It Will All Hit The Fan in 2007, Part 6

Check out this chart from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis showing the recent explosion in household debt (click on the chart to make it bigger).

Total outstanding household debt has gone from around $4 trillion in 1990 to $12 trillion today.

This is occuring at the same time U.S. savings rates are hitting all-time lows

By itself, the parabolic growth of household debt may not be significant, but when combined with the other signs I have previously discussed, this is yet another bad omen for the U.S. economy.

(The above chart was last updated by the Federal Reserve on 03/10/2006.)

Links to previous "It Will All Hit The Fan in 2007" posts:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 4 (Addendum), Part 5

The Hubris of Generation Y

Check out this column in today's Christian Science Monitor. The title is "Gen Y's Opt-out Vision."

In the article, Courtney E. Martin trumpets her generation's discovery of cutting-edge ideas such as "isn't work supposed to be...a vital, joyful activity?" and "Am I supposed to settle for being alive only on the weekends?"

She doesn't want to be like her parents who "waste away in drab cubicles and count the days to retirement." Instead, she wants "to contribute to society, but...do it in a way that doesn't drain the life out of us."

By saying this, Ms. Martin implies that her parent's generation, when they were 20-something, somehow wanted and planned to take life-draining jobs and embraced the idea of working 12 hours a day in a "drab cubicle".

It's a good thing Gen Y is so smart, so they can avoid these pitfalls.

Ms. Martin then brags about her friends who have taken the path less travelled.

She tells about how "A childhood friend in Denver started his own medical supply business right out of college. My writing partner from Houston does freelance music promotion and writes screenplays. My housemate spends his Brooklyn days packaging books and teaching kids to play the guitar. We are digital video artists, web designers, bloggers, stock market players, personal assistants, and bartenders. And we are all in our mid 20s."

Yippee. I wonder how many of her friends are still living in their cubicle-dwelling parents' basements.

Has Ms. Martin considered that her childhood friend's medical supply business, if successful, may someday become a business that has employees who work in drab cubicles? Or that there are a lot of people who write screenplays, including members of Generation X and Baby Boomers who, during the day, work at life-wasting jobs to pay the rent and support their families?

That is a flaw of the young. Somehow they think they are smarter, and more aware and enlightened than the generations who have gone before them.

Ms. Martin's article would have been more effective without the permeating attitude that screams "Look at us! Aren't we great?". I do not object to her points, but she acts as if these questions and ideas are the unique discoveries of Generation Y. My g-g-generation, Generation X, and the Baby Boomers before us, and the "Greatest Generation" before them, and...

We have all thought the same things.

Rick Monday - A True Baseball Hero

This story warmed the cockles of my heart, especially since Rick Monday had only an instant to react and instinctively did the right thing.

Good Media Coverage of Tony Snow

Here's a much better piece about the appointment of Tony Snow as President Bush's Press Secretary, from the L.A. Times of all places. Compare it to the Financial Times article I mentioned in my previous post.

Note the neutral, but accurate, headline for the L.A. Times article:

"Bush Names Talk Show Host Press Secretary"

Much better than the FT headline:

"Bush Picks Conservative Pundit as Press Spokesman."

Then the first 2 paragraphs:

**********
"To the surprise of no one, President Bush named conservative commentator Tony Snow as his press secretary today to replace Scott McClellan, who announced his resignation last week.

"Tony already knows most of you," Bush, with tongue in cheek, told reporters in the White House briefing room, "and he's agreed to take the job anyway.""
**********

The description "conservative commentator" is again accurate and neutral. President Bush is even shown in a good light, making a joke, which is highly unusual in the mainstream media.

The only questionable part of the article is the mention of Rev. Moon in the last paragraph:

"He also wrote editorials for the Washington Times, the conservative paper started three decades ago by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon as an alternative to the Washington Post."

But I can let that slide.

Not a bad piece of reporting.

The Appointment of Tony Snow and Media Bias

When I was in high school, I was very lucky to have a certain teacher for U.S. History and Economics. Of all my teachers from kindergarten through college, his lessons stand out the most.

We learned about government, politics and the economy, and we had some heated classroom discussions - but the teacher never took sides. He let his students take sides to discuss the issues. To this day, I have no idea what his political opinions were.

I was a staunch conservative even then. In class discussions, I would advocate ideas like limited government and individual responsibility, while lambasting my liberal classmates with their "victim mentality" and support of "womb-to-tomb" government nurturing.

The most valuable lesson I learned in this class was how to recognize bias in the media. We learned that journalists were supposed to be objective, but sometimes their opinions would sneak into their articles. We also learned that unethical journalists could intentionally sneak bias into thier articles to influence their readers.

Most people don't read an entire newspaper article. Many will just read the headlines. Some will just read the first couple of paragraphs. Few will read the article in its entirety.

It became obvious that whoever created the headlines could mold public opinion and what was written in the first 2 paragraphs was much more important than the rest of the article.

Here's a case in point:

MSNBC.com has posted a Financial Times article about the appointment of Tony Snow as the new White House Press Secretary.

Here is the headline:

"Bush picks conservative pundit as press spokesman"

"Conservative pundit"? Why wasn't the headline, "Bush Picks Tony Snow as Press Spokesman"? or "Bush Picks Radio Talk Show Host as Press Spokesman"?

Here is the first paragraph:

"President George W. Bush on Wednesday appointed Tony Snow, a conservative pundit from the administration-friendly Fox News channel as his new press spokesman, in a move seen as an attempt to help address strained relations with the media."

Again, they emphasize "conservative pundit", but also add "from the administration-friendly Fox News channel".

Is that objective journalism? Why add "administration-friendly" to Fox News channel? Anyone who has listened to Fox News recently has gotten an earful of Bush criticisms.

Does the Financial Times want to mold public opinion, by implying Tony's appointment is some form of conservative nepotism, where Bush is assigning yet another crony to his Administration?

To be fair, in the third paragraph, the journalist points out that Tony is not a Bush sycophant:

"Although Mr Snow has been a favourite choice as interviewer for administration officials, including vice-president Dick Cheney, he has also been critical of the Bush administration's policies."

Of course, they have to temper the "critical of ... Bush ... policies" with "Mr Snow has been a favourite choice as interviewer for administration officials."

But most people won't make it to the third paragraph. Their opinion has already been formed by the sneaky little manipulations in the headline and the first paragraph.

Abortion and the Death Penalty, Part 3

Some people argue that if you oppose abortion, then you should oppose the death penalty. If you don't, then somehow you're being hypocritical.

This argument is based on the assumption that if you oppose one type of killing, then you should oppose all killing.

It's an interesting topic of discussion.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario:

A group of friends go to a local all-night rave, where they meet a guy who appears lonely and lost. Feeling compassionate, they invite him back to their house for an after-rave party.

He comes over, hangs out for a little while, then leaves. The party continues without him. The stranger returns 10 minutes later, armed to the teeth.

He proceeds to shoot, trying to kill as many people as possible.

You are a police officer, who happens to be in the neighborhood, and you hear the gunshots. You draw your weapon and cautiously enter the house. You immediately see several people down with gunshot wounds.

The gunman is across the room. As you shout at the gunman to drop his weapon, he raises his shotgun and points it at a cowering girl in the corner.

What do you do? In this scenario, would killing the gunman be justified?

I think most people would say yes. Killing the gunman would not only save the girl's life, but would also stop him from killing others.

But that's different from the death penalty, right?

The scenario is different, but remember that the basis of the "if you oppose abortion, you have to oppose the death penalty" argument is the assumption that if you oppose one kind of killing, then you have to oppose all kinds of killing.

Few people would not support killing the gunman in this hypothetical scenario.

Abortion and the Death Penalty, Part 2

I support the death penalty, but oppose abortion. Some people think that is hypocritical.

As I stated in my previous post, my position is not hypocritical because there is a huge difference between the death penalty and abortion. The death penalty only applies to people who are guilty of heinous crimes, while abortion is the willful killing of the most innocent and helpless among us.

Here's another way of looking at it:

If we went back to 1944, I would support executing Hitler and rescuing Anne Frank.

Is that hypocritical?

The Bush Presidential Library

I received the following news release by e-mail today. I wish I knew the original source so I could credit them here, but alas, I do not.

**********
BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DESTROYED BY FLOOD

Crawford, Texas--This morning, a tragic flood destroyed the personal library of President George W. Bush. The flood began in the bathroom where both books were kept. A White House spokesman said the President was devastated, especially since he had almost finished coloring the second book. The White House tried to contact FEMA, but there was no answer.

**********

(For the record, I do not think the President is as dumb as most people think. I agree with Scott Adams, who said, "I think he is smarter than 90% of the public. But many politicians are smarter than 99% of the public, so the difference can seem disturbing.")

Abortion and the Death Penalty

Here's another example of the sophistry of the pro-abortion crowd:

A common argument abortion supporters use against abortion opponents is asking, "How can you support the death penalty and oppose abortion?"

This is supposed to be another "gotcha", because somehow it's hypocritical to support one and oppose the other.

My reply?

There is a huge difference between the death penalty and abortion.

The death penalty only applies to people who have committed heinous crimes; people who have committed murder most foul.

Abortion is the willful killing of the most innocent and helpless among us.

That is why there is no contradiction in supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion.

When Does a Fetus Become a Baby?

One of the most common arguments abortion supporters use when confronting abortion opponents is asking, "So when does life start? When does a fertilized egg become a fetus? When does a fetus become a baby?"

These questions are meant as a "gotcha" because abortion supporters know there is no scientifically provable answer. I can't reply that "life begins at conception", because they will say that's a "religious belief," not a scientific one. The abortion supporters then say that destroying a fetus is not murder, because a fetus is not yet alive; it's not yet a baby.

To turn the same questions back on them, it's obvious that abortion supporters must have definitive answers to these questions. They must know exactly when a fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a baby, because although they support destroying fetuses (a.k.a. abortion), they don't support murdering babies.

But they too cannot answer these questions. The same questions abortion supporters use trying to undermine the anti-abortion position also undermines the pro-abortion position.

I am adamantly against abortion. As technology has improved over the past few decades, we are able to save premature babies earlier and earlier. What used to be an "abortable" fetus is now a savable premature baby.

I think I would rather err on the conservative side in case, one day, science is able to prove that life begins at conception, at 6 weeks, or at 12 weeks. If that happens, I would hate to be the person who supported abortion and have those millions of deaths on my soul and conscience.

I Just Want to Say One Word. Plastics.

Plastics. A wonder of modern technology. Cheap, durable, moldable, and eternal. The stuff lasts forever.

Forget diamonds. If Ian Fleming wrote his famous Bond novel today, its title would be "Plastics are Forever." The half-life of plastic is longer than William Shatner's acting career.

Don't you hate buying something that's sealed in one of those plastic "blister packs"? You know, the kind where you nearly impale yourself with a pair of scissors when you're trying to open it?


Not only is the "blister pack" plastic, but what it contains is also made of the wonderful stuff.

Think about all those plastic containers for shampoo, Windex, motor oil, bottled water, soda, talcum powder, make-up, and razor blades. Do you ever wonder where it all ends up?

There's a great article in this week's "Pacific Northwest Magazine" that describes the terrible pollution caused by our voracious appetite for plastics.

Apparently, a lot of our plastic thing-a-ma-jigs end up in the Pacific Ocean in an area called the "Garbage Patch", which is a dead spot created by ocean currents. The Garbage Patch is twice the area of the state of Texas and is chock-full of our cast-off junk.

If that wasn't bad enough, wildlife is eating the stuff and dying because of it.

Bad stuff. This is yet another example of how our mindless consumption is poisoning our planet.

What? A Republican who's concerned with the environment?

There you go, stereotyping again. I'm a Republican and you bet I'm concerned.

So the next time you're thinking about buying another Happy Meal so your kid can play with the plastic doohickey inside, think about the Pacific Ocean's "Garbage Patch", give him an apple, and take him to the park instead.

The Phantom Republican's Comment Policy

I welcome and will publish almost all comments. I especially enjoy comments that disagree with my opinions.

However, I will reject any comments that are spam, use foul language, or are extremely offensive.

I use "comment moderation", so it may take a few minutes for your comment to appear. If your comment doesn't show up immediately, please check back a little later.

My Positions on Key Issues

In case any of you are wondering what my positions are on certain key issues, here they are. (I've already posted on most of these issues, so please see my blog posts for more details.)

ABORTION
I'm against it. I believe abortion is killing babies.

ENVIRONMENT
I believe we humans are poisoning our planet and contributing to global warming. We must take action now to protect the Earth and preserve our environment for future generations. However, I also believe that the United States, while not perfect, is one of the most environmentally-responsible countries in the world.

IRAQ
I supported the invasion but am not happy with how the war has been run.

GEORGE W. BUSH
I voted for him twice because I liked him better than Gore and Kerry. I do not support everything President Bush says or does.

THE DEFICIT
I am upset that our government does not have more fiscal discipline.

GAY MARRIAGE
This is an issue I struggle with. Being hetero, it's impossible for me to understand being gay. I know enough homosexuals, both men and women, to know that they are good people, who deserve the right to happiness. However, I believe homosexuality is wrong and that marriage should be a lifelong partnership between one man and one woman.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
I believe we need to control our borders. You don't let just anyone into your house to eat your food and watch your big-screen TV - they have to be invited. Why should the U.S. let just anyone into our country to partake of our economy and government-supplied benefits?

Pakistan and the Birth of Iran's Nuclear Program

Last night, I watched a great CBC documentary about Pakistani nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan, who is the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear weapon - the first "Islamic bomb". (And yes, that's Canadian television.)

According to the documentary, Iran's nuclear program started in 1987, when Khan agreed to provide Iran with a series of centrifuges, which are used to enrich nuclear fuel.

Iran's nuclear program is predominantly based on technology and materials obtained from the black-market network set up by Khan, which allegedly include Chinese plans for a nuclear bomb. Khan is also responsible for the now defunct Libyan nuclear weapons program.

Here is a New York Times article about Khan's role in Iran's nuclear program.

Scary stuff.

Iraq Invasion is Thankfully Bringing Things to a Head

A lot of people look at the turmoil in the Middle East, and blame President Bush and our invasion of Iraq for:

1) Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections
2) Ongoing Palestinian suicide bombings
3) The nuclear showdown with Iran
4) Just about every other problem in the world.

Long before we invaded Iraq, Hamas and Palestinian suicide bombers were actively engaged in violence and Iran was busily and covertly developing nuclear technology.

Operation Iraqi Freedom did not create these problems, but instead pushed them to a head long before they would have otherwise. That's good, because the longer we wait to deal with a problem, the more difficult and costly it becomes.

Great Conservative Minds Think Alike

Seattle is a very liberal town, so it's surprising how well conservative talk radio has done here. We have two fantastic, conservative radio stations in Seattle: KVI 570 and 770 KTTH.

As I commute to work every morning, I have a choice between two great shows:

Kirby Wilbur has long been my favorite because he is articulate and logical. I have enjoyed our on-air conversations when he takes my occasional calls.

The other show, with Dan Sytman and David Boze, is fairly new, but is also well-done. The banter between the two hosts, especially when they disagree, is very entertaining.

I often flip back and forth between the two shows during my commute.

This morning, Kirby discussed high oil prices on his show. I posted a column on this subject yesterday. Kirby came to the same conclusion I did - that high oil prices will drive the development of alternative energy sources.

Great conservative minds think alike!

People who understand the power of capitalism realize that, although it has flaws, capitalism is a great problem-solver. There is no need for government direction. Capitalism quickly recognizes needs in the market and fills them.

High oil prices have already spurred the free world's research and development machine to pursue other sources of energy. Let's hope that a breakthrough is made soon, so countries like Iran are de-fanged when their primary source of leverage and power, oil, is made irrelevant.

Ugly Immigration Protest Photos

Michelle Malkin has some great photos here and here of the recent protests against immigration reform.

Sure, these people want to assimilate. They're just the kind of people we want in our country.

Yeah, right.

Check this out: Is this what we're really dealing with?.

Can anyone say "Invasion"?

Thank God for High Oil Prices

Oil prices have recently hit record highs. It now costs about $72 to buy a barrel of crude.

And it looks like prices aren't coming down any time soon. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that "The global oil price has not reached its real value yet."

Thank God!

What?! Am I crazy? Why am I happy that we have to pay so much to fuel our cars and heat our homes?

I am happy because, in a capitalistic economy like ours, ridiculously high oil prices will accomplish what decades of governmental policy have been unable to do - high oil prices will drive investment and innovation into producing alternate sources of energy.

Iran is shooting itself in the foot by taking this stance. The only reason Iran has any leverage, power, or economy is they're sitting on a bunch of oil, and the world is addicted to oil.

By driving up prices, Iran is ensuring that the immense power of American, European, Chinese and Japanese research and development will be focused on developing alternate sources of energy - energy that does not depend on politically unstable and unhinged governments like those in Iran and Venezuela.

Some very smart people and a lot of investment capital are starting to pour into developing alternate energy sources. Companies are busy developing hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel, solar power, wind power, methods of refining gasoline from Canadian oil sands, hybrid automobiles, clean-burning coal plants, and clean nuclear power.

Just look at the stock prices of alternative energy companies Evergreen Solar and Energy Conversion Devices. They're going nuts!

Higher stock prices mean easier access to investment capital for these companies, money they will use for research and development.

Our technological innovation is gaining momentum. Soon, it will reach juggernaut status and nothing will stop development of fantastic, environmentally safe, and American energy sources.

So say it loud and say it proud:

Thank God for high oil prices! May they keep going higher!

And Now for the Main Event - U.S. Citizens vs. Illegal Immigrants

The argument supporting illegal immigration and the guest-worker/amnesty plan can be boiled down to two ideas:

1) The U.S. economy has created so many new jobs that there aren't enough U.S. citizens to fill them. Therefore, we need to "import" workers.

2) Many of the jobs illegal immigrants take are jobs that "regular Americans" (a.k.a. U.S. citizens) don't want to do.

I'm not going to analyze the validity of either of these ideas. I'll do that in another post. Let's assume for now that both ideas are true.

I would like to offer this scenario for discussion:

Right now, the economy is doing well and the impact of illegal immigration on the job market is not widely felt.

But what happens when (or if, for all you perpetual optimists) the U.S. economy declines?

When the jobs start disappearing, will the illegal immigrants return quietly to their home countries?

I doubt it.

If things go south and jobs disappear, we U.S. citizens will have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs.

The official estimate says that there are 11 million illegals in our country. I would guess that is low. Unofficial estimates run as high as 20-30 million.

Either way, that's a lot of non-citizens and a lot of potential job competition.

It's easy to make policy when things are going well. The natural tendency is to assume things will continue to go well. Then conditions invariably deteriorate.

We have let this problem go on for much too long. It's grown to the point where it's become extremely difficult to find a solution. But we need to take action now, and that doesn't include amnesty.

Let's protect our borders. Let's control immigration into the United States. And finally, let's put some value, meaning, and privilege back into the title: U.S. citizen.

"The war is an unwinnable exercise in imperialistic hubris"

National Review Online's Ned Rice has written a great column in which he discusses how we have lost the war and should pull the plug.

Very thought-provoking and well worth reading.

And no, it's not the war you're thinking of.

The Difference Between Terrorists and "Freedom Fighters"

I'm tired of hearing the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

The phrase is used to describe Iraqi car bombers who kill innocent people in marketplaces and mosques. It is also used for Palestinian suicide bombers who kill innocent people at fast-food restaurants.

Here is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist:

A "freedom fighter" battles soldiers and other official representatives of enemy forces.

A "terrorist" deliberately targets and tries to kill innocent men, women and children.

Simple enough.

Recent French Protests and the French Revolution

The French Revolution was caused by a lack of food and the governing class's insensitivity to the needs of the common people.

Ironically, recent French protests were against a government that tries to coddle its citizens by providing everything they need without the requisite labor to earn it.

Those darned French are never happy.

Webster's Dictionary Confirms That Illegal Immigrants Are Criminals

Here are definitions of four common words:

1) Illegal - Forbidden by law or official rules.

2) Immigrant - A person who leaves one country to settle in another.

3) Crime - An act committed in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it.

4) Criminal - One who has committed a crime.

Like it or not, the first thing illegal immigrants do when they sneak across the border into the United States is break our immigration laws. By definition, that makes them criminals.

(At the very least, the dictionary confirms that the term "illegal immigrant" is indeed accurate. No need for kinder, gentler euphemisms such as "undocumented worker".)

It Will All Hit the Fan In 2007, Part 5

Gold and silver have recently hit new multi-decade highs, as described in this article from Bloomberg.

Gold hit a 25-year high and closed at $614.50 an ounce, up 33% since November, when it sold for $460 per ounce.

Silver recently topped $13 an ounce, for the first time since 1983. Silver is up 67% since November, when it was went for $8.00 per ounce.

Gold and silver are known to hold their value, especially during turbulent times. Rising gold and silver prices indicate that the smart money (i.e. not John "E-Trade" Doe) is hedging against currency risk by accumulating hard assets.

By themselves, rising gold and silver prices may signify nothing, but when considered together with the indicators described in my previous posts, they are yet another ominous sign that our economy may be headed for rough times.

Links to my previous posts:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 4 (Addendum)

By Coming Here, Illegal Immigrants Ensure Mexican Poverty

Statistics vary about how many illegal aliens are in the U.S. The most commonly quoted number is 11 million, although some people estimate the number to be as high as 20 million.

According to this BusinessWeek article, 56% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico with an addition 22% from other Latin American countries.

Let’s run some numbers:

1) 56% of 11 million illegal immigrants means that there are 6.16 million Mexican illegals currently in the U.S. (If we use the higher number, 20 million, it comes to 11.2 million Mexicans)

2) The population of Mexico is 105 million.

3) That means 6% of the Mexican population is illegally in the United States.

Supporters of illegal immigration tell us, ad naseum, that:

1) Illegal immigrants are hard-working people who are essential to the growth of the U.S. economy.

2) Since there is no opportunity in Mexico, the illegal immigrants have to sneak across the border to get jobs and ensure quality education for their children.

The logical questions are:

1) Why is the United States responsible for providing jobs and education for Mexican citizens?

2) Why can’t Mexico provide jobs and education for its own citizens?

Political change is fomented by unrest among the populace. However, in Mexico, the restive populace isn’t sticking around to change their home country. They are instead sneaking across the border into the United States.

Vicente Fox happily encourages this behavior because it removes a threat to his government. The least content people in his country aren’t revolting against the corrupt Mexican government - they are running away.

If 6% of the Mexican population united to change their country, they could make a huge positive impact on Mexico. But instead of taking a stand and making a difference, they run away to greener pastures.

By coming to the United States instead of staying at home and changing their own country, Mexicans are ensuring that Mexico remains firmly entrenched as a third-world country with a stagnant economy, a poor educational system and a corrupt government.

Real Estate Prices Always Go Up, Don't They?

Here are two of the most common statements made about real estate:

1) They're not making any more land.

2) Because they're not making more land, real estate prices always go up.

Few places in the world are as space-constricted as Japan. Yet, real estate prices have dropped for 15 straight years.

Doesn't that contradict the widely-accepted beliefs listed above?

Grups are Groovy

The New York media is obsessed with identifying new trends. Occasionally they have to make up a trend - just so they can tell the rest of the world what we're missing by not living in New York.

There is a lot of prestige in being the first person to identify and name a trend. Think about the bragging rights that come with being the first person to coin a term like "yuppie", "Generation X" or "Grup".

Grup? What the heck is that? Wasn't that the cartoon character in the Banana Splits version of "Gulliver's Travels"? ("We'll never make it, we're all going to die!")

No, wait, that was Glum.

The term "Grup" comes from an old episode of Star Trek where the Star Trek crew lands on a planet ruled by children. All of the adults have died from a plague and the children have created their own society. The children call themselves "Grups", which is short for "grown-up".

Today, being a Grup has nothing to do with space travel or "Lord of the Flies"-style civilizations. Instead, it is the latest trend-of-the-week.

Apparently, there is a bunch of 30- and 40-somethings in New York who refuse to grow up. They hold on to their adolescences by keeping up with the latest bands and brainwashing their children to listen to only the "right" music.

New York Magazine has a great story about these narcissistic "cooler than thou" middle-aged hipsters who still wear concert T-shirts and thrash around in mosh pits.

Before you think I'm being too harsh, read the article, especially the parts about how Grups:

"(e) spend $250 on a pair of jeans that are artfully shredded to look like they just fell through a wheat thresher and are designed, eventually, to artfully fall totally apart"

"(p) take pride in never shaving while spending $200 on a bedhead haircut and $600 on a messenger bag"

Another label comes to mind. Poseur.

Here's the best part of the article, spoken by a person who definitely isn't a poseur. He says it better than I can:

**********
At one point, I spoke to a 39-year-old musician who had lived briefly in Park Slope and then fled, largely because of the prevalence of exactly the kind of person who would buy jeans designed to fall apart in a month.

This musician is old school in his fashion tastes—which is to say, one day he came to a point where he pulled that old concert T-shirt from his dresser and thought, Yeah, I just can’t pull this off anymore.

These days, though, especially in New York, there just aren’t many people saying I just can’t pull this off anymore.

“If really hard-pressed, I would admit that I actually own a Clash T-shirt that I got from that last Clash tour,” the musician told me. “But I don’t wear it! And I’m certainly not going to wear it under an Armani black blazer."

"I even remember meeting this guy who was around my age, who was wearing an expensive blazer, and on the lapel was a London Calling button. Who the f*** wears that? That’s what I wore when I was 18 in art school! And you’re the same age as me? And you’re wearing it again?”

He pauses, then adds, “And you know what? Giving your kid a mohawk is f***ed up, too.”
**********

Did Bill Clinton Really Create a Budget Surplus? Part 1

President Bush is annoying me with his fiscal irresponsibility. The federal budget deficit is out-of-control and I don’t forsee it getting better in the near future.

Democrats are also quick to criticize President Bush and the growing federal budget deficit. They especially like to point out how the federal budget went from running a surplus under Bill Clinton to running a deficit under President Bush.

Is that a fair comparison?

Let’s analyze the situation.

There are three fundamental ways to eliminate a budget deficit:
1) Increase tax revenues.
2) Decrease spending.
3) Do a combination of 1 and 2.

Democrats imply that Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible, controlled federal spending and enacted policies that caused economic growth. They believe the surplus was caused by President Clinton’s firm hand at the economic/budgetary wheel.

Curious to find the true story, I did some research, consulting the best source of information I could find about the federal budget – the federal budget itself.

Here is the data, directly from the Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2006. (All amounts are in millions of dollars.)

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, from 1992 to 2000:
- Spending increased by 29.49%.
- Tax revenues increased by 85.58%.

Obviously, Bill Clinton did not control federal spending since it increased by almost 30% during his tenure. What saved his goat was the dramatic 85.58% increase in tax revenues.

So the raw data show that although federal spending increased dramatically during Clinton’s term, tax revenues increased even faster!

That’s why there was a budget surplus - tax revenue increased at a faster pace than Bill Clinton could spend it. The surplus had nothing to do with his ability to intentionally balance the budget.

Coming soon – Part 2!

Do Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer?

Typical of the medical research community, a new study has been released that contradicts a bunch of previous studies.

The new study concludes that there is a link between heavy cell phone use and brain cancer. (Heavy use is defined as over 2000 hours of lifetime use, which probably includes everybody who owns a cell phone). Previous studies have shown no link between cell phones and brain cancer.

Who should we believe?

There is one constant among medical studies: no matter what a study concludes, there will always be another study that concludes the exact opposite.

I suppose in this case, it's prudent to err on the conservative side.

Here are my options:

a) Cut back on cell phone use.

b) Stop using cell phones altogether.

c) Use a hands-free headset.

The problems with these options are:

a) My cell phone has become one of those "once I have one, I can't live without it" types of devices. I imagine stopping cell phone use is like quitting smoking - it'll probably take 8 or 9 tries, and I'd always have the urge to go back. (Not that I'd know, never having smoked the pungent little tobacco sticks.)

b) See a).

c) I have yet to find a headset which transmits my voice clearly enough so that anyone can understand me. Apparently, we can send a probe to Venus, but we can't design a decent boom microphone.

The logical follow-on question is, if I'm a heavy user, will getting rid of my cell phone stop the growth of the brain tumor my cell phone has already created in my head?

I guess I'll just wait for the next study that tells me cell phones don't cause cancer.

I'm sure it'll be released tomorrow.
________________________________________

Post script: If any of my readers can recommend a good cell-phone headset, please post a comment or e-mail me at thephantomrepublican@yahoo.com. My brain would be very grateful.

Does MSN Money's Jim Jubak Read “The Phantom Republican”?

Two days after my post speculating on why the Fed eliminated measurement of the M3 money supply, Jim Jubak writes an article that comes to the same conclusions as I did.

Does he read The Phantom Republican?

UAW Cuts Off Its Nose to Spite Its Face

The UAW is threatening a "long strike" in response to Delphi's announcement that it will slash 25,000 jobs and close or sell 2/3 of its plants.

The strike is likely to not only hurt Delphi, but drive fragile GM into bankruptcy. The UAW seems willing to hasten the demise of the American Auto Industry in its attempt to make a point.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Although it seems like a sudden development, the troubles at Delphi and GM are the result of decades of poor management and greedy union demands. If the companies and unions had concentrated on developing a harmonious relationship instead of an "us versus them" antagonism, things might be different.

Instead, unions focus on squeezing companies for every last penny. Companies, on the other hand, focus on maximizing quarterly profits, “shareholder value” and management bonuses, at the expense of long-term planning.

Let’s hope other unions and companies are paying attention to what’s happening at Delphi and GM. There may be enough time for them to do the right thing, so American manufacturing will be around for our children and grand-children.

Links to my previous posts about unions:
Generous Motors
Tis Unions Killed Detroit