Gross Missteps in Libya

In a rare return to politics, I wanted to discuss for a moment our President and his bringing us into Libya.

First of all, I should disclaim that I voted for President Obama, and was a willing and happy supporter of his during the campaign.  I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I was an enthusiastic supporter of Obama during 2008, and have been largely pleased with several of his domestic initiatives since election.

That said, Libya is a big mistake, and I fear it underscores Obama's relative inexperience in foreign policy.  Further, I feel it probably is also mirrored in his Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton.  Despite the initial misgivings expressed by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, both Clinton and Obama proceeded wholeheartedly putting together the NATO coalition and UN resolution for action in Libya.

So, what happened?  How did we get to this place?  Well, first Tunisia fell, and the whole world took notice.  The fall of an Arab dictator.  That seemed well within our U.S. interests, but we had no involvement in it.  Hooray.

Then Egypt fell.  OK, things got a little sticky for a while, when we couldn't decide if the fall of Mubarak's dictatorial regime, which we supported hugely for 40 years, was a good thing or a bad thing.  Publicly, we were fickle, waiting to see which way the wind blew.  Ultimately, Mubarak's regime fell, and we came in hollering, "Let the people be free!"  And meanwhile, we maintained some well placed skepticism about what would be the new regime, would they be friendly to U.S. interests, and would we still support the Egyptian military?  And most importantly, how would all this play out with our major ally, Israel?  Big questions which still need to be answered.

And then, Bahrain, where we silently did nothing, because they are major allies.  And Syria, where we've done nothing, because we're not sure what to do.  And Yemen, where we do nothing, because they are secret allies, but a country near anarchy like Somolia.  Whoa, this is getting complicated.

All the while, we're putting out a message of "Let the People be Free!" and "This is the Arab Awakening!", and meanwhile hoping by doing so, if these regimes fall, the rebels will form a unified and coherent government, remember our U.S. support, and join us as allies.  Seems pretty naive, really.

So then we get to Libya.  This is arguably the country with the LEAST amount of U.S. interests.  Their contribution to the world oil market is around 2%, easily made up by our strongest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia.  At the time of the Libyan uprising, Gaddhafi was on the "getting better" list of Arab dictators.  He had renounced terrorism, had made apologies for Lockerbie, had made overtly friendly gestures to the United States, and was working hard in rebuilding relationships with European countries.  He was still a brutal dictator, but he was not a threat to the United States.

Swept up in the fervor of the "Arab Awakening", I believe our administration, regardless, decided to side with the rebels in what is now recognized as a full-out civil war.  We thought if we provide air support cover to the rebels, Gaddhafi would quickly step down, and we could chalk up another victory in reshaping the Arab regimes.  "See, you Arab people, the U.S. is your friend!  Please don't attack us anymore."

Not so simple, though.

First of all, the Libyan rebels are a rag-tag bunch of a very few formerly-loyal military leaders, untrained civilians, and children.  They have no serious weapons, no command structure, no  organization.  And anytime NATO stops providing military support, they quickly lose ground to Gaddhafi's forces.

Second, though crimes against humanity are deplorable worldwide, this is a Libyan civil war.  Why are we involved? Where are our interests?  In his recent address, the President stated that we will not sit idly by and watch genocide occur; that we will act first.  So, why then no action in Sudan?  What about Ivory Coast?  Somolia?  Chechnya?  I mean, really?  Why?  We cannot be the world's policeman, and this is just the kind of unprepared action that got us into trouble in Mogadishu.

Third, whether Republican or Democrat (and they both do it), I am sick and tired of presidents going to war without Congressional approval.  That is what's required of the Constitution.   Sure, a limited action with stated objectives is the prerogative of the President, but Libya does not appear to be this.  Now we hear the President talking of arming rebels.  Excuse me, but what the heck?  Again, why?

So, what is the United States' interest?  If not oil, if not terror, what is it?  If it is taking sides in Libya, I say, "Not good enough, not important enough."  We are now involved in three wars as a bankrupt country.  Time to rein it in a little bit, I'd say.  So what if there is a U.N. mandate.  That does not mean we are compelled to act militarily.  There were U.N. mandates for Sudan too.

Unfortunately, I fear it is probably too late.  The ball is in motion and rolling fast down this hill.  If Gaddhafi stays, he is forever off the ally list.  If he falls, who in the heck is going to replace him, and will they be friendly to our interests?  And the worst part of it now, I fear, is that we have further alienated other Islamic countries.  They will see this as the third time the U.S. has attacked an Islamic nation.  Any initial support we had from the Arab League for Libya (which was tepid at best) has now vanished and we're sitting out on a limb without our knickers.  We must be very careful how we proceed.

And all for what reason?  I still don't have an answer to that.

Afghanistan and Iraq, those were messes arguably created by the Bush regime, but Libya, Mr. President, is your mess alone.

Who Would Jesus Hate?

I have been wrestling a lot lately with the struggle between homosexuals and the church.  This topic was piqued lately, when our gay brothers-in-law came to our church over Christmas to see their nephews perform in the Christmas recital.  This was an act of pure love on their part, a willingness to see and support their nephews, despite the feeling they were sitting among a brood of vipers who hated them.

Is hate too strong a word?  I don't think so, and I have chosen it carefully.  If any of our congregation were asked, "Do you hate gays?" I am quite sure the response would be an emphatic "No!  We don't hate the sinner.  We hate the sin."

Sure.  But frankly, this is B.S.

Jesus taught us many things in the Gospels.  I would point out right now he said absolutely nothing about gays.  Not one word.  (Go ahead and look for it.  It's not there, not even obliquely.)

Bible scholars will point out that Paul (or the writer posing as Paul) speaks against homosexuals in Romans, Corinthians and Timothy.  And the Old Testament in Leviticus and Deuteronomy decries homosexuality clearly.  But these are not Gospel sources, which we Christians hold so dear.  The very same Old Testament also forbids shrimp cocktail and pork barbecue.  First Corinthians commands that women must remain silent in the temple.

I could go on and on and on.  I've asked this many times before, why are we Christians allowed to pick and choose our way through the Bible?  Doesn't the fact that my side locks are shaved make me a sinner?

Face it, fellow Christians, the Bible and our interpretation of it have evolved since Adam and Eve.   And guess what?  We mortals are shaping it to our societal norms.  Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous, or fooling himself.

Back to the Gospel, then:  What Jesus taught us, above all else, was to love.  To love Him.  To love his people.  Commandments numbers one and two.  Upon these hang all the laws and the prophets!  No exceptions.

So why do we find it so hard to love gays?  Is it the "ick" factor that most heterosexuals have?  Is it the fact that we worry about them converting our children?  What if our children were gay?  Could we bear it?  Do we fear being hit upon?  (I mean, really.  Aren't we being a bit full of ourselves?)  These are really tough questions.  It is much easier just to hate the gays than to ask ourselves and each other these very uncomfortable questions.

Yes, I will maintain that most people in my church, whether they admit it or not, hate gays.  Not in a violent way, but in the unloving, you're not part of my life, way.  It is simply because they do not actually love them as they would love their neighbor.  If they loved them, they would seek to understand them.  They would open a compassionate dialogue to try to seek resolution.  But today's Christians are less interested in resolution than in strict adherence to dogma "under which we must all chafe."

I will confess:  I used to hate gays.  And then I met one.  And he was a nice guy.  He wasn't a freak.  He was actually pretty normal.  He became my friend.  Later, he would become my brother-in-law.  And in our twenty-two years of friendship, I have learned many things from him.  First, I learned that we wasn't interested in "hooking up" with me.  Then, I learned that he valued monogamous relationships as much as I did.  I learned he essentially had 95% of the same values I did.

Most gays do.  Most gays are professional, income-earning, college-educated, tax-paying, home-owning people. (Sounds like Republicans, doesn't it?)  Many gays secretly (until now) served in our military.  The 20 year old hero who raced to help Rep. Giffords at the Tuscon, Arizona shooting?  Yes, he was gay too.

So why are Christians afraid of gays?  The gay lifestyle has become a caricature in their minds, one of lust, debauchery and flamboyance.  I can tell you, the gays have no monopoly on this.  You'll know this if you've ever been to Panama City Beach, New Orleans, or any university frat party.  In truth, the homosexual lifestyle is as diverse and flawed as our own heterosexual lifestyle.

I look for a day when the church can honestly and openly welcome homosexual people into its fold, and at least begin by saying, "We may not understand you, but we love you, and we accept you."  Until that time, we have a stalemate.   Gays won't talk to the church, and the church won't talk to the gays.  People like my brother-in-law will never find themselves in a church because the church hates them.  And the church is happy enough not to have them there.

And that is truly the saddest thing.

Those Derned Punk Kids of Today

Those derned punk kids of today! They're not like when I was young, back when youth were respectable!

This letter to the editor appeared in the Leesburg Today. Like its author, I think it's about HIGH time we came down hard on this lack-luster, do-nothing generation of youngsters we have today! I mean, Lady Gaga? What kind of name is that for a nice New York City girl??

Hhmmpf! They're all a bunch of punks!

Dirty Dancing
Dear Editor:

I find the current rap scene, music as some call it, that is sweeping the nation to be deeply unsettling. This poetry laced with its degrading, profane rhymes is all that the youth fills their ears with.

With kids questioning their parents as to exactly what a "magic stick" or "disco stick" is and teens singing along to phrases commanding females "to bend over and shake their tail feathers," it is hard to not see the negative impact that these lyrics will have on the innocent minds of the nation's children. Some immediate effects, such as the new style many guys have acquired of not pulling up their pants, have shockingly become completely acceptable even in public places including restaurants and middle schools.

Respectable dances such as the tango or waltz have all but vanished to instead be replaced by absurd dance routines illustrated in rap artists' most recent music videos. These dances, cyclone, pop drop and lock it, and getting low to name a few, involve the same moves that one might view at a strip club. All this atrocious behavior that has originated from the appalling genre of rap causes my stomach to move "like a cyclone."

If nothing is done to put an end to this mind controlling noise that is flooding our nation, I fear that the lives of the younger generation are truly in jeopardy.

S. Shultz, Ashburn
Leesburg Today, Jan. 6, 2010

Or this writer:

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

Plato, Greece
Socrates, ca. 400 BC
(William L. Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277, 1953)

The Irish O'Bama

This is pretty cute! I think you might enjoy this no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.



From http://www.oneeyedparrot.org/obama.html.

So Proud Today

It's real. It's happened. And nothing got in the way of this perfect day.

I'm so proud today, so proud to be a part of this historic day. President Barack Obama. Gosh, it sure sounds good saying that!

Ironically, I spent the day deep in "red" country, at a government contracting firm in Dallas, Texas. It doesn't get any "redder" than Dallas, especially at a government contractor. It was particularly difficult watching the inauguration speech in the company break room while hearing all the snide comments and gnashing of teeth behind me. I chose to ignore that as best I could.

I thought Aretha Franklin looked amazing and sounded superb. Michelle was radiant and beautiful. The Obama girls even seemed giddy with all the attention. The quartet that included Yo Yo Ma and Itzak Perlman was wonderful--you could see the joy in their eyes as they played for the President-Elect. I loved that the piece composed by John Williams included variations on the Shaker hymn used by Aaron Copland in Appalachian Spring. It doesn't get more American than that! And though President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts fumbled the first lines of the oath, the majesty of the moment overwhelmed me.

I only wish I could have been in D.C. to be part of the event myself. It was a wonderful day!

God Bless our President! God Bless the U.S.A.

No Hard Feelings

Got this from a co-worker, and thought my mother, father, and probably just about the rest of my Oklahoma relatives would enjoy and approve:

No Hard Feelings...to the Democrats

Election day is over,
The talking is done.
My party lost, your party won.
So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I'll hug my elephant,
You kiss your ass.

The Day After...

To all of my Republican family and friends: A Plea for Unity

Every one of you know that I boisterously supported Mr. Obama, but I want to take moment to try to provide you some comfort. I know this is a hurtful time for you right now, and I pray that this Democratic win does not leave you in bitterness, darkness and sorrow.

This man is not your enemy. He is not Satan. He is not Jimmy Carter. He is not a Muslim terrorist. And the world is not ending.

We must come back together as Americans to rebuild this shattered country. If there is one element of Mr. Obama's campaign that struck me most, it was his call for unified and grassroots change. President-elect Obama has never offered government as the solution to all our problems. Rather he asked each of us to make the changes we need starting at home, and in our churches, and in our schools, and in our local government. He called upon us to be better than we were before, to cast aside party labels, gender labels, race labels, social labels, sexual-orientation labels, and to work together as Americans to improve this great land of ours.

The task will be daunting; the challenges are many. But we cannot do it without your help. So, I urge you, as Mr. McCain urged you in his very gracious concession speech, to work with us.

Cast aside your fears. Turn off the TV news. Let us lock hands together and redeem our country.

Help us build a stronger America. For all of us.

YES! WE! DID!

WE DID IT! WE DID IT! WE DID IT!

HELL YEAH!

WE DID IT!

From this:

To this:

And finally, this!

SUCCESS!!!

Last image courtesy of AP/Getty used for non-commercial fair-use.

States to Watch Today

I said it before, and I shall highlight it again. Today, the two states that will decide the final outcome are Pennsylvania and Virginia.

McCain can have Ohio and even Florida, but in my estimation, if McCain does not carry BOTH Pennsylvania and Virginia today, he cannot win.

It's certainly not decided yet; both states are too close to decisively call, and polls have been wrong before.

So, go VOTE!

VOTE!

No matter the weather, go VOTE today! We may never see the like of this historic election. Be a part of it, and go VOTE!

Take a book, or a Gameboy, or better yet, a friend to endure the long wait, but just make sure you show up at the polls on time!

Dance off!

Electoral College Math

Let's do some mathematics. No politics, just math. Simple math based upon all the latest polling data.


Today, there are 22 states solidly for McCain. Broadly speaking, those include Appalachia, the Deep South Bible Belt, Tornado Alley, and the middle Western states.

Obama has 23, counting the District of Columbia: All of the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific coast, the Beer Belt states surrounding Lake Michigan, plus New Mexico.

That leaves six toss up states, and it should come as no surprise that they include Florida and Ohio, plus Colorado, North Carolina, Nevada, and Missouri.

I think most people covering the polls would agree that this is a pretty accurate position of how things currently stand, and how the states may likely go.

Scenario #1: McCain's Best Hope


I give ALL those toss-up states to McCain. Every single one of them goes to him. The Great Schlep fails to deliver Florida. The Bradley Effect sneaks into the Ohio polling places. Colorado stays red because the Latinos stayed home.

In this scenario, McCain's most realistic hope, guess what? McCain loses. By nine votes.


Scenario #2: My Prediction


This is what I really think will happen. I give McCain Ohio and Missouri. I wrestled about Ohio, because it could go for Obama, but I think it will be close. So, I give the benefit of that doubt to McCain. But Obama gets Florida, North Carolina, Nevada and definitely Colorado.

Obama crushes McCain: 333 to 205. This, folks, is my prediction, so let us wait and see how I do.


Scenario #3: The Morning After

Now, to be fair, how can McCain win? He needs to win ONE of the following two states:

Virginia or Pennsylvania.

If he wins just one of those states, plus ALL the toss ups, he's done it. But, if he fails to win either Virginia or Pennsylvania, it's over. You can turn off the TV on election night and go to bed early. No need to wait up watching CNN or Fox News until 2am. If Pennsylvania and Virginia go Obama, McCain cannot win.

Now, the most important message in all of this is that the only thing to screw all this up will be if you don't vote. Everyone must vote! Don't get complacent. VOTE!

Two Humorous Motivators...

Here are a couple of fun videos to kick off the weekend:

and

Letter from Dan to his Children and Grandchildren

My neighbor, Dan, whom I respect and admire deeply, has written a beautiful and impassioned letter to his adult children and grandchildren, beseeching them to vote Democratic this November.

With Dan's permission, I reprint his letter here, in full:

October 22, 2008

To My Children and Grandchildren:

Dear Steve and Carol, Teresa and Mark, Elaine and John, Laura and Greg, Greg and Sheryl, Dan, Emily, Monica, Bryant, Kevin, Jeremy, Patrick, Amanda, Masie and Aiden:

In early 1776, Thomas Paine, a recent English immigrant to the American colonies, wrote a pamphlet about the issue of American independence from England. Then, as is the case now with Senator Obama’s call for change, the need to consider a major change was confused with misinformation, claims and counter claims, attempts to cause fear if change were to take place, intimidation and outright lies. Mr. Paine’s pamphlet cut straight through all of this and in very clear language, told it like it was, showing how the colonies’ problems were the fault of the King of England and his advisors. His pamphlet, which he called “Common Sense”, clearly made the case for change and the Declaration of Independence.

I’m no Thomas Paine, but it is time for some common sense about this upcoming election and why we need some major changes now – just as they were needed in 1776. This election is very important for all of you; it will basically decide how you will live in the future. You need to know that while there is a lot of attention to Mr. Obama and John McCain as individuals, it is their philosophies, approaches, and the people around them, that really make the difference, and we need the common sense to make the right choice.

For the past eight years, under George Bush, Richard Cheney and their advisors, we have been forced to endure a misguided, controlling Republican philosophy that says if you give tax breaks, government contracts, and other favors to big corporations and very wealthy people, they will create jobs and widespread economic opportunity and the benefits will “trickle down” to the rest of us.

We can see now, with the current financial crisis, that this approach is nonsense. Only trouble has trickled down: Eight years ago, our government had a surplus of money in our Treasury. After eight years of radical Republican philosophy, our country is nearly ten trillion dollars in debt (which, unfortunately, will be your problem for many years). We are spending ten billion dollars a month on a war Mr. Bush and his advisors started by lying to the rest of us; big companies – the ones who were supposed to benefit us – are going out of business because people like John McCain did not want to regulate them, and as a result, more and more people are losing their jobs and savings.

Meanwhile, some of those Republicans and lobbyists who control the government have allowed greed and arrogance to be their guide – several have been caught giving huge contracts to friends and have already gone to jail; others are under investigation, but worst of all, they have promoted an atmosphere of “I’m in control. I can do whatever I want”. This arrogance has also caused major problems with other countries.

Just as in 1776, when the King of England (whose name, by the way, was also George) tried to keep the American colonies under his thumb, the primary objective of the current Republican philosophy is to stay in control – at all costs. To them, the environment does not matter; health care does not matter; even freedom of religion does not seem to matter.

If big energy companies want to harm the environment, fine; if large pharmaceutical companies want to raise prices and increase health care costs, let them; if radical religious interests want to tell our military personnel how to worship God, go ahead – as long as you help us stay in control to use government for our own interests.

We cannot go on like this. We have to come to our common senses. It comes down to this: Senator McCain will continue the radical Republican philosophy of “control for our own self interests, at all costs.” That is not good for you. He may have once been a “maverick” but he has sold out to the radicals and the uncaring zealots in his own party - just to win. Even many who know him well are opposed to him, and his judgment and sincerity certainly has to be questioned by his choice of Governor Palin as his running mate. John McCain is seventy-two years old. He has had cancer and has other health problems. For him to have us think that he seriously considers Sarah Palin a possible President, is insulting. She has no experience relevant to the Presidency and is simply being used by Senator McCain and her own Party in a desperate attempt that uses demeaning “Joe Sixpack” and other pandering comments to attract votes.

Senator Obama is not perfect – no one is. But he is certainly not the bad person that Republican lies have alleged. There are even those who oppose him because he is black. These people are small minded, prejudiced and mean spirited. They have no place in our society. Ignore them. They are only good for showing what we should not be. Senator Obama has the ability and instincts to be President. His philosophy and those with whom he works, is to seek consensus on major issues, not to try and control them. He believes that healthcare is a right, not just a responsibility of those in control, and he is clear thinking on things (even though they may seem far off to some of you) like retirement. He also knows we have to repair relationships with many other countries, and unlike John McCain, made an excellent choice for a Vice President when he selected Joe Biden.

In many respects, it is unfortunate that we have to label ourselves “Democrat” or “Republican”. There are many good, moderate thinking people in both parties who are willing to do what is best for the country, and like Thomas Paine, have a pretty clear idea of what the causes of our problems are. If we had something like an American Independence Party, perhaps it would be easier to deal with the very difficult problems that have arisen in the past eight years. But we have to solve the problems that are important to you now. That means we will deal with the two parties that we have, and focus our government on what is best for most people, not a rich, controlling few. For me, that means the only “common sense” choice is Senator Obama and Senator Biden.

Love,

Dad and Grandpa

Please, vote Obama.

Mr. Obama Comes to Town

Barack Obama came to Leesburg yesterday. CBS estimated 30,000 people were present for the rally at Ida Lee Park (where I swim and work out in the mornings). That's as many people as live in Leesburg! Traffic was completely gridlocked getting into and around Leesburg, from about two o'clock through until nine o'clock. My commute was 90 minutes yesterday, and trying to find alternate routes around the gridlock took me all the way into Fauquier county before getting me home.

I really, really wanted to go. This was history in the making. But with the traffic issues, the huge crowd, and having to take off half the day to be there, I finally decided not to show up.

My friend, Clarence, did go, and he got some great shots of the rally. Since I couldn't be there, here are some of his photos.

I'll just have to wait until I get that invitation to the White House to meet Mr. Obama.

Ouch!

Letter from Frank Wolf (R-VA-10th)

Yesterday, we received a thoughtful letter from Frank Wolf, our representative in Congress. The letter is remarkable in several ways. First, his very efficient office staff was thorough enough to answer both Becky's and my own emails with a single letter addressed to "Harris Family". While this logistical detail may seem insignificant, I take a small measure of pride in the fact that he's saving a bit of postage by collating his incoming mail.

More importantly, the letter we got back was very thorough--three and a half pages long. Even if it was a form letter that he is undoubtedly mailing to all his complaining constituents (like us), it did touch upon all of the key concerns we raised in our original emails. I'm also pleased that he answered our letter in a very timely manner. We got a response only a couple of days after our concerns were aired. I appreciate that.

Yet, what's more impressive, in my view, is that he had the courage to explain why he voted contrary to our wishes. He didn't do this with slick language or misdirection, like Chuck's Mr. Isakson. Instead, he explained himself, his vote, and a detailed list of what he thought were the benefits of the bill for which he voted. He acknowledged some very real concerns in foreign ownership of U.S. debt which have gone unmentioned in the press (my highlights on page 3). He also pointed out the pending FBI investigations, which I strongly support, as I believe the boards of directors and executives on Wall Street should be prosecuted for fraud and gross negligence.

Rep. Wolf didn't back away from his decision, and in the process of explaining his vote, I learned more about the bill than I had known before. Though the bailout still rankles me, I view it now as inevitable. I hope at least that the government buying up these failed finance monstrosities will at least bargain to get the best terms possible for our $1T "investment".

Bailout Schmailout

Right now, there seems to be a dearth of writers AGAINST the bailout. Everyone just assumes that we must do SOMETHING, but we cannot seem to agree on what that something is. Further, we don't even really understand any of it.

As much as I watch the news, I cannot find anybody who can explain to me why we need a bailout without using banal analogies like "The economy is the car, and the credit market is the engine. And the engine is broken!" Makes me sick. Nobody, even Henry Paulson, I'm convinced, is smart enough to figure out what is really wrong here. That's why I'm not in favor of giving a one trillion dollar blank-check to a single man who was never elected, and who doesn't fully understand the problem at hand.

How can we apply a solution without first understanding the problem? We cannot, without wasting enormous amounts of money due to poor oversight and inadequate planning.

Neither political candidate has any real 'skin' in this game. Both are sideline watchers (despite McCain's recent antics) simply trying to land on the right side of whatever happens--so they can claim victory and get elected. Neither candidate knows anything more about this bailout than I do, which is truly frightening, because I don't know JACK. And George Bush's approach on this is "Trust us. You have to act now." George Bush lost my trust a long time ago.

So it was refreshing to see the main stream media come out with one well-reasoned, apolitical article against the bailout:

Time: Let Risk-Taking Financial Institutions Fail

I'm not asking which party has the better solution to this, or which party is the root cause of all this trouble. Both parties are complicit in this mess, if for nothing else than lack of oversight. But, most importantly, what is the correct solution going forward? I believe the writers in that Time article are more onto the solution than any others I've read.

We're starting to see banks fail, to be bought up by stronger banks--most recently, Wachovia's purchase by Citigroup. Actually, I view the consolidation of the banking sector as the ultimate solution to this problem. The weak and foolhardy banks will be ultimately consumed by the larger, more stable banks. I believe this is ultimately what capitalism is all about. In the meantime, get ready for a wild ride in your 401(k)s and IRAs.

What do you think?

Now, It's Getting Really FUNNY

Last week, I was suffering from political exhaustion. But now, it's starting to get fun!

Self explanatory:


And a plea for my Jewish friends: GO TO FLORIDA! TALK TO NANA AND PAPA!

(Warning! NSFW. The following is freakin' hilarious, but also has some naughty language.)

The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.

Letters to Congress / Senate

I took Chuck and Becky's lead and wrote three letters to my Senators and Congressman today. Mr. Wolf, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Warner have all heard from me on this financial bailout issue. I urge you, now is the time to write your congressman. Nothing works better on them than reminding them of your vote. It will only be the onslaught of emails and letters that makes them respond. I think it's starting to work.

Dear Congressman Wolf:

As a fiscal conservative, and a constituent of yours in Northern Virginia, I urge you, please, in the strongest terms: NO WALL STREET BAILOUT!

I agree that the current situation on Wall Street is dire, and may have lasting trickle-down impact in our economy, perhaps even impacting every one of our lives. We may even see a full scale recession.

However, history teaches us that government is notoriously poor at solving these crises, and usually only prolongs the agony with their actions. I agree with Newt Gingrich on this issue: How can we trust Secretary Paulson to get this right? He has been consistently wrong on the economy for the past 18 months!

I do not want to see my tax dollars (and my children's tax dollars, and my GRANDchildren's tax dollars) going to fill the pockets of crooked and unethical Wall Street bankers with their golden parachutes. Let some banks go out of business if they made criminally sloppy decisions. Let the market correct itself. That is the true spirit of capitalism.

It may be tough, but those of us who were fiscally responsible and financially straight, we will weather this storm.

I urge you, Congressman Wolf, do NOT vote for the financial bailout deal. Do not rush to a snap decision because of perceived panic from Secretary Paulson, President Bush, or Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. Do not let politics win over what is right.

My vote for you in the next election will be based on your actions this week.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Scott E. Harris