"Paulson says strongly committed to strong dollar"....... ummm WHAT?

From washingtonpost.com:

"The United States is strongly committed to a strong U.S. dollar and financial markets there are recovering from the subprime crisis, some quicker than others, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Tuesday."

Who are these guys kidding? How can this even been said in the same day as the Fed again cuts its target rate another quarter point? I hope that people are starting to sit up and take notice. The Fed does not care about you, they care about the banks, end of discussion.

Because of the inflation which is now running rampant over the last 5 years and is accelerating since the last two FED meetings, we have all effectively gotten huge pay cuts. Every time the FED cuts its target rate, inflation runs rampant, the value of the dollar falls and everything we purchase costs more. It doesn't get much simpler than that. But don't worry, Paulson and the US are committed to a strong dollar, which leads me to the chart of the day (US Dollar index over the last 6 months):

Torture

"In torture, he confessed to being a hermaphrodite, a CIA spy, a Buddhist Monk, a Catholic Bishop and the son of the king of Cambodia. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French."

An interesting perspective to read for those who believe we should do whatever is necessary to fight the "war on terror."

Where do you hide the money clip in a diaper?

From the www.washingtonpost.com

"Elrick Williams's toddler niece Carlyn may be one of the youngest contributors to this year's presidential campaign. The 2-year-old gave $2,300 to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "

"So did her sister and brother, Imara, 13, and Ishmael, 9, and her cousins Chan and Alexis, both 13. Altogether, according to newly released campaign finance reports, the extended family of Williams, a wealthy Chicago financier, handed over nearly a dozen checks in March for the maximum allowed under federal law to Obama."

"Although campaign finance laws set a limit of $2,300 per donor per campaign, they do not explicitly bar donors based on age. And young donors abound in the fundraising reports filed by presidential contenders this year. "

"Just how much campaign cash is coming from children is uncertain -- the FEC does not require donors to provide their age. But the amount written by those identifying themselves as students on contribution forms has risen dramatically this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. During the first six months of the 2000 presidential campaign, students gave $338,464. In 2004, that rose to $538,936. This year, the amount has nearly quadrupled, to $1,967,111."

This is just another reason why campaign finance laws do not work and will not work. Americans wish to contribute to campaigns in excess of campaign finance law and they will find ways to do it.

The Federal Election Commission was created in 1975 to enforce federal campaign laws. These laws can be found here. Take a look on your lunch break and see how far you get through 234 pages. These laws include necessary things like rules for administering federal elections, but a large portion is dedicated to the financing of federal elections.

The finance portion include such distinctions as an individual may only contribute $2300.00 to each individual candidate per election per year, $28,500.00 to a national party per year, but he/she may make "unlimited independent expenditures." An independent expenditure is "an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign."

First of all, the wealthy will always be disproportionally represented among those who contribute money to political candidates. Poor people do not have 5 dollars, let alone 2300 to contribute to a candidate.

Second of all, our government is based on popular support, which means candidates are elected by 51 percent of voters: Bill Gate's vote does not count anymore than mine and any candidate must at least attract a majority of the people to hold office. Sure a large amount of money is important for campaigning, but an unattractive, and therefore unelectable candidate, is still unattractive and unelectable (READ: the money follows the attractive candidate and not the candidate following the money).

Third of all, our large, Republican style of government ensures that no one group or one person can have too much of an impact on an election. A million dollars is chump change in American politics. There are probably tens of thousands of groups and individuals who can contribute this much. These groups, which politicians are quick to accept money from but also quick to point out as the problem, actually function as a check on each other.

Last of all, I am still not convinced that these laws are not unconstitutional: political speech is the most sacred of all rights.

The Bank Swarm

"In the 1990s, a period of mergers in the financial industry, many banks promoted online services and closed branches. But industry studies showed that customers wanted personal contact when managing their money, and banks began opening more branches in a surge fueled by new players such as Commerce, which models itself as a retail store. "

As a result "the number of branches in the District [of Columbia] has jumped nearly 20 percent, from 193 to 230;" in Chicago "branches have increased by 50 percent since 2002;" Manhattan has seen "a 41 percent rise."

First of all, I personally feel that banking will move further and further into cyberspace in the next few generations, which will consequently make the brick and mortar branch increasingly obsolete and costly. I think we are already seeing this phenomenon take place with the explosion of online banks and online only accounts. INGDirect and HSBC are driving conventional banks, that may have been more hesistant or resistant to move online, to offer online only style accounts.

Although there is still a large base that grew up with their local bank branch, knew its employees and sought the advice of these bankers, the newest generation has a limited recollection of using bank branches and therefore less attachment. This generation places more emphasis on convenience and speed and less emphasis on personal touch or a human face. Add to this the overall trend towards self-management of financial portfolios as information is readily available to all and the need for a personal banker who has an office in your neighborhood is less important.

Second of all, I dont agree that the overpopulating of bank branches is a problem: one, banks want to make money just like retail and commercial interests and therefore locate in areas with growth opportunity in general - if anything, the increase in bank branches to an area should serve as a harbinger of prosperity; two, the concentrating of bank branches increases competition, which means higher deposit rates and lower loan rates; three, like all things driven by market forces, the number of bank branches will ultimately be reeled in by acquisitions/mergers, competition and good old supply and demand.

I'd like to bone, but my mom cant drive me to your house.

"PORTLAND, Maine -- Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening."

"The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services. "

"Condoms have been available since 2002 to King students who have parental permission to be treated at its student health center."

I remember the kids who went to the nurse's office during my tenure in middle school and we used to laugh at them because the remedy for every affliction was to lie down on a cot and place a bright, yellow sponge on the forehead. You have lupus? Just lie down and place this damp, yellow sponge on your forehead. At the extreme was the hyperactive kid who went to the nurse after lunch time for some tranquilizer to keep him from driving the teacher crazy. Now while being treated for a tummy ache, you can get Delores to hook you up with some rubbers for that wild weekend of sex on your racecar bed. If you use the condoms while at school can you go back for a pack of cigarettes?

Also, what does parental permission mean in this context? Do students need permission to see the nurse and once there they can inquire about condoms or is parental permission needed before nurses can give out condoms? i cant imagine its the latter because I cant imagine a parent agreeing to that service.

I guess if kids are having sex then its best to make sure they will do so in a safe manner. It also makes sense to promote healthy habits while children are young. But it begs the question is there nothing that can be done about this phenomenon? Do parents have to accept the reality that their 11 year old will be having sex? Can parents exercise some authority and also teach their kids healthy habits? Can schools teach sex education without inciting a Kids Incorporated orgy?!!

Damn you Zach and Cody!!

Broken Arrow, Eh. Spells Trouble Dontcha Know.

"The Air Force has decided to relieve at least five of its officers of command and is considering filing criminal charges in connection with the Aug. 29 "Bent Spear" incident in which nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly flown from North Dakota to Louisiana, two senior Air Force officials said yesterday. "

"the problem originated at Minot (Air Force Base in North Dakota) when a pylon carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was mistaken for one carrying unarmed missiles."

"The warheads were airborne for more than three hours and sat for long periods on runways at both air bases without a special guard."

We better get on the phone and call Christian Slater because I smell a plot by John Travolta to steal these weapons.

Immigration showdown

"Prince William County supervisors early this morning voted to move forward with a nationally watched plan to crack down on illegal immigrants by increasing local police enforcement and restricting certain public services. "

"The measures approved yesterday improve cooperation with federal immigration authorities and direct police to check the immigration status of anyone accused of breaking the law if the officer suspects that person is an illegal immigrant. They also would deny certain county services to illegal immigrants, including drug counseling, some elderly services, and business licenses. "

"But for hours yesterday afternoon and deep into the night, the podium belonged to residents, highlighting how visceral the issue has become. The list of speakers grew longer after the workday ended, as scores of Hispanic immigrants arrived to urge the supervisors to vote no, many speaking through translators. Children of immigrants, standing on stools, asked board members not to hurt their parents."

"Others pointed out that illegal immigrants are breaking the law. 'Where do you get off demanding services, rights and mandatory citizenship?' said Manassas resident Robert Stephens, addressing the large crowd of Hispanic residents. 'Who invited you? You cry for your rights? You have none.'"

Wow. Just like high gas prices, our country needs a stimulus like what is happening in localities like Prince William to encourage discussion about immigration policy and spur the Federal government to act.

Local governments should do everything they can to effectively police themselves. I dont believe asking one's immigration status is a violation of one's rights. I dont agree, however, with the gentleman quoted above saying that illegal immigrants have no rights. All human beings have rights and should be treated with a certain dignity. However, I agree that they have no claim to services provided by local governments.

I think many people involved in this debate have a heart and feel empathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants, but this should not obscure the fact that our nation functions according to the rule of law and that we have - however convoluted and asinine -- immigration laws and regulations. What we dont have are effective boundaries to complement these laws.

Unfortunately, many law abiding residents of our country are forgotten during this debate. There are many productive, valuable members of our society that leave every year because their visas expire or their attempt at citizenship falls short. Some of these people have to leave family members behind, move to Windsor, Ontario and work at a car manufacturing plant because their 12 year attempt at citizenship fails. If they can do it, so can everyone else who is here illegally.