I Support the Bears
I support the Bears. I strongly resent statements to the contrary by other Bears fans. I just do not understand why they must play this game in Miami against the Colts. The Carolina Panthers are the team that eliminated us from the playoffs last year, not the Colts. The Bears have diverted their attention from defeating this foe toward a team that had nothing to do with that tragic day. Hasn’t the season been long enough? I am tired of this unrealistic goal of defeating each football team that wants to take us down. Coach Lovie Smith claims to be making progress. 255 points scored by opponents, 22 interceptions, 3 losses? He calls this progress? No. Now is the time to withdraw our players. Enough is enough. This season brings to mind painful memories of the Bears 2004 season in which they missed the playoffs with a 5-11 record. The coaching staff says it demoralizes the players when I boo loudly at each misstep and fail to notice when they score touchdowns, but I have the right to debate and disagree with any coaching staff! I do support the Bears, even though we all know that if they weren’t poverty stricken idiots without any other options they wouldn’t be stuck in the NFL. Bring the players home!

But did they attack us on 9/11?
North Korea is helping Iran prepare to detonate an nuclear weapon in an underground test. All this while Iranian president Ahmadinejad promises that the U.S. and Israel will soon be destroyed. When do we decide that diplomacy has failed, that sanctions have failed, that the U.N. has failed? The second coming of Hitler appears poised to have nuclear weapons and he has made it clear he will use them. He sincerely believes this is his sacred duty and that it will bring about the second coming of the 12th Imam. But I forgot, he was not involved in the attack on 9/11, so we can't take action against him, according to the reasoning of our liberal friends. The war on terrorism, lest we forget, is only with Osama Bin Laden. It does not matter if an evil dictator has the desire to use weapons of mass destruction. If Bush does not act (we know the U.N. will do nothing), expect Israel to act, and be vilified by liberals everywhere. Pray that this madman will be stopped.

Taking on Iran and Syria
The media is quite worked up about President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. However, a more important point made in his speech last night has received less attention: the US will crack down on Iran and Syria for their involvement in fueling the insurgency. President Bush stated that "we'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." Iran and Syria are aiding both Sunni and Shiite militias that are killing our troops and innocent Iraqis. Last night, US troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq, detaining several people. Let's hope this is only the beginning of a much needed response to these acts of war against the United States.

The Good Shepherd
I was initially opposed to going to see this movie on the basis that I am overly sensitive to criticisms of our government from the loony left out in Hollywood, but now I am opposed to you seeing it for different reasons: it is long and boring. We all know the CIA has been involved in more than a few shady deals since its creation and I suppose that should be fair game for a movie. However, the movie is 3 hours long and never really seems to have a very sure direction. Matt Damon plays a CIA agent who barely knows his wife and son. He manages to speak every line of dialogue with a straight face, with no hint of emotion - FOR THE WHOLE MOVIE! The main gist is that the CIA is secretive and powerful (wow) and Matt Damon and his wife (Angelina Jolie) cheat on each other. The political message is that the CIA created the Cold War to maintain their power. The Soviet Union was never a real threat (just like the war on terrorism, hint, hint), we just need a fake enemy to give certain people more power. I guess the butchering and enslaving millions as well as positioning nuclear weapons pointed at us from Cuba (USSR) and killing thousands on 9/11 (you know who) aren't enough to become a threat. Anyway, I give it one star. Sorry Robert DeNiro.

Poverty and the Poverty Rate
A key criticism coming from socialists and those strongly leaning that way (Democrats) is that the overwhelming economic growth this country has experienced in the last few decades has not benefited the poor. Trickle down? Rising tide raising all ships? Hardly, they say. Why look at the poverty rate: Since 1973, the "War on Poverty" does not appear to be going well. Poverty rates increased from just over 10% to nearly 13% in 2003. However, a very well researched paper, "The Mismeasure of Poverty" by Nicholas Eberstadt, presents a different picture. It is well worth reading, but I will summarize its main points. As you read, please do not misconstrue these data and arguments to be unsympathetic toward the poor. Eberstadt does not argue that our progress in fighting poverty has been satisfactory. Rather, that because antipoverty spending is largely based on the poverty rate, we need a better measure for determining the real problem and for evaluating programs that address the problem.

The poverty rate was first established in 1965 and was intended to establish the income level at which it would be difficult to buy enough food considering life's other expenses. The rate is still calculated in the exact same way as in 1965 and is updated only to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index. Note that this is a measure of absolute poverty and does not take into account improvements in living standards as a relative measure might.

An increasing poverty rate over the last 30 years despite great gains in per capita GDP seems to indicate an abject failure in the social policies meant to address poverty and promotes Marxist criticisms of capitalist economies. However, Eberstadt points out that those on the bottom are much better off than they were 30 years ago. The bottom quintile have lower unemployment, higher per capita income, higher levels of education, better healthcare, bigger homes, and spend more money than their 70's counterparts. Improvement in these areas actually predicts (is positively correlated) with increasing poverty rates. This is absurd! The numbers from the bottom quintile for the last 30 years:

• Household expenditures have increased 43% per capita
• Percentage of children who are underweight decreased by 33% (obesity is a much bigger problem)
  
• In 1970, 27% of poverty-level households were "overcrowded" (averaging over one person per room) compared to 6% in 2001
• In 1972 only 40% had a car. In 2003, 75% owned an automobile
• Infant mortality (overall) fell by two thirds

All things considered, those in poverty now have a similar quality of living to the middle class in the 1960's. A possible explanation for some of the discrepancies between standard of living and poverty rate is a more mobile society. There is much more transition, more people are spending a few months technically in poverty but do not stay there. When someone changes jobs they may spend a month or more earning a poverty level income, thus increasing the poverty rate. In 1996-99, 34% spent two or more months below the poverty line. However, only 2% spent all 48 months below the poverty line. Their spending (living standard) reflects their expected earnings over a longer period of time, not their month to month earnings. Also, expenditures from the lowest quintile are consistently much higher than reported income. Their net worth is not declining, so they are not simply borrowing more. This indicates that poverty surveys do not accurately measure actual income.

The poverty rate is clearly a near worthless measure of the economic well-being of those on the bottom. We need more accurate information to address this country's poverty problem. The poverty rate no longer gives valuable insight into the needs of our neighbors and clouds our judgment about economic and social policy.

No food stamps for me
Some of you may have heard my company was cutting 20% of its sales force. Good news - today I found out that I will continue in my current position and territory. So shift your worries from my job security to whether or not Carmelo Anthony will sucker punch you and then run away like a little girl.

Back in your old neighborhood
Sarah and I went to see Wilco on Saturday at the beautiful Chicago Auditorium. Jeff Tweedy and company put on a great show for the hometown crowd. If you're not familiar with Wilco check out their albums "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" and "Being There."

Free Markets and Freedom
Milton Friedman, the greatest economist in a generation, passed away last week. A Nobel Prize winner and a fervent supporter of freedom, Friedman argued that capitalism was essential to personal liberty. He used logic and numbers to take on socialism in all its forms and through his influence with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41, had an incredible impact on our society and economy. Friedman made a major contribution to the fall of the Soviet Union. To learn more about Friedman read '"Capitalism and Freedom" for the long version, Ben Stein's column for the short.

Conservatives care
Liberals are quick to characterize conservatives as uncaring towards the needy. This is because conservatives resist both forced wealth redistribution and government entitlement programs. However a new book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Conservatism," by social economist, philanthropy expert and liberal Arthur C. Brooks demonstrates that conservatives give more and volunteer more than liberals irrespective of income. Liberals talk more, conservatives do more.
Conservatives understand that government is not very effective or efficient with its programs. Private organizations usually can't get away with poor performance. They must compete with other charities for donations. The government has no competition, thus little motivation to perform. Who actually thinks the government would do better than Habitat for Humanity at providing for those in need of better housing?
I don't doubt that liberals care. I just think they are more interested in showing they care than actually seeing results. Example: they care more about tax rates (punishing the rich) than tax revenues. Bush's tax cuts stimulated the economy, leading to increased tax revenues. Despite this fact, the left continues to demonizes anyone in favor of lower taxes.
Face the facts liberals: conservatives care. We just have different (and I would argue, better) ways to care for our neighbors.

One bright spot
Sorry for my lack of postings lately. I have been slacking for two reasons: my depression over the election results and being very busy with work. Anyway, a source for optimism: Michigan's Proposal 2 - the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - passed with 58% of the vote despite being dramatically underfunded compared to the opposition (see great article from National Review Online). The proposal makes state-sponsored affirmative action unconstitutional in hiring and admisssions. One might argue it already was unlawful under the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution, the Equal Protections Clause, which states: "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Affirmative action denies the equal rights of one person to favor another. Of course this is a sticky political issue because the preferred group tends to be African-Americans and the groups suffering discrimination are whites and Asians. Proponents of afffirmative action argue that diversity is so important that more capable candidates should be bypassed for less capable candidates with a more desirable skin color.
This is especially problematic for college admissions. The University of Michigan won one and lost one in its Supreme Court battle to keep its affirmative action admission policies. Gratz v. Bollinger challenged U of M's undergraduate admissions policy of giving 20 points to any minority. A perfect ACT would not earn an applicant that many points. The Court ruled that this was unconstitutional because the affirmative action program was not "narrowly tailored." In Grutter v. Bollinger the Court ruled (basically) that the U of M law school could factor in race as long as they kept secret how big a role race played. U of M has already promised legal action against the proposition and the will of the people.
Discrimination based on race is wrong. Whether you are white or black, it feels no different to be passed up for a job, promotion, or college admission because of your race.
The people of Michigan may have re-elected a liberal Canadian who thinks macroeconomics comes in a box from Kraft foods, but at least they got one thing right.