she was a person with special needs.  Perhaps a mental disorder of some kind, I'm not sure, but it's one of those things you can call just by looking at a person, sort of like Down Syndrome, but not quite. I thought back on how only moments earlier, I coldly dismissed this woman who greeted me so happily and felt a bit guilty.

Normally, when my order is complete I grab it and continue on to the office but today I stayed and returned to the comfy leather chair.  I waited to make eye contact with the blond and when she did her eyes lit up and I noticed they were green. Perhaps all of her greeting is her little way of fishing for someone willing to engage her in conversation and eye contact was the sign that I took a bite at the hook. In any case, she quickly took a seat next to me and unloaded barrage of amusing ramblings. I got the sense that she was trying to unload as much as she could before the clock expired. The conversation was fairly one-sided but I listened intently for five minutes or so.

I learned that her name was Lindsey, but she prefers to be called Linn. She is a stock clerk at Ralph's Supermarket next door.  Her dad is very rich and drives a nice Mercedes Benz that she accidentally scratched with her bike in the garage. Her mother doesn't work, but she stays at home and cooks lunch for her every day. Lindsey is also 19 years old and her job at Ralph's is the first time she's ever worked.  She wants to work there until she is twenty-five and then she is going to try to get a job at Alberston's (a competing grocer) because they have better cakes.

Lindsey asked if I had any kids so I showed her a picture on my phone of my two girls.  She commented on their curly hair and how she liked curly hair. She offered to help me buy a ham at Ralph's with her employee discount, but I politely declined. As it was time for me to leave, I shook her hand and told her to stay out of the rain. She replied by informing me that she was ready for the rain and was wearing and extra shirt underneath because she had gotten wet a day earlier and she doesn't want to get sick.  I said goodbye and she wished me a merry Christmas.

As I walked out, several new patrons were coming in and I could hear Linn's familiar greetings once again. I got in my car and for the rest of the ride I thought about Linn.  I thought about all of the rush most people endure during these holidays. The ridiculous expectations of what you'll receive or what you need to buy for the mindless gift exchange year after year. Thoughts about unemployment, bills, the economy, health care, politics, war, and how all the follies of life in general consume our lives. Yet, a simple girl like Linn finds victory in getting someone to listen to her stories about her bike and her obsessions with Christmas ham.

Even after her little victories, she doesn't just contently retreat into the crowd. Instead with exponentially renewed confidence she undertakes her next adventure. Surely she will share her little stories with a few more folks before her shift at Ralph's Supermarket begins. Hopefully, through that process she will show a few more people what I learned from Linn today: To be winner you sometimes have to be a little retarded.

Ultimately, that is what life is all about, right? A measure of all the little lessons you've learned and how they have come to shape you as an individual. Sometimes those lessons come from the most peculiar places and today I want to thank Linn for teaching something new.

Wikileaks + 1st Ammendment = Apples & Oranges.

The brumous cauldron of controversy over Julian Assange and his Wikileaks' disclosure of classified diplomatic cables, has been served up for consumption like tomato soup at a New Jersey truck stop. We, the patrons of the "fine" Diner-like establishment that is the mainstream media, enjoy the company of the waitress named "Flo" (AKA - Cable News) and are more than willing to shell out for a second serving.

Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange

On a personal note, I had opted to remain on the sidelines of this debate, content with letting it play out the natural course of events until I started to hear the proclamations that Julian Assange and his enterprise were heroes of a reborn international free speech movement.  Worse still are the affirmations by some in the US media that Assange is the herald of 1st Amendment rights. Well here's a news flash:  I  hate tomato soup and Flo will not obtain my gratuity!

First let me stage the real framework of this debate.  There are basically two schools of thought on this matter here in the US.  The first school of thought is that Assange and his Wikileaks are a direct attempt to undermine our military and diplomatic operations abroad. This in itself would constitute a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the US Attorney should seek to prosecute the offenders.  The the second school of thought believes that the only "real" freedom is absolute freedom of speech and that Assange is a hero for that cause. Yes, I'd say they're taking their tomato soup with a bologna sandwich as well.

Assange is not a hero. The truth is he is a promoter of anti-American sentiment who is exploiting the righteous principles of free speech.  Sadly many folks are really naive or just too stupid to see past his artifice. Others are simply too invested in a grotesque mutation of liberal ideology that subscribes to the idea that anything American is automatically evil.

These folks seem almost surprised by the actions described in some of these leaked cables as if it is not presumed that the US government thinks little of the Afghan President or that Iran's neighbors detest its pursuit of nuclear capabilities. Or the confirmation in the cables that US military forces are indeed secretly operating in Pakistani territory.  I even find it amusing that some people are astonished at the level of gossip that takes part in international diplomacy.

Michael Moore

Keith Olberman invited ersatz documentary filmmaker Michael Moore on his show to discuss Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange.  As I expected, Mr. Moore believes Assange and his endeavors are a heroic venture for which we "owe him a great debt" he's even contributed $20,000 dollars towards Assange's bail fund..  Moore also went on to compare the publishing of these leaks to the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsburg in 1971.  Just like the quasi-factual exposition that sets the tone to much of his film work, Michael Moore is form-fitting the facts to provide cohesion for his argument.

Daniel Ensberg did not acquire the documents illegally.  He was granted access to them by the very individuals in charge of the Vietnam Study Task Force that was commissioned to write the study in 1967 by then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Also, Ensberg's decision to have the New York Times publish the study was his final option after approaching several members of Congress and certain individuals within the Nixon administration with his findings. After failing to convince these officials to bring these documents to light, he sought out the aid of a New York Times reporter who then published the documents in June of '71. Even after the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Ensburg had a Democratic Congressman enter 4000 pages entered into the official record at Congressional committee meeting.

This is not the case with Wikileaks.  Although in the case of the Diplomatic cables there seems to be little harm done, Assange's publishing of records related to the war in Iraq may have already threatened the lives of foreign collaborators to the US Military both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The manner in which Assange obtained these documents is also illicit.  They were stolen by Army Specialist Bradley Manning and made available to Assange who released their contents with little or no vetting.

Organizations who have previously praised Assange have been critical of his most recent atrocity. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that; "Amnesty International joined several other human rights groups criticising WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names of Afghan civilians working as U.S. military informants from files they had released. Julian Assange responded by offering Amnesty International staff the opportunity to assist in the document vetting process. When Amnesty International appeared to express reservations in accepting the offer, Assange dismissed the group as 'people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses.'" 

I would like to note that it was only a year ago that Assange was awarded Amnesty International's Media Award for exposing "extra judicial killings and disappearances" in Kenya. A noble acknowledgment I suppose, but in his recent response to criticism, Assange doesn't seem to be pursuing noble causes.

John Young who previously formed part of Wikileaks' board of directors left the organization and accused the group of "...a lack of transparency regarding their fundraising and financial management". He went on to state his belief that WikiLeaks could not guarantee whistleblowers the anonymity or confidentiality they claimed and that he "would not trust them with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk". All this according to a CNET 2010 interview. Others have been critical of Assange's handling of confidential information of the Non-Government kind as in the leaking of secret Sorority Rituals and Sarah Palin's hacked personal Yahoo e-mail account which of course had no intrinsic journalism value. He definitely is not an investigative journalist as he has often released information without checking for factual evidence.

"Let us not forget that Julian Assange is a convicted computer hacker".

 Let us not forget that Julian Assange is a convicted computer hacker.  Hacker's are what I like to call, "Recreational Criminals", meaning that they do not necessarily undertake their activities for lucrative gains.  The biggest factor into what they do is the fame that accompanies their notoriety and egotistical gratification that is achieved by "beating the system" and breaking into a network, node or computer where great effort has been taken to keep them out.  So it is not surprising that Assange is irresponsible with the materials he has leaked. After all, he's not doing any of this for some righteous cause. However, just like we should not be fooled by his attempts to justify his actions behind the free speech excuse, Assange is a symptom and not the problem.

Sure he's exposed some of the atrocities of war like civilian casualties, mistakes by military personnel and even illegal deliberate actions by some of our troops.  He's also unmasked lots of corruption in countries other than the United States.  Every government has a justifiable reason to maintain secrets.  The real problem is our governments inability to protect its secrets.  Most people would agree that it was in our best interest that information about our nuclear capabilities were not disclosed to the Nazi's despite numerous attempts by German spies.  I think that concealing the truth about the infeasibility of Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense program helped us win the decades old Cold War with the Soviets.

A realistic view of the world will concede that war is a horrible thing and probably the worst part of human nature.  That same view will also concede that sometimes the worst parts of human nature are necessary, whether it be to make progress as a society or to simply preserve our existence. The point that I am trying to make is that although many would like to crucify Assange, he is only really a scapegoat for a number of American insecurities. Nailing him to the stake might feel good but it won't fix any problems.

"...our government officials are more corrupt than a fat kid guarding a chocolate cake".

It won't change the fact that there are corrupt politicians in our government.  Or that it doesn't appear that our work in Iraq or Afghanistan will end any time soon. It won't change the fact that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, that our economy is still in trouble or that the world no longer respects our government. Above all, it won't change the fact that Bradley Manning was able to access classified information and pass it along. The Pentagon is leakier than the rotting hull of an old sail boat and many of our government officials are more corrupt than a fat kid guarding a chocolate cake a birthday party.

I have a friend who always reminds not to fall off the side of the cliff when everyone else around me seems to be doing it.  We as American's need to grow up, we need to learn that occasionally we'll get "punched in the face". That it isn't all unicorns and strawberry cupcakes and that you clean your house from the inside out. We've got a lot of growing up to do before we can right this ship.

Assange is not a hero.  He's not even worthy of being called a villain. He's not a champion for the free speech movement and the comparison is like apples & oranges.  He is an Ego-indulging buffoon and the more we talk about him the more we feed his indulgences.  We will pass him like a painful kidney stone but he will be forgotten.  The important things to make sure our own government never empowers creeps like him ever again.

Bush Tax Cuts AKA The Congressional Three Ring Circus.

Mitch McConnell and GOP Leadership

"The Dow Jones industrial average soared 249 points, or 2.3%. It was the biggest one-day gain for the Dow since early September, and came after stocks ended November on a sour note, with all three major gauges marking declines for the month." - CNNMoney.com

There is still some resilience in our economy and it will recover...eventually.  To distract us, the idle spectators of the Three Ring Circus that is congress, the GOP took a stand today (Grandstand to some) and pledged to block any bills until there is resolution to the Bush tax cuts set to expire on December 31st.  Normally, I object to these kind of tactics which we have come to expect from politicians, but on this particular occurrence I have to side with the GOP.

Today's uptick in the DJIA proves what most economist have been expounding for ages: Stability or the appearance of stability will move markets.

"The rally gained momentum after economists at Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) raised their forecast for U.S. growth next year to 2.7% from 1.9%. The Federal Reserve's latest snapshot of economic conditions showed the nation's gradual recovery continued in October and November." - CNNMoney.com

Coupled with news that the European Central Bank may pump more money into the European economy and indications that Chinese markets are performing well made for a day of "creamed" tailored trousers in Wall Street. Extending the Bush tax cuts permanently or temporarily will stabilize at least a single variable that factors into the short-term strategies for most investors.

Personally, I don't think the government alone has the ability to "create" jobs in the free market place.  The market can self-sustain if there is a stable framework that will allow it to run its course.  Now, before you liberals go on a tirade over how the bailouts prove that the free-market system doesn't work, STOP!  Take a sip from your Gingerbread Latte, take your head out of the New York Times for a bit and pay attention.  CALM DOWN!  The recent downturn in the economy will be attributed several causes, many of which are of the human factor. We will understand these factors more clearly as time passes and we can study the annals of recent history.

For now, all everyone needs to know is that our economy is very short-sighted.  Even when long term bets are placed now, the decisions are made by circumstances that can be predicted today. This is why stability, or at least the appearance of stability needs to be the focus of the current lame duck Congress and even more so for the next session.  Investors need to know right now what their tax rates will be in 2011, so they can start making their moves today.

There are many studies that point to average household incomes as proof that the Bush Tax cuts did not work. Prior to Bush in 2000 the average income was $61,517, in 2008 the year our economy tanked it was, $58,005.  Most opponents of the cuts like to point to those two numbers and ignore many other facts and factors. For example, they always fail to mention that average incomes in 2006 and 2007 were higher than even the 2000 figure.  They fail to mention that since 2001 we've seen the 9/11 terror attacks, two wars, the bursting of a housing bubble, a bank bailout, and an auto bailout, not to mention huge losses in manufacturing industries exported overseas.  None of these factors were a result of the tax cuts and attempting to link them is outright deceptive.  None of these factors were present during the higher tax rate years in the 90's.

Opponents also lament over the 2.7 trillion dollars that government did not obtain in revenue since the tax cuts went into effect but always ignore how the amount of spending in the last two years alone would have easily squandered those 2.7 trillion twice over. When Reagan cut the marginal tax rates he created incentive for the highest earners to spend well past their previous tax ceilings.  This sparked growth.  Unfortunately, Reagan failed to curb spending and borrowed heavily against the economic gains. Of course, the highest marginal tax rate during the Reagan Era was 91% and the incentives were much greater with a 40% cut than the 3%-5% figures congress is currently debating.  Regardless of the numbers, a precedent was set that cutting taxes can spark growth.  To be honest, I'm less inclined to give our expanding government any more revenue and I'm more inclined towards forcing them to administer more properly the billions of dollars they are already receiving.

Ultimately, our economy needs jobs, but when Joe Schmo says; "We want Jobs", what he is really asking for are conditions that promote job creation.  Joe Schmo probably understands that jobs aren't created out of thin air, unless he's a Federal Employee or a Union member.  A stabilizing variable in the long list of variables that determine stability is taxation. Congress needs to get that wrinkle ironed out first.  Hey, I'm all for gays in the military and immigration reform, but none of those things is going to help create jobs. Stabilizing the tax issue, might have more influence in that regard and should be on the center ring of this three ring circus.