Ah yes, the importance of the 5th amendment.

We have a lot of rights in this country that we take for granted. Sometimes we even forget. We're trained not to question things and trust that the system works and is fair and is just. I'd suspect that the majority of the time, it is. But if you ever find yourself being questioned for a serious crime that you didn't commit, are you willing to gamble on the system being fair the majority of the time? Remember, the police are under tremendous public pressure to 'solve' and close the case. Our founders didn't think you should have to take that chance.

Here's a law professor on the subject, interesting enough video where I figured I'd write a whole post about it ;)

Regardless of whether or not you like the Clintons, one thing that's generally agreed on by everyone is Bill Clinton's calm, cool, collected approach (publicly) when campaigning. Town halls were made for this guy.

NY Times has an article talking about Bill Clinton's campaign antics and his tendency to lose his temper while campaigning for his wife. It's an interesting read, if you're into that sort of thing.

I've been thinking a lot lately on various investments that would be able to handle the pending recession. There are the obvious answers (gold, basic materials, etc.), but I'm trying to round things out a bit.

It seems to me that when money is tight, people certainly cut back their spending, but the need for entertainment and pleasantry still exists. Cheap entertainment and thrills seem like a decent bet. Movies used to fall into this category I'd think, but that's just not the case anymore. I wonder if Netflix/blockbuster and other rental outlets would fit? Video games actually work out to be cheaper than most forms of entertainment, but they have such a high barrier to entry. Gamestop might be an answer to that, being that they sell a great deal of pre-owned (cheaper) games.

My sister pointed out makeup companies. That might sound a little funny, but truthfully if a $10 thing of lip gloss makes someone feel better, then it might match up perfectly. Never under estimate the feel good powers of vanity. That would suggest who, Proctor & Gamble?

Costco, BJ's, Walmart, Target, Dollar Tree, Big Lots -- big box stores and discount chains are a likely candidate. I started wondering about home depot. Normally, I'd say probably not, but given that much of this is caused by housing, maybe. People aren't going to be able to sell like they used to and will probably be planning on staying around a little longer. There might be a decent amount of home improvement going on, it's just whether or not that amount of home improvement is greater than the home improvement that was taking place during the housing boom. Probably not, but might be worth keeping an eye on.

Vacations are likely to be cut back on as well, but that doesn't mean families still won't try to go places and it doesn't mean that business will stop sending folks to different cities. Cheap destinations, discount travel outlets, discount airlines and discount hotel chains might be worth looking into (I think I'll pass on Spirit, though ;). When Kat and I were visiting family up in Ohio, we went to an indoor water park. I remember it as being a bit more pricey than I would have suspected, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were cheaper alternatives. It wasn't a water park like oh-my-god-a-water-park!, but more of an indoor pool with a bunch of neat slides attached to a hotel/destination type of place.

I've already been researching and following along with the alternative fuels world. I think given our economic situation, national politics and the general pulse of things, alternative energy will become even bigger in all this. A big part of our economic situation is oil. China isn't going to slow down their growth anytime soon, so oil demands aren't going to go down anytime soon. High oil creates higher inflation. The best way for us to reduce this added inflation may very well be alternative energy sources (combined with some clever Fed moves, of course). If the next president of the United States is a Democrat or one of the few Republicans pushing for massive energy reform, this sector will blow up.

Am I missing anything? Is my head in the right place or am I off base? I wasn't quite "investing age" during the last real recession we had, so I'm kinda basing this all off of logic. ;)

Too funny to not share.

I believe that dissent is patriotic.

I also believe that a high concentration of the people who attend demonstrations like these are clinically nuts (certainly not all of them, to be fair).

I just got back from taking a bunch of photos from the war protest taking place over at Lake Eola. The idea of the protest itself is completely fine by me. The peaceful expression of what is an extremely emotional issue is why we're so lucky to live here. It provokes conversation and discussion. It encourages people to research their thoughts and educate themselves. It serves as a mechanism to drive voter participation. Without protest, without that sense of "cognitive dissonance", we'd endanger the conversation and discourse that's so desperately needed in this country.

The thing is, for every parent who has suffered the loss of a child, for every pacifist who doesn't believe in violence, for every student who disagrees with our foreign policy, there are a handful of people who haven't cut their hair since 1959 and look like they're stoned out of their minds. Then you get the absurd Vietnam-vets-were-baby-killers crowd, the increasingly ridiculous 9-11 truther crowd (side note: Bill Mayher is right, 4 mins in), and the straight up we-hate-america folks. Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly, but the presence of some of these stereotypes truly undermines any reasonable effort these protesters have at being taken seriously.

"Bush = Hitler," really? Don't you see how that makes you come across as not only ignorant of world history, but also as a little bit looney? On one hand, we have Hitler. The definition of all that is evil. A murderer of tens of millions of people. Someone hell bent on the complete domination of Europe by a largely inferior Germany and smart enough to have had a realistic chance of it until the rest of the world came together in their own defense. The man was systematically attempting to erase an entire race of people. On the other hand, we have Bush. He responded to an attack that took place on domestic soil in a controversial way after he was given a blank check by a dual-party congress elected (and re-elected) by the American people. We're not sure if he can read.

Yeah. I can see how the two are similar. Why don't we all listen to your thoughts on foreign policy?

I admire most of the folks who braved the rain this afternoon to come downtown. I admire the counter-protesters who did the same. I can't wait for the day in the future when so much of the confusion and the pain surrounding 9/11 and its aftermath has been resolved. I just wish the current state of the world wasn't such a breeding ground for conspiracy, conjecture, hyperbole and cynicism. People forget that in some countries, criticizing the government would be enough to have them thrown in jail. People forget that while they're complaining about the rain that came during their protest, volunteer soldiers are fighting overseas for a country that they love.

I hope those carrying these anti-Bush/anti-America signs are at least able to recognize the irony.

Kiel was able to score a couple of VIP passes to the Republican Debates held here in Orlando on Sunday night. Massive, massive thank you to him for bringing me along.

It was a pretty crazy event. We went early enough to walk around, take it all in and talk to some folks. The whole political process, when viewed up close, is extremely surreal and probably the best people watching you can possibly ask for. Some of you know what Kathryn does for a living, but for those of you that don't... well, I've been around it in some shape or form for a little while now. Seeing it all take place in our hometown, and being right up close to all the candidates at once though, was a really cool experience. Kiel and I had 5th or 6th row seats with our names on them, which meant that we were just to the side of the moderators (crazy close) and were probably the only "commoners" in the immediate area.

I won't go into how I feel about various candidates or anything like that (if you like politics, feel free to ask me in person.. I've grown immune to discussing it and keep a pretty open/even mind), but afterwards we walked up to the stage where a couple of the "2nd tier" candidates were hanging around conversing with folks. Gov. Huckabee, who has been gaining momentum lately, was one of them.

I previously mentioned that he's a member of the same college fraternity I was active in back in the day (TKE). I think his son is an active member and he was brought in as an honorary, but I'm not sure the details. I was having trouble getting his attention (he had a really big crowd around him) and his handlers were trying to walk him off the stage. I finally shouted, "Good luck, Frater!" and he turned around with "Are you a teke?! God bless you, frater." and reached back to shake my hand. Yeah, I slipped him the secret cool guy handshake. That's how we roll. I'm not sure he caught it though ;)

I have always heard stories of how President Reagan would go out of his way to shake hands with tekes, and I'm sure every frat has their own similar story. With Reagan, the line is that he's the only president to have visited a fraternity house while in office (Fundraiser at Purdue, I believe), and he mentions TKE occasionally in his diaries. He remained active in the fraternity as an alumni pretty much until he was completely unable. I've seen his signature on a letter to TKE as late as 1999.

It probably seems extremely silly to the vast majority of folks, heck, it seems silly to me simply writing about it, but it makes for fun conversation. I've served as a Chapter Advisor (up at Maryland) and occasionally try to help mentor/advise some of the guys down here at UCF (just for good karma, not in any official capacity). Alumni stories help inspire kids to over achieve (one less game of beer-pong, one more hour of studying.. or, you know.. not.. whatever). "Look what this guy, who you have something in common with, has been able to do." I now have my own first hand account to share and can quit making it all up as I go along. Rad ;)

Anyway, the day was a lot of fun. If I understand correctly, Democrats are refusing to campaign in Florida over some political beef with the state party (translation: if you're a dem in florida, your primary vote no longer counts for anything). Seems a bit short sighted to completely boycott such a battle ground state. If this election comes down to Florida again, and Dem's lose, they officially have no one to blame but themselves. It also would have been hella' interesting to compare/contrast similar events from different sides of the aisle. Maybe next time around...

Bin Laden released a new tape. It's typical crazy jibber jabber, but he does outline the two conditions that this war can end. Number one, is that they win. Number two, is that we abolish our democracy (paraphrased). This isn't new information. If you read his original fatwah (his declaration of war), he says (again, paraphrased) that we shouldn't be allowed to create laws that supercede Allah's (aka, democracy).

I'm curious to hear from any Ron Paul supporters who want to explain the Congressman's stance on the war, in context to the things OBL says.

For those not politcally inclined, Congressman Paul asserts that they fight us because we've been interfering with the middle east and that if we withdrawl immediately, they'll stop. It''s an interesting argument (and is, at least, a part of his fatwah), but it seems completely counter to most of the information that comes out of Al Qaeda (especially recent, current information). Congressman Paul, of course, says that it's not/etc.

Anyone want to take this one? Ground rules: No flames, no personal attacks, no 9/11 truth movement, and everyone play nice. I'm genuinely interested in hearing explanations from the Ron Paul crowd based on non-conspiracy theory evidence.

There's a link floating around the interwebs that claims Reagan wrote about having to 'find George's son a job' in his diary. The quote reads,

'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.'

It's attributed to May 17th, 1986. The actual May 17th, 1986 entry is,

'had lunch with members of the Honor Guard; radiocast; Rex returned in good condition.'

Not nearly as colorful.. ;) I just thought I'd post my own little snopes style report on this before 50 people try and send it my way. Sometimes things posted on the internet for "fun" are taken in completely the wrong light. Check your sources ;)

I stumbled across this while searching the TKE.org site for an old friend of mine. Kind of fun.

YITB, Frater ;)

Bin Laden posted a new letter that was originally reported in the Observer. In it, he answers the question of "Why" they are fighting, and what it is they expect us to do for them to stop.

Here's the thing -- we can't go backwards in time and change (not that we'd particularly want to in most cases) foreign policy. We can sit around and argue and point fingers at each other all day and night but what we have to pay attention to are the specific things that Bin Laden and his followers are looking for. They're demands that all Americans will probably disagree with. These demands soundly support the "they hate our freedom" tag line we've all grown to know and love.

I've chopped up the letter some. It's not meant to be out of context, just removing some of the lunacy and ranting to keep it relevant. Their goal (which has been stated before..) is to rid us of the ramifications of our freedom -- tolerance of religions (or from it), tolerance of homosexuality, legal sex outside of marriage, drugs and alcohol, exploitation of women (even those who want to wear that two piece..), gambling, and here's the kicker hidden in there -- our ability to create our own laws as "we will and desire".

If that's not a definition of the benefits of our free democracy (which he seemingly does, in fact, hate), I do not know what is. It's obvious that "they" plan on fighting the war. The question we need to ask ourselves isn't whether or not we should be fighting -- it would appear that we have little choice at this point-- it's where and how. In mountains, in a desert, or in an American city?

---- excerpts, full transcript here ----

Why

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. ....

What "they" are after

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives? (emphasis mine)

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html

I can hear the cries from all my party-line republican friends already -- this is somehow the liberal media promoting an obviously biased report... by... a... panel of world wide.. .scientists... ahem.

Again, the question remains.. What would qualify as evidence? What will it take to, at the very least, see a comprehensive US government study on this issue?

Technology advancements over the last 25 years no longer allow for the economic argument. Limited government arguments no longer apply when we're already enforcing standards in the areas that would require improvement. From a conservative point of view, changing these standards of production would mean less dependence on foreign energy sources while generating more globally competitive products -- a strong win for everyone in the U.S.

.....Somebody needs a new speech writer.


(hat tip to Calmus for sending this my way ;)

"Most journalists and pundits have limited knowledge of science; as a result, they tend to pick whichever science best suits their political prejudices. Both science and journalism deserve better. Perhaps we can start by remembering that an ideological crusade can be as strong an inducement to bend the truth as the profit motive."

Amen.

A Republican friend of ours up in DC called me a "dirty hippie" when I started jokingly blaming weather patterns on Al Gore ("Al Gore's f'n up the World!"). Once she realized I was teasing Al Gore, she backed off.. But the fact is, I think there is a great deal of truth to global warming, and think Al Gore is doing a bang up job bringing it to attention. He's just fun to tease. In this friends mind, I really should stand out as a "dirty hippie".. A capitalistic, government reducing, dirty hippie.

The kicker is, I'm willing to bet that this particular person comes from a liberal arts background, never has taken a science class of any substantial merit and has never looked into understanding even the basic premise of the theory of global warming.. The party line states its a farce, and a farce it will remain.

Technology has come a long, long way since Reagan ordered the solar panels off the roof. The economic argument continually holds less and less water. On the democrat side, they only promote scientific studies that back worst case scenarios. It's "politics of fear," only instead of terrorism, it's hurricanes.

What will it take to actually, seriously, look into this issue? And would either party be willing to admit that they were wrong even if we did? What would be so bad about increasing the automobile standards so that we aren't dead last in the entire world? Or maybe increasing appliance standards to energy star levels? These aren't suggestions to simply encourage a healthier environment, they're suggestions to reduce our energy use overall (and consequently dependence on oil). That fits both "sides" agendas, no?

Just some numbers to think about, another perspective to take in... Enjoy ;)