This weekend our politicians were working hard to give several more billion of our tax dollars away to private industry. Last fall, they gave hundreds of billions of dollars to banks and financial institutions to keep them afloat. This time, the U.S. auto industry has been shamelessly begging for tens of billions more for themselves. And who can blame them? Everyone wants a piece of the pie. I mean, when someone’s giving money away, only an idiot wouldn’t want some of it, right?

Now look: I supported the bank bailout in its original form – through the original idea to purchase banks’ toxic securities. I even wrote a lengthy blog entry about it. I was not, however, a fan of how they actually ended up spending the $700 billion or how our politicians changed the bill from three pages to several hundred. While I could swallow the idea of the government using taxpayer dollars to buy undervalued debt, I have fundamental issues with the idea of our government being shareholders in private industry.

But I’m not here to talk about banks right now. Despite the fact that I disagree with the government’s methods for bailing out the banks, I do understand that there is a need to make sure that few banks fail, because our financial system can go into pure chaos if many major banks fail. But what about the auto industry?

If we let the auto industry fail, what is the effect on our overall economy? Well, it isn’t going to help. Clearly it would cause unemployment to go even higher. Certain towns, especially Detroit, will be hit extremely hard if they have auto factories or offices.

And all of that is bad – no question about it. But does it really affect other industries? Certainly not in the way that banks failing would affect things. If banks fail, people and business can’t get loans, some lose their savings, and the credit crunch would get much, much worse. But the auto industry isn’t nearly as intertwined in our lives. Unless you’re employed by a U.S. auto company or one of their suppliers, or live in Detroit, then you probably won’t notice at all, except that you have to buy a foreign car next time.

While the negative aspects mentioned earlier are bad, they are relatively contained to just the auto industry and its suppliers. Once the dust settles, and the economy improves, these people will find new jobs doing other things and life will go on – just without U.S. auto companies.

Is that bad – does the U.S. really need auto companies? Let’s face it: We can’t compete with less developed countries when it comes to manufacturing. But that makes sense. Anyone who has learned anything about development cycles in international trade theory knows that as nations evolve and become more developed, certain industries cannot be sustained in the most advanced nations.

For several decades, the auto industry has been doing incredibly badly, always on the brink of disaster. I think that we’re finally at the end of their life cycle. And that’s fine – we can get our autos elsewhere through trade. For quite some time now, other countries have done a better job at producing better cars, at lower cost.

I just don’t see how it makes sense to save an industry that is doomed to failure anyway. Again, with banks, this was a unique situation. Banks have not been having trouble staying in business for decades like the auto companies. If you bail them out, they will be able to sustain their business in the future once things recover. The same can’t really be said of auto companies. They were doing badly before the recent economic slowdown, and smart money says that they will continue to do badly in the future.

I have my own theory about why U.S. auto companies have done so badly, but I’ll save that that for another time. If you want to hear it, let me know. But it’s pretty clear that auto companies have had serious problems for a very long time. Throwing tens of billions of dollars at them, or nationalizing them, will just help them to do business badly for another five to ten years, until they run out of that money too and need another bail out.

Unfortunately, it’s not up to you or me. Our politicians are already in the process of passing an initial bail out – a modest one of $15 billion or so to get the auto companies through the year. Then, once Obama takes office, they’ll probably pass another bill giving them another $20 billion or so. For a variety of reasons, it’s in the best interest of the politicians who will hold power for the next four years to prevent the auto companies from failing, even though bailing them out isn’t in the best interest of the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

And I don’t know about you, but my next car won’t be American. I’m as patriotic as they come, but I can’t see making a major purchase like an automobile from a company whose survival seems dubious at best. Besides, most of the cars I find appealing are from foreign auto companies anyway. I’ll probably buy a Nissan or a Toyota. I have a funny feeling that I’m not alone.

It’s official: Hillary Clinton will be the next Secretary of State. If you believe what the news media says, then this is a shock to virtually everyone. And that only makes me wonder: are they lying, or is virtually everyone really that stupid?

Ever since Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, it was clear that a deal must have been struck. Clinton had a huge number of delegates and could have made Obama’s life very, very difficult at the convention, if she had chosen to. On one hand, that might have been counterproductive from a party standpoint. But on the other hand, this was probably her last chance at the presidency, as it’s unlikely that she’ll run again in 2016, her next opportunity, when she’ll be in her late 60s.

It was fairly obvious that Obama wouldn’t pick her for VP, because that’s too close of a role to the President. Obama would not want to have to deal with her on the level. But more importantly, it would not really have helped his ticket. At the end of the day, virtually every Hillary Clinton supporter probably ended up voting for Obama, without her as VP. Instead, he picked Biden, who made up for the characteristic that he most lacked: experience. Clinton had some experience, being in her second term in the Senate, but not nearly as much as Biden.

With VP being out of the question, that left a position in his Cabinet. Obviously, Obama was forced to make a pretty significant concession, as some would argue that Secretary of State is the most important of the positions in the Cabinet. Clearly, Clinton accepted this concession and agreed to support and campaign for Obama.

Of course, putting Clinton in the position of Secretary of State also ensures that he can keep Clinton under his control. He won’t have to worry about any opposition from her in the Senate. He also doesn’t have to worry about her possibly trying to run against him in 2012 and being what Ted Kennedy was to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election. Obama surely saw this as a win-win situation, as he has neutralized the Hillary threat.

Yet, Secretary of State is no small role. So Obama will have to deal with her on a very regular basis. But there are two things to remember here. First, Obama and Clinton were never really that different. They both essentially have the same core beliefs, and their differences in terms of policy during the campaign were really only in the details. So it’s unlikely that Clinton would really feel the need to go against what Obama believes 99% of time anyway. Second, even if she did disagreement with him on something, the Secretary of State does not have any real autonomy. She works for Obama. She carries out his diplomacy, not her own.

It’s funny, because I predicted this several months ago. As soon as Clinton conceded, I was certain that she was getting something in return, and my prediction was Sectary of State. I think I’m a relatively smart guy, but I don’t consider myself a genius. So I’m not sure how it’s possible that everyone is so surprised about Obama nominating her for this post, when I saw it coming months ago. I think it’s all just an act to try to hide the fact that this role was probably bargained for months ago. But maybe that’s just my cynicism coming out and people really are that lacking in foresight.

These days, abortion is beginning to feel neglected: gay marriage has replaced it as the issue de jour. Ever since California somehow voted to ban gay marriage (despite deciding on the same ballot that parental notification – not requiring permission – wasn’t important for minors getting abortions), things escalated to a level that this issue has never seen. There have been protests, marches, walk-outs, etc. We need a solution to get things back to normal and eliminate the hostility.

But the problem of gay marriage is not an easy one, because it boils down to a problem similar to that which abortion has – it depends, not on reason or logic, but on basic definitions that one holds. For example, in the abortion argument, if you believe that a fetus is a person, then you probably don’t like abortion; if you believe that a fetus is not a person, then you probably don’t have a problem with it. Similarly, if you believe that marriage is defined as the joining of a man and a woman, then you probably think gay marriage should remain illegal; if you believe that the definition of marriage should be expanded to be between two men or two women, then you probably think gay marriage should be legalized.

Because the problem here is based on definitions, neither side is likely to change the other’s mind very easily. When someone believes that something is fundamentally defined in a certain way, a good argument from either side falls flat, because the two conflicting parties are essentially comparing apples and oranges. As a result, we need another way to solve the problem beyond a clever argument from either side.

I think I have a simple solution: the government should refrain from defining what marriage is – for anyone. In particular, I do not believe that the government should be in the business of defining marriage for its citizens, straight or gay.

Let me explain where this idea comes from. Marriage, as defined by many people, especially those who have a problem with gay marriage, has its roots in religion. While there are certainly non-religious people that get married, those who consider the institution too “sacred” to allow gay marriage to be legalized are almost exclusively the ones who believe marriage to be a religious ceremony.

The kicker, of course, is that the constitution is very clear that everyone has freedom of religion. As a result, if one group of people practices a religion that condemns gay marriage, then that’s their right. Of course, on the flip side, if another group of people practices a religion that allows gay marriage, then that’s their right too.

But this point is revealing: if marriage is so closely tied to religion for so many, and the government is supposed to be staying out of religious stuff according to the Constitution, then why does the government regulate marriage at all? I find this a curious question, and I think it is the root of the entire problem with the gay marriage issue. The government has no business regulating marriage for anyone.

So the solution is simple. The government needs to revise its laws to do away with any mention of marriage. Then, whether gay or straight, you can define marriage however you like, and the government could care less. And no one on either side could object either, because personal religious freedom can be exercised freely in this country.

The obvious objection to this solution is logistics. How do people file taxes, for example, if the government does not recognize marriage? The answer here isn’t as complicated as you might think – just have everyone file as individuals, even if they are “married” according to their spiritual leaders of choice. Many other issues can be revised through the use of wills and other legal documentation, where you could include your spouse in whatever aspects of your life the government used to regulate through defining marriage. I really don’t think it would be too difficult to make all this work out.

And that’s it. Suddenly, the issue of gay marriage is put to sleep. Like so many other political issues, by the government getting out of its own way, it can eliminate this divisive issue for its people. Surprisingly enough, the basis for doing so is already in the Constitution through our freedom of religion. Ironically, all this time, the government defining marriage in the first place has been unconstitutional.

Have you ever felt like today is the first day of the rest of your life?

There was but one small pleasure that I hoped to derive from our recent election season finally ending: at least I would not have to look at any more Obama pins being worn by every other person I walked by on the streets of Manhattan. The election has been over for nearly 10 days now, but the pins have survived.

I find this odd. The election is over; Obama has won. Why do so many of his followers feel the need to continue to display these pins? I know that many of these people felt they suffered in agony during the Bush administration for 8 long years, but the same could be said of Republicans having suffered through Clinton for 8 years. Yet, I don’t remember seeing Bush pins worn for even a day after the election.

Now listen: I know that this guy is viewed as a kind of Jackie Robinson of American politics, but why does his color matter so much now? I don’t mean to sound insensitive here, just pragmatic. This isn’t 1947. I almost feel like it’s embarrassing that we’re making such a big deal out of the fact that we finally elected a not completely white president. I mean, if we’re such a racially evolved nation in 2008, shouldn’t the color the president be irrelevant instead of remarkable? In a nation that seeks to be “color blind,” why are we making so much of color?

But I think the race issue is actually somewhat incidental to the insane obsession that many of his followers have. I think, instead, the answer lies in something very disturbing: Obama is viewed as far more than just a politician. Many seem to be giving him almost supernatural status. I know I am not the first one to explain that some of his followers treat Obama like the “Messiah,” but it has almost gotten worse instead of better.

Many of his followers are acting like he is the best president since Abraham Lincoln — but he hasn’t even been sworn in. It boggles my mind. He has done nothing so far. He ran a great campaign, and that’s super. But in terms of actual governing, he’s got less experience than any president-elect since at least 1900. I honestly can’t imagine how Obama can possibly live up to the insane expectations that people are developing for him. I mean, it’s almost like people expect that in four years, annual GDP growth will be 10%, unemployment will be zero, there will be world peace, everyone will be living in the lap of luxury and global warming will be eliminated. There’s an outside shot that he might even cure cancer.

Listen: If that’s what it looks like in 4 years, I’ll vote for Obama in 2012, no question about it. However, in the meantime, I’m creeped out by the way people are viewing this guy. I mean, it’s more than a little reminiscent of communist dictators/political figures propaganda. Most of the pins I have seen resemble the following sticker, which moveon.org is giving away for free:

Here’s a propaganda poster from China’s Mao:

Another from Stalin:

And here’s one from Castro’s murderous communist thug Che that ignorant hipsters like to wear as a t-shirt:

Am I the only one that sees creepy similarities here? This is not what American politics is supposed to be about. These pins and stickers of Obama are a dangerous kind of propaganda: they seek to brainwash a public that someone is more than just a person. They persuade greatness with no basis for praise. Again, I am not saying that Obama does not necessarily have it within him to be a great President; I hope he does. But we have zero evidence of that. He ran a campaign based on “change” (whatever that means), and showed an incredibly short resume without any proof that he knows how to lead a nation. To assume he’s America’s savior is beyond presumptuous.

I am not saying that it’s bad to like a political candidate, but just remember, at the end of the day, a politician is still just a politician. Personally, I don’t trust any of them. And there is no politician, on either side of the aisle, who is worthy of our worship. A President’s power is (hopefully) limited; consequently, so will be his accomplishments. Politics is still a game (yes, game) of compromise in a hopelessly sluggish environment. Changing things in federal politics is kind of like herding cats. It’s not impossible, but it isn’t nearly as easy as any candidate may imply, and an uphill battle the whole way.

So I just hope that people remember this, and stop treating Obama, or any other politician in the future, like he is some kind of a Messiah. If for no other reason, then for Obama’s sake. Right now, he’s almost being set up for failure, because I can’t begin to imagine how he (or any other human) can possibly live up to the expectations being formed. If liberals are right, and he is a great President, that that’s super. But he is still just a man, not a religious icon.

I found this kind of amusing. Apparently the Obama team takes background checks very seriously. Kind of wacky stuff.

NY Times: “For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All”

I can’t help but wonder if worrying this much about someone’s background might cause you to overlook the best candidate for the job who might have made some mistakes in the past. I understand the need to make sure the people that work for you aren’t child rapists or something, but this kind of thing looks like you’re creating a culture of robot zombies. I mean, I doubt Stalin’s background checks were this extensive.

In any case, if anyone is applying for a job, let me know how filling out the application goes!

In the days after the election, reports began to surface about the executive orders that president-elect Obama is likely to enact. Many of these potential executive orders consist of negating executive orders imposed by Bush. There is little doubt, however, that he will create some new ones of his own as well. All Presidents do.

Executive orders are not a new concept. They have been around since 1789. They are also not exclusive to one party or the other. All presidents seem to enjoy exercising their authority in creating them. Their originally conceived purpose was to help the Executive (the President) to direct his officers and branches of the Executive. They are also especially important in times of war, when Congressional legislation might be too slow or cumbersome a process for a Commander-in-Chief to have to deal with.

But since the early 1900s, it seems that things are getting a little out of hand. These more recent executive orders have taken a different direction than was their original intent. It seems that Presidents are using them to legislate far beyond simply directing their Executive branches. In fact, the Constitution never explicitly says that the President has the power to directly legislate without a check from Congress.

As mentioned, I am not here to blame one party for taking too much liberty in their Executives dispensing these orders. They both do it. Though, through federal government website, I did some calculations just for fun. Since Truman, Republican Presidents have averaged 51 executive orders per year, while Democratic Presidents have averaged 80 per year. It might be interesting to note that the lowest per-year number of executive orders came from George W. Bush, at a mere 33.5 per year, with his father second lowest at 41.5, and Clinton third lowest at 45.5.

To see an Executive using a truly inordinate amount of power through executive orders, one should look back to FDR, who averaged 311 per year. While some of these were, no doubt, in response to World War II, at least half of them were in response to the Great Depression. He used our economic troubles at the time to declare a state of emergency and justify the use of extensive executive orders, doing all kinds of wacky things like seizing the gold of U.S. citizens.

Many executive orders have been struck down by the Supreme Court over the years. Indeed, I would argue that many should be struck down — any attempt of a President to legislate beyond an order that truly just regulates his branch seems well beyond what the Constitution permits. I have no idea why, if a law ought to be enacted, it shouldn’t be done so through the proper channels, those channels being the Houses of Congress.

Because of this, I would love to see some reform come into play for executive orders. I have no idea why they haven’t been questioned more over the years. It seems obvious to me that many of these orders should not be permitted as a part of the Executive’s power. Yet, nobody really seems to notice or care. As a result, I’m sure my hope will not be realized anytime soon. I just worry that one day things could go back to the way they were under FDR where a president becomes impatient with Congress and decides to legislate for them. That is not what our Constitution intended, and giving an Executive that much power seems like a very troublesome precedent.

Sunday, November 2, 2008, 1:30pm

Cuisine: Malaysian
Price Point: $$ Relatively Inexpensive

Website
Citysearch
Open Table: N/A

I have been to Penang a number of times. I have always enjoyed it. It used to be located about a block away from its current location on Columbus Ave., but unfortunately they were priced out of that space and a ridiculous looking clothing store named “Cuesto Barcelona” is moving in. Luckily, they did not go far.

Unfortunately, the old space provided a slightly better decor and atmosphere, but the new space is not bad either. It’s a clean, sleek interior, with Malaysian motifs prevalent.

Although this time I was there was for brunch, I have been there for dinner several times; the entrees are essentially the same. The main difference is that their lunch menu (offered at brunch on the weekends) is a bit more limited, but provides great values with exactly the same dinner entrees offered at nearly half the price at around $10. It also comes with soup, salad, and spring rolls.

I ordered their Pineapple Chicken. I was delighted to see that this was not a white-sauce Chinese-style pineapple chicken, nor with the chicken fried like Chinese-style Sesame Chicken. Instead, it consisted of a moderately spicy brown curry sauce and a whole boneless breast of chicken. Interestingly enough, the breast does not come cut, so I had to cut it into pieces. This, however, did not bother me: I far prefer this to the alternative — dealing with the often gnarly pieces of chicken provided in many chicken dishes at other Asian restaurants.

My girlfriend got the Sweet and Sour Chicken. Although it is a traditional Chinese dish, Penang’s had a slightly different spin. Most notably, it did not consist of heavily battered fried chicken. Instead, this chicken was fried but very minimally battered, and a much lighter dish as a result.

We both got chicken, but Penang also offers a number of delicious seafood-inspired dishes I have gotten in the past. Their menu actually has a wide diversity of choices.

Although we did not get dessert at this meal, their dessert menu is extensive, and if I recall, quite good. It contains traditional Malaysian and traditional American offerings.

Conclusion

Penang is one of those neighborhood restaurants that can easily fall under the radar, but should not. Although their food might not win any accolades from gourmet food critics, it is quite good and extremely reasonably priced. It also provides a very different Asian food experience from your usual Chinese or Sushi spots.

Ratings:

Food Quality: 7
Food Creativity: 7
Wine List: N/A
Specialty Drinks: N/A
Service: 7
Ambiance: 6
Décor: 6
Overall Score: 7

The Democrats seem pretty convinced that they have a mandate through this week’s election. On the surface of things, you can see what they’re talking about. After all, Obama got upwards of 360 electoral votes and they won significant increases in their House and Senate majorities.

While they certainly reigned triumphant Tuesday, I’m not convinced that this win meant that America has given the Democrats permission to push the far-left agenda that they are excited to pursue. Even if you disregard the fact that Obama’s win is due in large part to the economy tanking a month before the election (McCain was ahead in the polls before things went to hell), what this election boiled down to was who could best differentiate themselves from a very unpopular president. Obviously a Democrat should win that battle very easily.

The fight in this election, as in all elections, is not to seem like more of an extremist for your party — it’s to appeal to the swing voters. Obviously, by definition, swing voters are moderate. Given that fact, the person who best appeals to those swing voters must appear to be most moderate. This is the image that Barack Obama created for himself throughout his campaign, despite having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, and probably being the most liberal president-elect since FDR. Just to reiterate, if you ignore what happened with the economy, Obama won because he convinced people that he was more different from Bush and more moderate than McCain. He did not win because he convinced more people that far-left policies were best for the nation.

Add on to this the fact that he did not win by a sweeping majority. Sure, he did well in the electoral votes, but many of the swing states he won, he only squeaked by McCain. This can be seen rather clearly through the popular vote. Despite the fact that he had an solid majority of the electoral votes, he had a measly 52% majority in the popular vote. That means that 48% of the nation did not give him a mandate. That’s not a small number.

Then there is the electoral map. This cool map is provided by the New York Times. It shows the breakdown by county. Check it out.

(from nytimes.com)

Call me crazy, but I don’t see a nation of blue. In fact, by area, I think it’s pretty clear that red is equal to blue, if not greater. As we all know, the Democrats tend to do well in the highly populated urban areas, but this is only a small part of our nation’s area. Again, it seems likely that most of our nation’s cities and counties have not provided an obvious mandate.

I am pretty sure that most people who voted for Obama haven’t the foggiest clue what his administration paired with a very strong Democratic Congress is going to actually be like. And that’s fine, because what’s done is done, and they’ll find out soon enough. I’ll be very interested to see their reaction, as I do not believe this will be the change many of them envisioned.

This week, America voted for change. They’re going to get it. The Democrats feel they have a mandate, and with essentially a filibuster proof majority (the few technical votes short will be supplemented by Republicans with extremely liberal voting records) there will be nothing to stop them. Here are some changes that I anticipate that we will see over the next few years.

The economy will get much worse.

With Obama promising to increase corporate taxes, personal taxes on those he defines as wealthy, capital gains, and adding trade barriers, things are going to go from bad to worse. I believe we are at the start of another great depression sure to materialize through these policies. It will likely last at least through 2010. I see unemployment increasing to well above 10% and remaining there for 5-6 quarters, possibly longer. I could (and might) write an entire essay on exactly why that will happen, but to anyone who has taken an Econ 101 class, it should be pretty clear.

The center of the financial universe will shift from New York to London or Hong Kong.

Some might argue that this shift began a few years ago, but it will be complete over the next few years. The Democrats in Congress will create regulations like nothing the financial community has ever seen. This will deter people from doing business in the U.S., because it will make things very difficult. Instead, markets abroad will benefit from getting this business because those countries will not have to deal with excessive regulation.

Congress will pass the creation of a “living wage.”

Obama and his friends in Congress have been looking forward to being able to enact a “living wage” bill for a while. They already increased the minimum wage substantially quite recently (in 2007, the Democratic Congress increased minimum wage by 40% from $5.15 to $7.25 in a three step process ending this July — to coincide nicely with our depression to push unemployment even higher). But a living wage means an even more drastic increase in the minimum wage, in excess of another 40-50% to exceed $10.

We will get universal healthcare.

And with it, all the baggage that it includes. You will see a shift for people wanting to pay less and take advantage of the government program, which will increase the cost to government to multiples of what Obama’s people have suggested. This will obviously result in either more national debt, or even greater taxes. But probably a combination of the two. Another result will probably be setting a (lower) price level on what doctors can charge for their services. Doctors will begin retiring much younger, because it will no longer be worth it for them to work, and we will likely face a doctor shortage, creating the kind of doctor appointment “waiting lists” you hear about in other countries that have socialized medicine.

We will relax sanctions against our enemies.

We will begin trading with Cuba, and increase trading with places like Venezuela. Obama will welcome the leaders of these nations and others like Iran in the Middle East to the White House for talks, which will generally result in our providing those countries with massive increases in foreign aid. They will still continue to be aggressive to their neighbors and create weapons of mass destruction despite our aid, because that’s what aggressive nations do.

Congress will bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.”

See my prior entry about this one. Yet another dagger in the heart of free speech.

We will have an enormous influx of illegal immigration.

It’s unclear exactly what Obama will do about our illegal immigration problem, but it’s pretty safe to assume our borders will be far more open under an Obama administration than they were under a Bush administration. Of course, this will also affect our national security concerns.

We will lose the wars.

We will pull out of Iraq before they are ready to run the country themselves. We will also pull out of Afghanistan before solidifying our position and eliminating the Taliban. Al Qaeda will strengthen in both of these regions and no longer be on the run.

Israel will cease to exist.

Iran, Syria, and/or Lebanon will finally have the opportunity to flex their muscles against Israel knowing that the U.S. commander-in-chief will not retaliate harshly, if at all. It would not surprise to see Iran or others use nuclear weapons against Israel.

I hope that all of my predictions are wrong. Sadly, I doubt many will be.