An Open Letter to Spammers

Good grief! Can you guys get any more stupid? Look, I shouldn't do this, but I'm going to do you a favor. Listen very carefully, because I'm only going to say this once:

• There is no part of my body that I feel needs to be made bigger. If anything, certain portions of my body need to be smaller, and I already understand that's only going to happen through diet and exercise.
• If I feel the need to deal with erectile disfunction (or have any other pharmaceutical need), I'm perfectly capable of having that conversation with my family doctor. I'm not going to have it with someone I don't know, and sending me hundreds of email messages doesn't mean we have a trusted relationship.
• I happen to work in the Information Technology industry. I'm not going to open emails that appear to come from ME, or from info@ or webmaster@ or administrator@ a domain that I control when I know I didn't send the message to myself. You couldn't possibly be more obvious if you put "THIS IS A SPAM MESSAGE" in the subject line.
• Speaking of the subject line, I'm not going to read email messages where the subject line is in Russian, or when the subject line consists of nonsensical phrases like "HoracioPuffyDick" or "Pendulum Butterfly" (I'm not making these up - these are actual messages that were blocked by my spam filter), or when it consists of a random string of characters, 0r wh3n u c1ever1y m1x l3tt3rs and numb3r$ t0 try t0 g3t ar0und my f1lt3rs. Whoever told you these were good strategies was lying to you.
• Emails that come from email addresses that consist of random characters (e.g., szosqisje@[some domain name]) will never, ever, be opened. Ever. Geez, at least most viruses and worms are clever enough to pretend to come from some real person that I might know. See previous comment about liars. Same goes for nonsensical domain names (e.g., hilarie0rax@olgafilippova.com).
• The most obvious of all are the ones where the nonsensical address is associated with a nonsensical subject line, e.g., an email from "petitioning5@kajconsulting.com" with the subject line "TamaraBodypartWhopping." (Once again, I'm not making these up, I'm looking at them right now in my spam quarantine folder.)
• I'm not going to buy cheap software from you. I know that what you're selling is, if not counterfeit, then being sold illegally, e.g., "OEM" licenses that can only be legally sold with a new PC. See previous comment about working in the IT industry. I am, in fact, hoping and praying that Microsoft tracks you down and nails your sorry ass to the wall.
• I'm not interested in a counterfeit Rolex watch. I outgrew the need to be pretentious several decades ago.
• I don't care about your opinion on which penny stocks are going to go through the roof next week.
• Sending me several identical emails in a row is actually counterproductive. (I'm sorry, that was a big word, wasn't it? It means that it makes it even less likely that I'll actually read one of your messages.)
• I'm not interested in helping you transfer several million dollars out of some third-world country. My God, are people still actually falling for that one? It's been around since before there was e-mail! You'd have to have been living in a cave for the last ten or twenty years to not know this is a scam!
• I'm not looking for an on-line institution of higher learning to sell me a diploma, and I'm even less likely to be interested when the email you send me about said institution is riddled with obvious misspellings. (But you can keep sending me those - at least they're good for a laugh when I'm having a tough day.)
• I'm not going to fall for the phony PayPal or [fill in the blank] Bank message telling me that I have to change my password right now or you're going to shut off my account. I'm particularly not going to fall for it when you send it to an on-line hosted email account (like Hotmail or gmail) that I have never associated with any of my bank accounts and/or when it claims to be from a bank that I've never done business with. What I will do is forward your email message to the fraud division of the institution in question with, once again, a fervent prayer that they track you down, lock you up, and throw away the key.

Look - you're not clever. You're not funny. You're not cute. You're just sad and annoying. Do the on-line world a favor: give it up and go get a real job. But I know you won't. You're not smart enough to know how stupid you are. Your only accomplishment is the creation of a very lucrative market for spam filtering software and services. Since I am involved in selling those, I suppose I should thank you, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

Thanks for listening - I just needed to get that off my chest.

A Little Christmas Potpourri

Greetings from the Left Coast! Today I thought I'd just share a few thoughts that have been running around in my mind that don't necessarily merit a full post of their own:

'Tis the Season for Political Polls
Obama is "surging" in Iowa! The latest poll shows him leading Hillary by 4 percentage points! Oh, by the way, if you read the fine print, it says the poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%. Now you might think that means that the worst case for Obama is that they're tied. But that's not what it means. You have to apply the factor to both candidates. In other words, Obama could have four percentage points more than the pollsters think, and, at the same time, Hillary could have four percentage points less. That would actually add up to an eight point swing...and that could go in either direction. So Obama could be 12 points ahead of Hillary, or Hillary could be 4 points ahead of Obama, and it would still be within the margin of error of the poll. So - do we really know who's leading in Iowa? Does this poll really mean anything at all? Well, it does mean that I got to share a little math lesson with you, but that's about it.

Calling all Constitutional Scholars
The media is full of scare stories about how your rights are being eroded by the Patriot Act, or by government surveillance targeted at terrorist communications, but I would submit to you that the one single part of the Constitution that has been more abused over the years than any other is the Tenth Amendment. In case you don't remember it from your civics class, here's what it says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Founding Fathers were justifiably concerned that the federal government would gradually exert more and more power over the states, so the Constitution was specifically amended to say that if the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a particular power to the federal government, or specifically deny that power to the states, then that power belongs to the states or to the people, not to the federal government. This, by the way, is the objection that a lot of people have to Roe v Wade: it's not that the federal government should outlaw abortion, it's that the federal government shouldn't be involved. It should be a matter for the states to decide through their respective state legislators who answer to the people of that state. But I digress.

What I really want to know is this: Given the inconvenient language of the Tenth Amendment, what Constitutional authority does the federal government have to dictate to private industries (in this case, the automobile manufacturers) what gas mileage their cars have to get? Isn't this something that market forces should decide? Or at the very least, the individual states? California has, of course, had more stringent emissions standards than anyone else for many years. I'm OK with that. Those laws were passed by the representatives of the people of California, and if the people of California don't like them, they can elect new representatives to change the laws. The way I read the Tenth Amendment, that's how it's supposed to work.

The Mainstream Media Just Can't Stand Good News From Iraq
In case you're still doubting that most of the media in this country has been ignoring anything out of Iraq that might actually be good news, and focusing on anything it can possibly find to advance the quagmire/failure/lost cause angle, consider this:

Mediaresearch.org monitored all of the Iraq stories that aired on the "big three" evening newscasts (that would be ABC, NBC, and CBS) for the period of September 1 - November 30. Turns out that in September, hard on the heels of General Petraeus' progress report (which they all were duly skeptical about), they aired 178 stories on Iraq, 42 of which were filed from Iraq itself. In October, they aired 108 stories. That's a 40% drop. Only 20 of them were actually filed from Iraq. In November, the number of stories dropped to 68, with only 11 filed from Iraq. So, as it became obvious that the troop surge was working, and things were getting better in Iraq, the coverage of the war declined - not just by a little bit, but precipitously! Coincidence? If you think so, I'd like to talk to you about this beachfront property I have for sale in New Mexico.

He Didn't Block a Single Document!
You know, sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh. After Hillary was questioned in an October debate about whether certain documents from the Clinton presidency had been withheld, Bruce Lindsey, the former president's "official representative on records issues" released a written statement that said, in part, "Bill Clinton has not blocked the release of a single document." In a story that ran today in the New York Sun, we find that what Lindsey said is literally true: he didn't block a single document, he blocked 2,600 of them. Is anybody surprised by this? After all, even their old buddy David Geffen (who was a strong Clinton supporter until 2001 when Bill refused to pardon David's other buddy Leonard Peltier as part of his orgy of pardons as he left office) is on record as saying, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling." Can someone please explain to me why these people have any credibility about anything?

Thanks for listening...and Merry Christmas!

I Never Thought I'd Say This, But...

Kudos to Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen of the Washington Post!

Greetings from the Left Coast! It isn't very often that you'll hear me say nice things about the content of the Washington Post, but Warrick and Eggen should be commended for the piece that ran on Sunday, December 9, and exposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Bob Graham and Jay Rockefeller as the deceitful scoundrels they are. (I would have just said "liars," but I'm trying to be nice here.)

These three Democrats are among those condemning the Bush administration and the CIA for using "torture" in the interrogation of prisoners at Guantanemo Bay and other locations. Now we find that they knew of the practices way back in 2002 and 2003 Here's what the article says, in part:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange...long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

"In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' "

(You can read the full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?sub=new, although you'll have to register with them to get to the content.)

So, when 9/11 was fresh in everyone's mind, they had no objection. Now, when they think there's political gain to be had by accusing the Republicans of condoning "torture," they're all too happy to do so. Graham claims that he has no memory of ever being told about the harsh interrogation techniques. Pelosi now claims that she thought that the techniques were only in the planning stages and had not been put into practice. They naturally assumed that no one would call them on it. For once, they were wrong.

Thanks for listening.

There's a Reason It's Called an Estimate

Greetings from the Left Coast! Hoo, boy, life has been busy. There’s been so much going on lately that I want to write about, and I just haven’t had time to do it. I hope I can get somewhat caught up during the Holidays.

First of all, you may have heard that we have a newly-released National Intelligence Estimate. This is a rather thick document produced by the National Intelligence Council. It is a collaborative effort of sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies. There is generally a set of “Key Judgments” presented, together with the “confidence level” assigned to each, and then a whole bunch of background detail that was used to arrive at the Key Judgments. Keep in mind that the NIE is a classified document. Although frequently some of the Key Judgments will be declassified and released, all of the detail will not be – because to do so would risk compromising the methods we used to gather the intelligence.

A previous NIE, back in 2005, concluded that Iran was doing everything it could to develop a nuclear weapon, and we have therefore been doing everything we can diplomatically to make sure they don’t. The new one suggests that Iran actually halted its nuclear weapons program back in the fall of 2003. As you might expect, liberals in general and Democrats in particular pounced on this like a robin on a June bug:

Lee Feinstein, Hillary Clinton’s national security director, said the report’s findings “expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends.”

Barak Obama issued a statement saying, “The juxtaposition of this NIE with the president’s suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.”

The Arizona Republic writes, “Our leader is a man entrenched, inflexible, unwilling or unable to change his mind despite any amount of evidence laid before him, even by his own administration.”

The Centre for Research on Globalization in Canada writes, “Here we’ve got a president who lied us into making war on Iraq and who, despite a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), is stubbornly trying to lie us into another war against Iran.”

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. Bush is a liar. He can’t be trusted. It's just another example of his incompetence. There’s no reason for all the saber-rattling over Iran. They’re not an imminent threat to us. We should concentrate on diplomacy. But what did the NIE actually say? As I’ve mentioned before, the Internet is a wonderful thing, because with minimal effort (like Googling “National Intelligence Estimate”) you can go right to the source. Here’s the actual text, which you can read for yourself at http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf:

“We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. [emphasis added] We judge with high confidence that the halt…was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

· We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
· We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.) [emphasis added]
· We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

Elsewhere in the report, it is stated that, “We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad – or will acquire in the future – a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.” Barring that, the report states the obvious: Iran would have to make its own fissile material. The report acknowledges that Iran has resumed its centrifuge program, and that they are “continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.” It goes on to state “with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough [Highly Enriched Uranium] for a weapon is late 2009, but that is very unlikely,” and that “with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010 – 2015 time frame.”

And if all of the above isn’t sufficiently ambiguous, how about this: “We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.” And, oh, by the way, “We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites – for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon.” Gee, ya think? Wow, who’d have thought they’d do something like that in secret?

And how about this: “We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult…In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons – and such a decision is inherently reversible.

And, finally: “We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.”

In case you’re wondering what those terms like “high confidence” and “moderate confidence” mean, here’s how the report itself defines them:

“High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A ‘high confidence’ judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.
“Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”

So…are you clear now on what the situation is over there? Here’s what I took away from the report: We’re pretty sure that their “military entities” stopped trying to make a nuclear weapon in the fall of 2003, but we’re only moderately sure that this represented a halt to their entire nuclear weapons program. We frankly don’t know whether or not they still intend to develop nuclear weapons. We know that they’re continuing to enrich uranium, and to develop other technical capabilities that could be applied to making nuclear weapons. We think that the earliest possible date that they could make a nuke is late 2009 – which, may I remind you, is only two years away – but that they probably couldn’t make one before 2013, which is early in the potential second term of whomever we’re about to elect as President next year. We think that it’s going to be tough to convince their leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons, and acknowledge that, even if they decide to do so, that decision could be reversed at any time. And we believe that if they decide to develop nuclear weapons, they’re eventually going to be successful.

Now – imagine you’re the President of the United States, and the Director of National Intelligence has just laid this report on your desk. You note the glaring coincidence, conveniently ignored by most of the media, that in the fall of 2003 we had just finished kicking the hell out of Iran’s next door neighbor, and you suspect that just maybe, this might have played into their decision to halt their nuclear program. Libya publicly announced that they were halting their nuclear program about that time as well. On one level, the report is an acknowledgement that what we’ve been doing, which is to bring international pressure to bear on Iran, is paying off to an even greater extent than we knew. It is also an acknowledgement that Iran could restart its nuclear program at pretty much any time, and if they did, they could produce a nuclear weapon within two to six years. Finally, it’s an estimate, for God’s sake! There’s nothing there that is definite. And several of our allies have serious doubts as to its accuracy.

So…what do you do? A: Say, “Gee, you know what, I was wrong all along. Those Iranians are swell guys who just want a few nuclear power plants, and I’m sure Ahmadinejad was just kidding about wanting to wipe Israel from the map. I think we should just back off on the sanctions and let diplomacy take its course.” B: Say, “Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. If you want to avoid a really problematic situation in the Middle East, now’s the time…to work together.”

If you answered “A,” then I sure as hell don’t want you in charge of keeping me and my family safe. If you answered “B,” then your name is George W. Bush. Thanks for listening.

Told Ya So...

Greetings from the Left Coast. God, I hate it when I'm right about negative stuff like this. The bits were barely dry on the monitor from my last post when Russ Mitchell, on CBS's "The Early Show" yesterday morning, said, "There are signs that investors fear the economy may be headed toward a recession. Investors remain nervous about the subprime mortgage crisis and the credit crunch." Then, on last night's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams reported that Winnebago is expecting to report its first drop in orders in the last six years, wrapping up with, "Over the last three decades of U.S. history, every time orders for mobile homes have dropped, the economy has suffered a downturn soon after." Wow! Who'd have thought that sales of motor homes would be a better leading economic indicator than the ones the Federal Reserve is tracking? This was just a day after CNBC's Erin Burnett told Brian Williams that, "Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy's growth. And if consumers really start to pull back, that is what will turn us from the r-word of resilience to the r-word of recession." According to the Business & Media Institute, network broadcasts have run 29 stories in the last month that featured that "r-word."

Let's be very clear about something. There's a precise definition of what constitutes a recession. It's not when the rate of growth slows down, which is what the Fed is actually predicting for 2008. It's not when people feel nervous or worried about the future. When a country's Gross Domestic Product declines in two consecutive calendar quarters, that's a recession. You don't have to guess whether we're in one.

Here's another thought for you to ponder. Our economy runs in cycles of expansion and contraction. It always has, regardless of which political party was in power. If you want to see what they've looked like, take a look at THIS. Over the last sixty years or so, the average peak to peak interval has been about five and a half years. However, the last two cycles have been abnormally long by historical standards - lasting closer to ten years, with the actual contraction periods being relatively short. That suggests that maybe were actually getting a little smarter about managing the economy, and that maybe Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were actually onto something with this tax cut thing.

One more thing in closing. When I was an electronic technician (many years ago) I learned about this thing called "hysteresis." This is derived from an ancient Greek word that means "lagging behind." Here are a couple of examples from everyday life: the coldest days of winter actually come several weeks after the shortest day of the year, and the hottest days of summer likewise come several weeks after the longest day of the year. That's hysteresis. Next time you're adjusting the thermostat of your furnace, turn it up until the furnace comes on. Then turn it down until the furnace turns off. You'll find that you have to go past the point where it turned on before it will turn off. When you turn it back up, you'll have to go past the point where it turned off before it will turn back on. That's hysteresis.

Well, guess what? Hysteresis affects economic cycles, too. The country was already sliding into recession when Bill Clinton left office and let Bush inherit the problem. If Al Gore had won, we would still have had the recession. Then, on top of the contraction that was already taking place, 9/11 came along and smacked us upside the head. George Bush should have won an economics prize for reacting fast enough to put policies in place - including those tax cuts - that pulled us out of that slump that fast. What should really worry you is this: if the Democrats do take the White House, and do get rid of the tax cuts, and do all of the fiscally irresponsible things that Democrats have historically done, the damage probably won't show up right away. It could take a couple of years. And when it does show up, it will be too late to stop the slide from happening - we could do all the right things, and it will still take time to get things going again. Hysteresis. Remember the word.

Thanks for listening...

A Couple of Predictions

I've been looking in my Campaign Crystal Ball, and I have a couple of predictions for you:

1. Over the next year, we'll hear a lot about "tax cuts for the rich" as the Democrats continue to stoke the fires of class warfare for political gain.

Here's the reality: In 1980, 48% of total Federal Income Tax receipts came from the top 10% of income earners. In 2004, that same top 10% paid 71% of the Income Tax. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 35% of all Income Taxes collected. In 2004, the top 5% paid 58% of all Income Taxes collected. (That's over half, for the math-challenged.) In 1980, the top 1% of income earners paid 17% of the Income Tax. In 2004, they paid 37%. (Those tax burden increases are with the "Bush tax cuts." Imagine what will happen if they're allowed to expire!) At the same time, in 2006, it is estimated that 41% of all Americans paid no Federal Income Tax whatsoever!

Lest you think that all of those people are simply too poor to pay any tax, let me remind you that only 12.7% of households fell below the federal poverty level. So there are a lot of families out there who are not "poor," but they still aren't paying any Income Tax, while well over half of the tax burden fell on the top 5% of income earners. Oh, and in case you're thinking that the top 5% must be made up of really wealthy people, any household that made over $157,176 is in that top 5%. Let me say that one more time, so we're perfectly clear: Households who made over $157,176 in annual income paid 58% of all Federal Income Tax. Households who made over $300,000 in annual income paid 37% of all Federal Income Tax.

So, to those Democrats who continually hammer home the point that the "Republican tax cuts" will disproportionately favor the wealthy, I'd just like to say, "DUH!" Of course they do! It would be mathematically impossible for any meaningful tax cuts to not disproportionately favor the wealthy, because the wealthy pay a disproportionate amount of the tax! But let me also remind you that these same wealthy individuals create most of the jobs in this country. If we let them keep more of their money, they'll invest more of it and create more jobs. That's why the "Bush tax cuts" have been so effective at stoking the country's economic engine over the last seven years.

But they'll never tell you that. They will continue the drum beat that (sadly) has worked for them in the past: "Republicans = fat cats who favor the rich at the expense of the little guy." They think we're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. I find that incredibly disrespectful, and it's another reason why I won't vote for a Democrat. You want my vote? Don't insult my intelligence.

2. Expect the "R" word to be seen and spoken early and often. No, not that one. I mean "Recession." You can expect the Democrats to be the prophets of gloom and doom, and you can expect the mainstream media to parrot the line. It's already started. To the surprise of the gloom-and-doomers, retail sales over Thanksgiving weekend were actually up somewhere between 5% and 8% (depending on whose figures you want to use) compared to the levels a year ago. But the spin has already started: Overall sales are up, but individuals are spending less. They're also increasingly shopping at Wal-Mart instead of Macy's. They've shot their wad and sales will nosedive in the coming weeks. If there's any negative economic news to be found, you'll hear it.

Here's the reality: The national unemployment rate in October, 2007, stood at 4.7%. Most economists agree that anything below 5% is, for all practical purposes, full employment, because of the number of people who are unemployable, and the fact that there will always be a certain number of people who are between jobs. Our economy has been so strong that we've been able to absorb astronomical increases in gasoline prices, and the softening of home sales, and we still created 160,000 new jobs in October. All in the middle of a war! But still we are starting to hear the media ask, "are we headed for a recession?"

There's an interesting phenomonon in the country today: when asked, most people will tell you that they're doing pretty well economically. But they'll also say that they're concerned about the overall economy and where the country is headed. Heck, how could they not be, with the constant drumbeat of negativity? And it's only going to get louder between now and next November. As we've observed previously, the news out of Iraq is starting to get good enough that even the New York Times can no longer ignore it. If it continues to improve, by next summer the Democrats will be desperate for an issue that can make the American people forget how badly wrong they were on the war issue. That issue will be the economy. No matter how good things really are, you will be told that we are on the brink of an economic disaster from which only Hillary (or whoever beats her for the nomination) can save us. Count on it.

It's not bad enough that they have to root for the country's defeat in Iraq, now they're rooting for a recession. Sheesh. Anyway, thanks for listening...and remember what I said when you see it happening over the coming months...

A National Day of Thanksgiving

Greetings from the Left Coast! Holy smoke, I can't believe it's been two weeks since my last entry! Just when I think things can't possibly get busier, they do.

No political rants today. Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate. Maybe I'll get back to that tomorrow. For now, as I sit here in front of my computer looking out the window (Hugo Montenegro had it right - the bluest skies you've ever seen are in Seattle), I just feel profoundly thankful for many, many things.

• I am thankful that I live in the United States of America. No country that has ever existed in the history of man has ever been blessed with such abundance, and in turn given as much back to the world, as this one.
• I am thankful that I was blessed with parents who raised me in a Christian home, and imparted to me spiritual values that have always served as my foundation.
• I am thankful for my beautiful wife of 22 years. She is a source of strength to me as well as my best friend, and I love her with all my heart.
• I am thankful that, between us, we managed to raise five children who have all turned out to be responsible adults, three of them now with children of their own.
• I am thankful that we are both blessed with good health, and the opportunity to work at building businesses around things that we love doing.
• Despite the many difficulties of our time, I am thankful to be living now. The technology that enhances our lives was the stuff of science fiction not that long ago. And speaking of technology...
• I am thankful for the gift of sight. Just over six months ago, after having worn corrective lenses since the fourth grade, I went from not being able to read the big "E" to near-perfect vision. The procedure took about 15 minutes, and was done with small pulses of light. I still find this concept to be wonderful in the literal sense of the word.

This morning, I was reading the text of Abraham Lincoln's original proclamation of a National Day of Thanksgiving back in 1863. I was struck by several parallels with our own situation today: In 1863, we were a nation at war - although the war was on our own continent, not halfway around the world. The nation was deeply divided over that war, and Lincoln himself was under considerable fire because the war was not going particularly well. But read and ponder, if you will, his words:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict...Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship...and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God...It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

We are blessed, as no other nation that has ever existed on the face of this planet has been blessed. And, in turn, the world has been blessed through us, regardless of what some may say. When natural disasters strike around the world, who do people turn to for help? The good old USA...and we always give it - in amounts far greater than any other nation. (Not, by the way, just in total dollars, but pretty much any way you want to measure it.) Foreign aid? We hand it out by the billions, even to countries who continually turn and bite the hand that feeds them. Technological innovations, advances in medical science, advances in food production, I could go on and on about the things that we have shared with the world - things that exist because of our system of government that encourages innovation and investment. We are not perfect, but reaching for that goal is part of that indefinable thing called "The American Spirit," and it has led to a nation composed, for the most part, of good and decent people with a generous nature who care about helping others.

Let us be truly thankful, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thanks for listening.