.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Right In Florida

Motto: This is what happens when Insanity and Banality come together.

Name:
Location: North Central Florida, United States

I'm an aging boomer, white male (cue scary music); not religious, mostly conservative. Married to the same woman forever. No kids-by choice (I believe in personal choice in most areas of life). Voted mostly Republican until November 2000 when the national Democrats tried to steal the election in Florida. I promised to never again vote for another Democrat; kept that promise to date.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Murder in The Villages-A Little More Justice (Part 2)

Well, it's almost final. It's been a long slog, but the third murderer is facing justice...AGAIN!

OCALA — Several days before he was set to go to trial, the last of the remaining codefendants in The Villages murder case pleaded no contest before a Marion County circuit judge.

On Wednesday afternoon, Theodore C. Houston, 19, pleaded no contest to murder in the second degree, attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and robbery with a firearm for his role in the July 2006 shooting death of 63-year-old Villages resident Diana Miller and the attempted murder of her husband, James.

Houston, the youngest of three codefendants, testified against Renaldo D. McGirth and Jarrord M. Roberts during their jury trials earlier this year.

Under the terms of his plea, Houston will face a prison term no longer than 40 years. Under an earlier guilty plea that Houston entered in December 2007, but later withdrew, he would have faced at least 25 years but no more than 40 years in prison.

Assistant State Attorney Anthony Tatti said that since Circuit Judge Brian Lambert has had time to hear all the testimony from the previous trials, Houston could be sentenced to a lengthier term than the judge might have opted for earlier.

Here's the deal...he was (supposedly) the least complicit in this atrocity. He was a teenager caught up with a bad crowd-if you believe his family.

He cut a deal and testified against the other two. Then he reneged on his deal and wanted a trial. Now that it was close, he cut another deal. It may be better-he still has a maximum of 40 years, but doesn't necessarily have to serve a minimum of 25 years.

However, the judge now knows the extent of his involvement from his earlier testimony and could set the same...or even harsher...sentence.

It's very VERY SLOW justice, but it's moving forward.

Stay tuned.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

A Portent

Ya gotta love the Yahoo headline:

Fans stream into streets to celebrate Phillies win

But the story is really about the Philadelphia "fans" having a wonderful little riot after winning the World Series.

Scattered vandalism was reported as revelry continued into the early morning Thursday before police began breaking up the thinning crowds.

Philadelphia police commissioner Charles Ramsey said officers made 76 arrests, adding 10 businesses were damaged during the raucous citywide celebration.

Windows were smashed at a bank and luggage store in the downtown shopping district. At least two cars were overturned, the windows of a TV van were smashed, dozens of huge streetside planters were flipped over and some bus shelters were damaged or destroyed.

Most of the celebration was trouble-free, though it left behind a trail of broken bottles, overturned garbage bins and piles of other trash on the streets.

Just your usual hi-jinks. Nothing to see here.

And the portent?

What the hell kind of celebration will happen next Tuesday night if the Most High Lord Obama wins? You can guess that last night's mini-riot will be magnified in Philadelphia...and repeated in every inner city/Democrat stronghold in the nation.

But more importantly, what will happen if the Messiah doesn't win? Something tells me the hi-jinks will tend to move to other less urban areas.

Of course, nothing will likely happen. However, I guess I'll visit the gun store. I'm a little low on 9mm ammo.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

I'm not a cut/run conservative or Republican (Re-Post)

This is a post I wrote on February 1st when we didn't know who would be the Republican and Democrat candidates. I've re-read it, and nothing's changed. Here it is:

*********************************

I'm not a cut/run conservative or Republican

SO I will NOT be sitting out the November election regardless of the Republican candidate.

I've been disturbed to hear and read about so many Republicans and conservatives have said they would not vote for McCain under any circumstances. Hell, did Ann Coulter really say she would vote for Hillary first?

McCain is not my first, second or third choice for the nomination, but he has my vote if he's the candidate.

Why?

Because I know there is evil in the world.

Because I know the world is not perfect.

Because I know that a seat at the table is better than standing out in the cold.

Because I know that settling for 60% of what you know is important is better than getting 20%.

Only fools believe otherwise.

There's a lot of self-satisfaction in taking your ball home when the game doesn't go your way. It is also childish.

And given the dangers in the world today, it is self-destructive.

And...damnit! haven't you paid attention to the last 2 Democrat debates, especially last night? After seeing Liberal A trying to be more dangerous to our economy and national security than Liberal B, you would be complicit by sitting on your ass?

And typical brilliance from...

Charles Krauthammer. He's physically disabled, but a brilliant mind. And someone you do want on your side in a fight, whether physical or verbal.

He's been critical of the Palin selection. I disagree, but understand his objection. I respect him even more because that's where he stopped. He did not go on to bash conservatives and Republicans in every subsequent event and column.

So he's laid down his marker: He will vote for McCain and against Obama.

Contrarian that I am, I’m voting for John McCain. I’m not talking about bucking the polls or the media consensus that it’s over before it’s over. I’m talking about bucking the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama before they’re left out in the cold without a single state dinner for the next four years.

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.
**********
Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

How's that for clarity?

So what are you going to do? Sit on your ass or vote for a third party?

Same result. As for me, I will join the steady conservatives and vote for McCain. I will not cut and run, then bitch at the outcome.

No truer words yet spoken

From Mark Levin at The Corner. Some excerpts:

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical.
********************
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
*********************
The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

Folks, I'm looking at 60 in the next couple of years. I have no children or grandchildren. When I leave this world, I'm gone completely. I don't even expect an afterlife for reward or punishment.

However, for those of you not so unencumbered and consider yourselves conservative or patriots, please think what world you want for yourselves and your heirs. (Here's a clue: Assholes will not vote, Arrogant Assholes will vote Democrat and Idiot Assholes will vote for third parties. Harsh truths.)

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The return of the 'Cut and Runners'

"Too Cool for the Room"

That's the title for a piece by Chris Stigall for The American Thinker.

It's about this election year's crop of "cut and run conservatives." You remember that group, don't you?

They were the ones who told you that it was better to lose the 2006 congressional elections so that "true" conservatives would come storming back in 2008 after the American people tired of Dem rule. And they were wrong, of course. America is worse off, and the conservative ranks are being further reduced. Good plan, guys!

Well, some of the conservatives mentioned in this article are well on the way to establishing a new chapter of the the "cut and runners" by trashing we small-town, bitter clinger conservatives.

It is nothing short of stunning this election year to read and listen to some of our most noted national conservatives demonstrate no practical understanding of conservative America. It would serve Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Kathleen Parker, and Bill Kristol well to shirk cocktail parties and mid-town lunches with the broadcast and publishing hierarchy in Manhattan and D.C. and travel like a presidential candidate for a time. Potluck dinners, small-town festivals, state fairs, church picnics and bowling alleys would be great places to start. Shake some hands. Converse with people. Were they to dare attempt such a journey, it is without question our conservative "All Stars" would find far more Sarah Palins and far fewer Peggy Noonans. A fact, one might suspect, embarrasses them to their core.

Frankly, Peggy Noonan is a squishy conservative. I've long admired her writing and respect her brand of social conservatism. But I never thought she would be any good in a real fight. She proved that when she went to work with the Bush administration and left when she obviously felt her brilliant advice was not sufficiently heeded. I will not follow any advice from someone who gets her feelings hurt and then bitches thereafter even when it damages her movement.

As for the others, well that is for another blog post at a later date.

As for me, McCain was not my first choice for Republican candidate, nor my second choice. He was tied (maybe) for third choice. But there is no doubt of who I will be voting for in November.

And McCain's choice for Vice President was, I thought, a very good one for the base....you know, conservatives. She was not my first choice (or 12th choice, for that matter). But...Palin lives social and fiscal conservative ideals and is obviously a quick learner and a scrapper. She is not a squish like Noonan. And she also shored up some of us who had deep doubts about how much to trust McCain's attempts at conservatism.

As for the new "cut and runners" I agree with Stigall:

Ms. Noonan and company have been making the rounds for weeks now asserting Governor Palin remains an affront to conservatives' intelligence. In truth, it is Ms. Noonan and her weak-kneed colleagues carrying that banner. It is not enough for them to simply join ranks of Obama's flock and sing his praises to Pennsylvania Ave. There is no intellectual heft to be found in that. To their liberal colleagues and friends, it is considered brave and intellectually honest of them to pile on Governor Palin instead. Simply, it is cool to kick conservatives this year. Cooler still? A known conservative kicking another conservative. Now that's the pinnacle of cool.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

I just have to shout it...

I am Joe!

or rather






(Thanks to Iowahawk)

Sunday, October 05, 2008

The financial system bailout (Part 2)

Okay, so off into the unknown we do. Congress in its "wisdom" has created a probable boondoggle that may save our financial system or may further destroy it.

My position is that "big government" created this problem, so a big government solution is probably needed. I have doubts that this is the right solution.

Why?

Because the ones who caused this problem are the ones who are proposing its solution. Fox and hen house.

By the way, are you as angry as I am that the people who caused the current crisis are the very ones who have come up with a deal to "save" the financial industries? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and every one of the Dems who claimed in 2005 that everything was fine with Freddie and Fannie should be investigated and, dammit, put into jail.

Hell, remember Enron? And how the same players were calling for the head of Ken Lay? Well, Enron looks like a nothing financial scandal by comparison and Ken Lay went to jail. Ken Lay was a piker when it came to economic destruction, but that didn't save him. But I'm sure nothing will happen to Frank and Dodd....they're Dems after all.

Until the next violent revolution, such political masters will always get away with malfeasance, so long as they're Democrats. I understand the French Revolution so much better now.

I'm an accountant....and I'm sorry (Update)

Two excellent articles from the Wall Street Journal on October 1st concerning the "mark to market" accounting rule.

An excerpt from the first,

This paradox works both ways. Financial problems have not yet dragged down the economy, but it is also true that the economy is not the cause of financial-market problems. Most of the loans that have been going bad in recent months would have gone bad even if the economy had been growing twice as fast. So what is to blame for the "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression"?

The answer seems simple. Mark-to-market accounting rules have turned a large problem into a humongous one. A vast majority of mortgages, corporate bonds, and structured debts are still performing. But because the market is frozen, the prices of these assets have fallen below their true value. Firms that are otherwise solvent must price assets to fire-sale values. Not only does this make them ripe for forced liquidation, but it chases away capital and leads to a further decline in asset values.

For example, the prices of assets on the books of Washington Mutual, when it was bought by J.P. Morgan at a fire-sale price, were cited as a reason to mark-down the assets on the books of Wachovia. This, some say, forced the FDIC to arrange its sale to Citibank.

The same is true of what happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had positive cash flow when they were nationalized by the Treasury. Here's something you won't believe: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not drawn a dime from the Treasury's $200 billion facility that was created to bail them out. It was the use of mark-to-market accounting that allowed Treasury to declare them bankrupt. On a cash flow basis, they were solvent.

Mark-to-market accounting causes so much mayhem because it forces financial firms to treat all potential losses as if they were cash losses. Even if the firm does not sell at the excessively low price, and even if the net present value of current cash flows of these assets is above the market price, the firm must run the loss through its capital account. If the loss is large enough, then the firm can find itself in violation of capital requirements. This, in turn, makes it vulnerable to closure, nationalization or forced sale.

And the second, appropriately headlined as "Mark to Mayhem?" is

OK, get out your NoDoz and let's wade in. Under current interpretation of accounting rules, banks can be obliged to value loan holdings based on their liquidation or fire-sale value, even if (as now) the fire-sale values are lower than might be suggested by the cash flow and payoff prospects of the underlying assets.

Now recall that accounting is a language of abstraction. In the normal case of a public company, whatever method it uses to value its assets, it merely provides a benchmark for investors to make their own judgments. Nobody takes accounting values as the final word.

Banks, though, are subject to regulatory capital standards and therefore can be rendered insolvent overnight based on an accounting writedown. At the moment, many banks are clinging to "market" values for loans that are higher than probable fire-sale values, and doing so on tenuous grounds. In kibitzing over the Paulson plan, indeed, one knotty question was how Treasury could buy such loans at a price "fair to taxpayers" without propelling the sellers into federal receivership.

Because of all this, the regulatory state finds itself in a somewhat absurd position -- its own rules could render many financial institutions insolvent in a manner inconvenient to the state.

*******************

A mere accounting rule change won't reduce foreclosures or raise home prices -- then again, if spared drastic writedowns, banks might be more willing to lend, raising home prices and reducing foreclosures.

A mere accounting rule can't alter the underlying economics of a lending business -- then again, no longer worried about insolvency-by-accountant, investors might discover new confidence to inject capital and improve the underlying economics of a lending business.

No accounting rule is worth $700 billion. Then again, the essence of the Paulson plan was to raise the value of bank assets to help banks escape the regulatory equity trap. Does that mean we can change an accounting rule and save Congress from having to appropriate $700 billion?

Let's find out.

This is not the first time regulatory accounting rules has almost destroyed a financial industry. It was a couple of decades ago that the savings and loan industry was almost wiped out because congress changed rules that significantly contradicted previous rules that S&Ls had been forced to follow. All of a sudden, so many solvent institutions were considered insolvent. Accounting is not supposed to do that. Accounting is for clarity and transparency...or it should be. It should not be the instrument of wholesale destruction at the hands of regulators.