It's Not the Rich vs. the Poor

A lot of people are moaning about the gap between the rich and the poor - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the gap gets bigger. If you are one of those people who think it's a rich/poor issue, you are peeing on the wrong hydrant. Rich vs. poor is an early 20th century problem. What we are facing now is a global/local problem.

50 or 100 years ago, America was its own captive audience. We built stuff here, we bought it here, and all was good. If businesses took advantage of workers or customers, you had laws and unions to balance the playing field. It worked because we were a relatively closed society. Now the situation has completely changed, but we haven't. We live in a 21st century global society, but we want to use 20th century ideas to solve our problems.

Today's wealthy people aren't that way primarily because of some government advantage. It's mostly because they work really hard and in most cases they are positioned to take advantage of a global society. Here are some examples:

Global Corporations - They can transfer resources across the world to where they can get the best competitive advantages. This not only includes material and labor costs, but regulations and taxes and on and on.

Investors - Investors, both billionaires and 401K holders, get richer because they can participate in the global economy through active and passive ownership and the ability to share in the profits of the globally connected.

Idea Workers - These are people with new ideas that can be transformed into something that is globally unique. Inventors and entrepreneurs fall into this category.

On the other hand, look who is getting hurt:

Production Workers - They have to compete in the global marketplace (against very low wages). If their productivity doesn't exceed the wage gap, their job moves to a lower cost country. This also includes college educated knowledge workers who have seen their jobs move to India or China.

People Without Assets - They miss out on global opportunities because they can't afford them - they get relatively poorer.

Local Workers - These people, like service workers and tradesmen, have a natural advantage because a person in South Korea can't fix your car or remodel your house. On the other hand, local workers are subject to the ups and downs of the local economy.

Our recent (and proposed) attempts to "fix" the rich/poor gap have the opposite effect because the globally connected (read: rich) can move globally to minimize the effect of these actions. If we raise taxes (anywhere), the globally connected avoid them leaving the locally isolated people with the burden. More regulations mean the globally connected leave for a place with fewer burdens and the locally isolated pay the added cost of the regulations. Labor union strikes, government suing businesses - same thing -- the locally isolated pay the price while the globally connected go to a more "business friendly" place.

The counterintuitive 21st century solution is to do things that enhance global competitiveness both for our country and for our citizens - like lower taxes, less regulations, education in creative thinking. This doesn’t help the globally connected (they are already there) as much as it helps the locally connected become more global. Only when we recognize that we have a global/local problem will we be able to make any progress on the rich/poor situation.

Looking for a Leader

I can think of a lot of things that America doesn't need. It doesn't need more partisanship. It doesn't need compromise to be second (or third or forth or fortieth) best in the world. It needs a consensus to be first! And it definitely doesn't need an "adult" in the room (I might scream if I hear that stupid, childish phrase again). I don't think that I'm in the minority in America when I say that I'm not looking for a Republican or for a Democrat, I'm looking for a leader. And here's what I'm looking for in a leader.

1. A leader takes responsibility -- If you become the captain of a ship, and the ship is sinking, there's no time to blame the old captain. There's no glory in watching the ship sink. It's your ship now. What are you going to do about it?

2. A leader leads by example -- If our leaders think we should be above partisanship, then they needs to be above it first. You can't say we need to work together in one breath and then attack the other side in the next.

3. A leader keeps people focused on the goal -- If the goal is to reduce unemployment, then calling the other party terrorists or socialists isn't getting us any closer. This works on both sides of the aisle.

4. A leader brings everybody along -- Leaders define a goal and move people toward it, gaining momentum along the way. When President Reagan finally implored Mr. Gorbachev to "tear down this wall" who could disagree? Now we have partisans who use a party line vote to get their way and complain when the other party does exactly the same thing.

5. A leader is a leader all the time -- You can't be a leader in your day job and be a partisan campaigner on the side. Leaders are authentic. I'm trying to find one.

6. A leader accepts wise counsel -- Leaders know that they don't know everything. Leaders surround themselves with people who can fill in their knowledge gaps. That usually means people with different points of view, not yes men (or women) who agree with everything they say.

If I were a betting man, I'd say the best leader will be the next president. President Obama, with his position, has the best chance of carrying the day. But he hasn't done it so far. He's 0 for 6 on my scale. Can he be a leader? Will somebody else step in to fill the leadership void? We'll all find out in a year or so.

Warren Buffet - Why Is He Hiding the Truth?

Warren Buffet, in an op-ed piece for the New York Times, advocates higher tax rates for super rich people like him. But in his lecture to our politicians, he seems to have mastered the political art of parsing his words to shroud the truth. He identified loopholes like "carried interest" or for stock index futures, but he doesn't advocate closing the loopholes. Why not? He includes payroll taxes which fund social security, knowing that everybody's contributions are capped at $106,800 but so are their future benefits. The fact that he pays a lower overall percentage is a red herring (and he knows it and intentionally leaves that part out).

He also says that he never saw anyone shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate. Of course, what he doesn't tell you is that the impact of taxes is always a factor in a smart investor's investment decisions. I can't believe that he made a single acquisition of a company without knowing, in detail, what the tax consequences would be. To imply that tax rates don't play a part in investment decisions is really disingenuous on his part.

Then, he shows some amazing statistics but highlights only the one that supports his weak argument. He notes that in 1992, the top 400 taxpayers paid 29.2% of the $16.9 billion they earned. By 2008, the top 400 paid only 21.5% of the $90.9 billion they earned. Wow, the rich people's tax rate went from 29.2% to 21.5%. What he doesn't tell you is that their tax bill increased from $4.9 billion to $19.5 billion - almost 4 times as much!! That's almost $49 million each and it's still not enough. What should it be? $100 million? $500 million? Would that be fair? Maybe we should let the people who pay nothing decide what is fair?

But the real point he ignores, but his own numbers prove, is that when tax rates go down on investment income, tax revenues go up. The reason is no more obvious than is seen over and over again with capital gains rates. Capital gains occur when you sell an investment for a profit. When tax rates are high, people tend not to sell their investments which delays both their gains and the government's tax revenues. When rates are low, people are more likely to sell their investments which produces both capital gains, tax revenue, and has the added benefit of allocating capital more efficiently. Mr. Buffett absolutely knows this, but he conveniently left it out of his argument.

I don't know what the motivations are for his Obama-style love affair with higher tax rates, but when he leaves out important details - details that an Oracle of Omaha would know by heart - you have to wonder what else he is hiding from you.

Not Guilty - 10 Reasons Why Casey Anthony Won

The Casey Anthony not guilty verdicts were a shock to many people. For some, like talking heads Nancy Grace and Jeanine Pirro, they still refuse to believe it. One quick excuse is to say that the jury is a bunch of idiots. But that doesn't usually happen. Most jurors take their job very seriously, especially in a death penalty case. Also, as an alternate juror already spoke about, the things that viewers think are important, don't necessarily impress the jury.

The bottom line is this. The jury found her not guilty on the serious counts and they did it in less that 12 hours. This indicates that they were pretty united in their verdict from the outset. It seems unlikely that they would spend several weeks sequestered and then just blow off their responsibility at the end of the trial.

So, if the jury did the job we asked them to, what caused the not guilty verdicts? Sticking our head and the sand and saying that there was no way they could find Casey not guilty is just stupid. The not guilty verdict is what happened and we might be better served trying to understand why it happened. I offer 10 reasons why the jury might have found Casey Anthony not guilty.

1. The Prosecution Overcharged - The prosecutors made this a death penalty case, but they had some missing evidence like cause of death, time of death, motive, who did it. When you asked a jury to potentially end someone's life, you better have the evidence to back it up. Many agree that, for whatever reason, the evidence wasn't there.

2. The Jury Wasn't Biased - The jurors may have taken their oath to base their verdict on the evidence seriously. Most of the TV reporting was heavily biased in favor of the prosecution. If the viewers look at just the evidence, they might have see things differently.

3. Everybody Lied - One of the hallmarks of this case is that everybody lied. Casey lied (and was convicted on four counts). Her mother lied as evidenced in the rebuttal case about the web searches. Her father lied at some point at least - he smelled trash the car, but later on it changed to a dead body smell. One of those statements is a lie. The body finder had the skull roll out of a bag, but then later it was stuck in the mud. Did the defense and prosecutors lie? I know what I think. So how can the jury rely on any evidence if almost all of the key players are lying? Maybe they didn't believe anything they said.

4. Bogus Evidence - After two forensic pathologists could not determine the cause of death, the prosecutors find an anthropologist that says the death was caused by duct tape. This undermines their own witnesses, but the prosecutors staked their claim on this. Then on the chloroform search. The prosecutors said it was searched for 84 times, but their initial test said one time! And the 84 times might be a lie. For both instances, a jury member might wonder why, if the prosecutor's case is so strong, is he lying to me?

5. Unsubstantiated Motive - The motive presented by the prosecution was that Casey wanted to kill her daughter so she could go out and party. There is only one thing wrong with this. There was no evidence presented. All witnesses said that Casey was a great mother. Nobody, I mean nobody, said anything different. They relied on the partying after death to say that Casey was a bad mother, but it didn't match the rest of the evidence.

6. Spite Instead of Evidence - The prosecution and its witnesses used spite to make their case instead of evidence. Dr. G, the medical examiner, said she couldn't determine cause of death, but was sure it was a homicide because who would throw their daughter in the dump like trash? This is anger, not science. If Dr. G wants to hate on Casey Anthony, fine, but maybe the jury didn't give that much credence.

7. The Duct Tape Theory - In perhaps the most ridiculous exposition of the trial, Prosecutor Ashton described the duct tape as (paraphrase) "... one piece for the mouth, one piece for the nose, and one piece for the gap. You must have three." WTHF? He said it like he was quoting from the "Duct Tape Murder Manual." This was just all made up in his own head. I can see why no juror would believe this, or believe anything he said after making this assertion.

8. If Each Piece is Bad, the Whole Thing is Bad - A lot of evidence was presented and the defense did a good job of casting doubt on each piece. A talking head said that it was a mistake for the jury because they needed to look at the evidence as a whole and not piece by piece. But in the this case the evidences wasn't very strong. It's like the prosecution said 1+1 = 3, red is blue, fat is thin, and short is tall. And when the defense debunked each item, the prosecution wanted to say "But you have to look at the evidence as a group." That didn't seem to work.

9. You Figure it Out - In an amazing summation, Prosecutor Ashton laid out his case, but then said if the jurors came up with another theory, they were welcome to use that. They jurors may not have felt obliged to figure out the case for the prosecution and may have thought that it was the prosecution's job to present the case not for the jurors to fill in the blanks for the missing evidence.

10. DA Behavior - One final straw might have been the behavior of Mr. Ashton during the closing arguments. On numerous occasions he was shaking his head "no" and the crowning moment was his laughter when he was called out by Mr. Baez. This led to objections, removing the jury, admonishments by the judge, etc. This may have been a master stroke by Mr. Baez. I am sure the jury felt this trial, where they were potentially being asked to administer the death penalty, was anything but a laughing matter. The fact that Mr. Ashton thought it was funny was really disrespectful not only to the proceedings, but specifically to the jury.

These are just 10 items and I could go on. Is Casey Anthony guilty of something? That's what a lot of people believe. But is there a good reason for the jury to find her not guilty? I'd say there at least 10 reasons to think so.

My New Word - Palk!

I have been criticized for using common works to mean that something is not up to par, or that something has a particular shortcoming. Like if a company changed its logo and I thought it wasn't as good as their old logo or fell short of other, more current logos, I might have said, "That new logo is kind of gay." An urban dictionary defines a usage of "gay" as being something that is stupid or unfortunate, but that won't satisfy some people. It seems like if you use the word "gay" and you don't happen to be gay, then you are guilty of all manner of unpardonable sins and breaches of etiquette. For me, I was using the term in a way not to offend people, but that was not good enough. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear. I understand this and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings when I'm just making an offhand comment that isn't directed at any non-specified group or subgroup.

So, I thought I could go back to the word that I previously used a lot - lame. For Example, "That new logo is pretty lame." But without question, there are many people who are actually lame, and they might be offended. I haven't heard of this, but I don't want to get caught in a new crossfire.

Then there was another old standby - weak. "That new logo is weak." But let's face it. There are lot of people who are just physically weak. We might disregard them as being too lazy to go to the gym or use dynamic tension, but there is a subset of people, like ones suffering from myasthenia gravis, who are weak through no fault of their own and we shouldn't offend them, especially if we aren't trying to do so.

So I came up with my own word - palk. Here's the definition:

Palk - (pronouned pock, like walk or talk) - adjective used to describe the state of a thing or idea as being substandard or lacking in some way. It is used only as a specific literal descriptor and cannot be used as a general statement about any group or subgroup of people or unrelated objects. For example, "That new logo is kind of palk" could NEVER mean that someone hates Native American people or is implying that baby seals should be harmed. This would be an incorrect usage like when someone says something will "stump" your growth instead of "stunt" your growth. Additionally, palk is not a proper noun and has absolutely no connection to any proper nouns. For example, palk is not a derivative or connected in any way with the Palk Strait in India. While some people think that a vacation on the Palk Strait might be palk, the Palk Strait itself is totally unrelated to the word palk. If you say, "That new logo is kind of palk" and someone thinks that the Palk Strait is lacking in some way, it would be a thought of their own ignorance of the meaning of the word palk. In the same way, palk does not derive itself from the family name Palk or any of the descendants of Sir Robert Palk. If a person, in their use of the word palk, implies that any member of the Palk family is substandard or lacking in some way, that would be an improper use of the word unless specifically identified as such. Members of the Palk family may, in fact, be palk, but that would just be a coincidence unless there was a statement like, "As a self-proclaimed theological scholar, Beauregarde Palk is palk." Note that this statement is specific in nature (as an unspecified reference would be a misuse of the word palk) and could never be construed to mean that other members of Beauregarde's immediate or extended family are palk. They would have to be specifically identified as being palk for anyone to be able to make that assertion.

Finally, as the whole purpose of the word palk is to not offend anyone in a non-specific manner, it is socially unacceptable to be offended non-specifically. For example, if you hear, "That new logo is palk" and you were the designer of the logo, you might rightly be offended. But if anyone else is offended, that offense should be noted as being self-inflicted and saying that you are offended should be regarded as a monumental social gaffe at the same level as eating your salad with the wrong fork.

Varying degrees of palk are referred to as more palk, less palk, least palk, and most palk. Palker or palkest should not be used as these are not real words. Also, trying to use the work palk in coarse language, e.g. by saying "palk you," is not only an improper use of the word, but it universally identifies the user as both immature and feeble.

Now that I have a word that can't possibly non-specifically offend anyone, I need to get back to my job of the insightful, critical review of current events. If you think this post is palk, you are welcome to do so, but I will not be offended for several reasons. First, as the author, I know that this post is definitely not palk, so there. If, by saying the post is palk, you are trying to imply that bald people are stupid or that chicks don't really dig guys with skinny arms, I won't be offended by that either, because that would be a totally improper use of the word palk and I certainly know better that to be offended by someone who doesn't even know what the word palk means.

Republican Strategy – Sit Back and Do Nothing

The Republicans aren’t doing so well these days. No strategy seems to be working. Maybe they should take a break and do … nothing. The Democrats will self-destruct in time. It’s already happening. Nationally known Latina and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) fell and broke her ankle. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fell and fractured her elbow. (Are Democrats becoming unbalanced??). The Dems are literally dropping like flies!!

Rookie Leader Back on the Campaign Trail

Something often happens with new leaders when things get difficult. Instead of stepping up to their new roles, they fall back to what they were good at in their old jobs. It’s happening with President Obama already. His promised bipartisanship is more partisan than ever, his transparency is opaque, he is stumbling with cabinet appointments, his banking recovery caused another market drop, and on and on. Seasoned leaders use these kinds of challenges as opportunities to lead. Rookie leaders try to recreate their old successes. For Obama this means heading back on the campaign trail. Meet with crowds of like-minded people where talk is favored over action. President Obama has never had a significant leadership job and he has a lot to learn. But he’s no longer Obama the Candidate; he’s Obama the President. It’s time to leave the campaigning behind and focus on his new job.