Alan Greenspan summed it up best. It's not whether or not the Stimulus effects short term GPD, it's whether it "primes the pump" for private demand.

Pretty sure you could take a trillion dollars and invest it in bubblegum factories and it'd have some sort of impact. But will the stimulus produce long standing results?

I'm doubtful.

I've mentioned it before, but I'm of the humble opinion that the wealth that was "lost" never really existed in the first place. The debt we're now faced with has to be met in one of three likely ways. 1) Inflation, 2) High taxes (at the expense of growth) or 3) defaulting (god forbid). If we want to achieve long term success, we have to get out of this consumer driven economy and get back to producing things. Unless we can come up with something to sell to folks outside our borders and not just to ourselves, we'll be faced with the same pyramid scheme economy. Subsidizing this system by way of the federal government just pushes off whatever needs to get done.

My biggest beef with the stimulus package (and I have many) is that it became a political dumping ground for party agenda. It's not completely without it's merits. We're putting money into R&D on energy, which is good, and we are spending money on improving infrastructure, which is also good (help increase efficiency via better transportation/communication/shipping/whatever). We have a decent amount of tax cuts to help give people immediate relief. Unfortunately, with all the other nonsense, the important things end up getting less than they probably should.

An example. I'm a big fan of infrastructure spending. Specifically right now in our country, I see the opportunity for a serious investment into mass transit. We had a chance to do something big and bold, perhaps a national light rail system, but instead we constructed legislation that will lend itself not just to fraud and misuse, but piecemeal initiatives state by state that run the risk of having no rhyme or reason at all. The chances of a nation wide light rail now seem even smaller. And even if we can standardize on an approach within state legislatures or an approach is dictated by the Feds, the stimulus bill appropriates only a tiny fraction of funds to transportation itself.

The other debatable aspects to this bill are largely matters of principal. President Obama's on record in 1998 as disagreeing with Clinton's 1996 welfare reform, something Clinton himself touts as a big success of his presidency. This legislation rolled it back. States will now be rewarded for adding people to its welfare payroll, not the other way around. The stimulus bill went on to stick its hands into health care and gun control as well. What on earth these things have to do with "priming the pumps of private demand," as Greenspan articulated, is anyone's guess.

That is, anyone's guess just as soon as they finish reading the dang thing. (Oooohhhh. AmIright?!)

The other, more gloomy, concern is whether or not we'll have enough credit left in the treasury to handle whatever geopolitical fallout comes from the "financial crisis". Iceland's government already fell, there are rumors of Mexico's being unstable and there are protests and uprisings taken place on the other side of the Atlantic. If this truly is a comparable event to the Great Depression, as our leaders love to suggest, we may want to think a couple steps ahead on this one.. Just.. you know.. saying.

I do have to say that I've enjoyed it all. It's history in the making. I'm also happy to see the GOP find it's conservative roots again. Whether or not they mean it this time, we'll have to wait and see. So far Michael Steele seems like a breath of fresh air.

I'm also humored by the amount of folks on the opposite side of the aisle tossing terms like "obstructionists" around. I saw one liberal professor on TV attacking a conservative talking head, asking where this outrage was while the patriot act was being debated. A fair point, but the real question is where was the Democrats outrage? For all the talk they do about the war and the patriot act, you'd assume that they voted against them. The job of the minority party is to balance out the majority. To slow down waves of emotion. To provide a counter argument. To, quite frankly, obstruct. There's a time and a place for bipartisanship but this, as well as the patriot act and the war votes, was simply not one of them. There's simply too much on the line. If the majority wants to pass sweeping legislation, it doesn't do much harm to make them earn it. If nothing else, we likely ended up with a 'better' bill because of it.

Back in September, I wrote a post explaining why I was writing more and more political posts. Since then, I've found myself posting less and less of anything else. It hasn't been done without a lot of consideration.

It seems to me that every four years, all sorts of people get all fired up and put on whatever button supporting whatever candidate and shout at anyone within earshot who they're supporting for the presidency. This past election cycle, that was more evident than any other election in my lifetime.

Personally, I don't think it was a bad thing. In fact, I loved it. The passion, the excitement, the involvement of people who have never before been inclined to pay attention to how our political system operates was incredibly inspiring. I know I learned a ton about the entire process. Most of us probably did.

But man, how quickly that passion dissipates. We've created a rock-the-vote culture that teaches the primary obligation of citizenship is to vote. It's not to vote. It's to participate. It's to pay attention to what's going on and, in my humble opinion, share our thoughts. Sharing our thoughts, whether digitally or in real life, is what leads to a ground swell of support for popular ideas. It's intellectual darwinism that ultimately makes a real, tangible effect on the governing of our society. In the words of Tip O'Neil, "All politics is local."

For me, I choose to do that sharing online. There are three primary reasons for this.

The first is that I like to look backwards on my ideas and thoughts over time. We're all growing and changing, it's fun to see how our views of the world evolve. In this way, it's primarily a selfish act.

Second is that online, if you don't want to read my rants or engage in the conversation, you simply don't have to. Unfollow, unsubscribe and move on. If you want to know what's up in my personal life and my blog/twitter feed isn't doing it for ya, then hit me up on facebook. I keep it on the low over there.

Third is that there is a greater ability to formulate and maintain ongoing dialog online. The medium itself begs for this sort of thing, and ultimately, I think it's this medium that holds the greatest chance to save us from the polarization we seem to suffer from. There are no two people on the planet who agree 100% on their politics. That's what makes self government so amazing in the first place. Without on going dialog though, the principles behind self government start failing. The conversations used to be at the barbershop, then they were no where, and now they're simply re-emerging online. I welcome that.

I also, like most users now, view Twitter as a micro-blogging extension to my personal blog. Frankly, the conversations I've had there have been 10x more valuable than most of whats taken place here. If you're still receiving cell phone sms's with every update, I'd consider unfollowing my stream or changing your settings. You're likely the last one left doing that anyhow after everyone got nailed with $500 cell phone bills three SxSW's ago.

The funny thing about posting about politics, is that the more people agree with you, the more people disagree with you. "You can't have fans without haters." If you want to be a hater, I encourage it. I believe you learn more from people you disagree with than from people you do. Just keep in mind that too me, this stuff isn't all that personal. I may be passionate, but I'm not emotional about it. It's like a sports team. I'm a big UCF fan. It doesn't mean I actually harbor ill feelings for someone that went to USF. To quote Barry Goldwater, "We can disagree without being disagreeable."

For anyone wondering (if it hasn't been made painfully obvious through my writing), I associate myself with the fiscally conservative, small government variety Republicans. I can't claim to be a Libertarian as I hold to many compromises for that. I associate myself with a party simply because I choose to work through the existing system, and they're the closest match. It does not mean that I have posters of President Bush in my office or I celebrate the growing power of the executive branch and our enormous debt. Again, small government / fiscally focused conservative. I'm also a big fan of American History, and with the exception of civil rights in the modern era, the Republican party has more often than not been on "my side" of the argument.

Now, I get that I've been far more partisan when it comes to this stimulus bill than I normally would be, but I make no apologies for that. There's simply nothing patriotic about supporting a bad idea.

Been awhile since I posted some poli-talk regarding the campaign.. So.. here we go. Random rants.

Economy

Man, what a complete and utter change of pace in this president election. Starting with McCain's grandstanding of the suspension of his campaign for the bailout (which the notion of going back to dc, I agreed with, the method? well.. lets just say it was a little awkward.), this thing has swung 100% in Obama's direction.

Go back over the last 100 years worth of presidential elections and find an incumbent party who wins after October suffers a stock market decline. Now consider that the stock market decline is the worst since the depression era. (there is only one president who has won after a big decline, which was W. in 2004).

My specific policy concerns with McCain have come through this economic ordeal. The truth is, I don't care for either candidates economic proposals. It seems like the country is busy creating ways to reward those who make poor choices and ignore those that have acted responsibly. No wonder our 'capitalist' structure has, according to the media, been threatened. We're simply not capitalists anymore. At least, if we are, they don't seem to live in Washington.

Sarah Palin

Most candidates move to the center during the general election. At the start of this general, both Obama and McCain seemed to be moving closer to their respective parties. Obama had to make up to the Clinton crowd and win back some fans, and McCain felt the need to get the evangelicals on board. The difference between the two is that McCain didn't seem to stop trying to appeal to that portion of the base. At one point around the Palin pick, McCain held a 15% advantage over independents. That's gone now, and will likely be a key figure in his loss this November. McCain's correct when he tells Obama that he is not President Bush. No matter how much Obama and his supporters want to say they are the same, it's just not the situation. The problem is that while McCain is saying that, he's spending an awful lot of time and money trying to look like he's cut from the same clothe. I don't get it.

Then again, without Palin on the ticket, this thing would have probably been over a long, long time ago. So, there's that.

Colin Powel

Today's endorsement of Obama by one of my favorite washington figures (Colin Powell) serves as a reassurance that we, collectively, always find a way to figure it out. I'll likely send in my absentee ballot (which is sitting on my desk) with a vote for McCain, but Obama will have every opportunity to earn my vote for 2012. As I've said previously re. Obama, I'm fascinated by the guy. I love his books, I think he has correctly identified many of the problems our country faces, I'm just a little gun shy on his proposals and policies. More importantly than that, I can't stand me some Nancy Pelosi.

McCain Rallies

Oh come on. How many republican protestors were arrested at the DNC? How many "Abort Biden" shirts have you seen vs "Abort Palin?" How many times has Obama stood up and corrected someone at one of his rallies for attacking McCain like what McCain did for Obama last week? Wasn't it Obama who told his supporters to go door to door and "get in their face and argue?" You know how pissed I'd be if someone had the audacity to come to my front door and "get in my face" over a political election?

I, personally, have never before seen this kind of intensity out of the left. I'm simply not that pissed off, and yes, I pay a whole lot of attention. The reason I'm not that pissed off is because I also read a lot of history. Things simply repeat in this country and we do the best that we can to contend with changing dynamics. It's part of life, not the end of times. I know that there are Republicans that are uber pissed/scared, but I haven't met any of them. I've only seen them on TV. As far as democrats go, all you need to do is read twitter and count the personal attacks against Palin and McCain. It's 100%, without a doubt, shameful. You're free to not like a candidate or all the candidates. The irony of it is that all of them are far more accomplished than most of us will ever be. They've dedicated their life to public service. Show some respect already. On both sides.

McCain's Chances

So goes Ohio, so goes the nation. With early voting taking place already, this thing is likely already over for McCain. Let's just hope it doesn't come down to a margin within the massive voter fraud taking place there. (then again, Obama is an awful lot like Kennedy.... heyyoOOOO! ;). Chances are though, that it'll be a solid national win for Obama. All the signs seem to be pointing to that, and there are only two weeks left.

I'll say this though, I will not be one of those people who bitch about it incessantly with the "not my president" bumper sticker and the "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. We're a republic. We vote. Candidates win or lose and we go on with our lives. Win graciously, lose graciously. Those silly, childish bumper stickers do nothing but promote the false notion that you bear no responsibility for our country. We're all in this together.

Anyhow.. That's enough rambling for now ;)

Man oh man. What a couple of weeks for the market.

In my lifetime at least, I'm not sure we've seen this kind of pessimism. I've always read about the fear that can strike a market down but this is truly something. There are so many behavioral aspects to all this, and now international aspects to all this, that it's totally unpredictable. As Thomas put it to me in an IM earlier, it's not about finding the legitimate bottom -- it's about "finding the bottom of our fears." Sounds way more profound when I retype it, but yeah.. that's basically the situation.

I've had a few friends ask me about what I think the "other side of the coin" could be to the bailouts. Basically, I kept mentioning that its hard to know if it's a good idea or a bad idea when you have an incomplete picture of all possible scenarios. Government intervening is seen as bad not only because of the tax implications, but also because of inflation and the proverbial "moral hazard" (making people feel its okay to do something wrong, cause Unky Sam will save us if we screw it up.)

Well.. The "other side of the coin" for me is little to do with economics I guess. The fictitious wealth that's on the books has to come off. That's the way markets work. So, that part, no matter the bail out, is going to happen. I guess the other side of the coin has more to do with the social and geopolitical realities of the situation than anything. A bailout could mean a prolonged recession instead of a short, deep recession/depression. Who knows.

Look back to the 1920s though and the events leading up to the Great Depression. As an overly simplified summary, we were the nations largest creditor after WWI. We experienced "roaring" economic growth domestically and saw household debt levels more than triple in under a ten year period. When all the sudden sales couldn't meet growth demands (not enough people to buy the Ford's new car, for example) things started to get shaky. We started to call some of that debt, people started defaulting. Add in a crash here and there and we found ourselves in a depression (not our first, and likely not our last, when defined as a 10%+ decrease in GDP).

It wasn't just a depression here. It was a global depression, and as I understand it, at least partial reasoning behind things like the Marshall Plan post WWII. Our economies were then, and are even more so now, very much connected.

Much of the power that bad guys like Mussolini and Hitler found themselves with, came about because of the depressed economic realities their countries were faced with. Fascism promised a return to prominence and meaning. Look around at world affairs right now and assume the worst for our economy. Consider a global depression and the effects that it could have for people like Putin, Chavez, Ahmadinejad and others.

Consider that much of our political clout on the world stage, rightfully or not, has been lost over recent foreign policy.

Now, is a $850bn in tax payer money more expensive or cheaper than the potential World War that may come out of it, if history is, in fact, repeating? (big if, and yes, the Senate raised it to $850bn from $700bn but our media was too busy trying to make the stock market crash seem like 1927, which it was no where near, to talk about it, but I digress)

You have to make a couple really big if's to arrive at that. The great depression wasn't simply a bad time economically, it was a horrible time. Something our generation has zero concept of even remotely comprehending. It was a time when 1 out of 4 able bodied people were not able to find anything productive to do. That's likely a long, long ways off. But.. Again, without knowing if the doom and gloom is true or not, it's hard to know what is a good idea or a bad one.

Anyhow... I'm, I guess you could say, a cynical optimist. I don't think we're staring down the barrel of that (nor do most economists), but at this point I'm scared it'll become a self fulfilling prophecy. Hopefully countries will be smart enough not to start isolating themselves and putting up large trade tariffs and the like. We're way to interconnected, I'd think.

I have to be honest. It's not easy being a right leaning technology guy.

Shocking, I know.

Every time I post something, it's typically because I'm noticing strong reactions to a certain topic or I feel like I'm not seeing my viewpoint represented in other places around our little "world." There's a risk associated to talking about politics, regardless of your opinions. In the new media world, I feel like there is an even larger risk associated to talking about things from a republican stand point.

But there's a funny thing I've noted about the posts I've written. They've generated far less comments, but far more e-mails and personal interactions in real life. Yesterday at BlogOrlando, this was experienced in a very real way. I had a handful of people come up and start telling me how much they've enjoyed reading some these posts, even if they've disagreed. The conversations that were generated by these interactions were thoughtful, well balanced, and frankly very much the type of thing our country needs more of.

Now, it's impossible to know how many have stopped reading or stopped following because of the poli-talk, but I'm not sure if it's an important metric. I like surrounding myself with folks who are willing to listen/read things that they disagree with. Fanaticism is born out of echo chambers. It always has been, and it always will be. Our nation relies on cognitive dissonance to maintain a relatively balanced existence.

We've been told, repeatedly, that the two major parties each represent two completely different directions for our country. That we've never before experienced such an important election. We've been told that we're on the verge of either falling apart or rising up for the "next great chapter," or that the "other guy" is going to get us all blown to hell by our enemies. I, largely, don't buy it.

We've allowed these things -- these sales pitches from people selling us something -- to divide us and start referring to people as "idiots" if they vote for this person or that person. We've seen people "outraged" by Obama or Palin's lack of experience. For perspective, ask folks about something truly outrageous, like Darfur, and note their general apathy. It's because they're reacting to very well crafted pitches that suit whatever ax they're looking to grind.

This sort of thing lends itself to people breaking off into their comfortable little groups that all agree with each other. You'll see them, on either side, start patting each other on the back and celebrating their obvious intellectual superiority to the other side. The funny outcome of this is that on issues where the majority agree, people tend to assume it's the other guys who are standing in the way. I've been using nuclear power as a way of feeling this tendency out. Pro-nuke plant dem's have this belief that it's the "big oil republicans" that have stood in the way. Forgetting that it was the pro-trees portion of the left that stopped the President Bush inspired energy bill to build more nuke plants back in 2005/2006 (wait, isn't W an oil guy?)

I guess I share my contrarian point of view not to convince people that I'm correct, and certainly not to start fights or make people uncomfortable. I share these things largely to interrupt the echo chamber that our little online world has become. Challenge everything, view things from as many vantage points as you can, and decide your views on an issue because you've thought about it and reached a conclusion based on the information that you've seen, not because your candidate (or your party) says so.

All signs seem to point to us being in a period of that which can not be spoken. Time for another economics rant ;)

The funny thing about wealth is, in an overly simplistic explanation, it's kind of like water energy [note: yeah, yeah.. i was tired as heck when i wrote it] -- its not really created or destroyed. It moves. People often say that building roads and infrastructure creates a better economy, and often, they're 'correct' for that particular area. But that doesn't mean wealth was created. The taxes to pay for the project came from other consumers who would have spent the money on other things -- the jobs created by the new infrastructure hurt the unseen profits of someone else (and probably a few unseen jobs because of it). The money spent in that new area came from money elsewhere, and hurt the unseen profits of where ever else it would have been spent instead.

I'm sure there are caveats to it, but most of the wealth creation that people reference are simply cases of inflation or speculation, mixed with cheaper products available from better production methods. The middle class, for example, has way more now than it did 200 years ago. Are they richer? Or has the quality of life provided by what would have been considered luxury items simply become more affordable? Having air conditioning doesn't really mean your rich these days, does it? And remember, inflation's a bitch. A millionaire in Rockefeller's day would probably need 7m+ to maintain that title today.

Housing is such a pressing issue because its effects on consumer confidence is immediate. Tons of "wealth" was created on the books over the course of the housing boom. In a more liquid market, that wealth would simply evaporate (i.e., the tech stock boom). In housing, people are a whole lot more slow to sell and the numbers are a heck of a lot larger than individual stocks. No matter how you slice it, that wealth absolutely has to come off the books. Price reductions remove the wealth from the books, and so does inflation. Inflate the dollar through tax rebates and federally back buy outs. The overall purchasing power of consumers is lowered, some more than others depending on the region (the numbers don't have to be adjusted in all regions equally, after all), but housing prices stabilize because in real terms, they become fair market.

The traditional scape goat, the federal debt, is another thing that I find troubling. The way we as a country become "richer" is by taking in more money than we're sending out. If other countries are moving their wealth to our country, and we're not moving that wealth to anyone else, we end up with a bigger piece of the world's pie. Right now we're not only spending more money internally than we're collecting in taxes, causing us to take loans from China and pay them interest, we are also importing more than we're exporting. Wealth is leaving the country at a fairly fast pace. Now, you can borrow money if the money is being used to expand the economy (and thus bringing in more foreign wealth/etc, at that point, it's an investment).. But borrowing money in a stagnant economy and not selling enough to cover our purchases?

All the sudden we find ourselves in a situation with increasing inflation with little to no economic growth -- aka, stagflation. (shh!)

While it's not a good thing, it's not necessarily "omg the worst thing ever!!1" either (at least, over the long run). It's certainly not the doom and gloom that the media makes it out to be. You may have seen the headline yesterday of "The worst June since the Great Depression!". That's technically true, but it seems to imply that bad months are unheard of. They're not. It was simply the worst June, and things aren't nearly as bad as they were in the early part of this century. Regardless, where the doom and gloom theories fall flat is that they make the assumption that people will refuse to change habits in the face of economic pressure. That, of course, is bullshit. We're the most adaptable creatures on the planet. Something tells me we'll drive smaller cars if we really, absolutely, have to.

We're going to see a ton of innovation come out of this economy. We're going to see housing stabilize and consumer confidence rebuild (stable prices at the expense of reduced purchasing power is still probably a good thing, given the circumstances). We're going to see alternative fuels and synthetic gasoline start pushing their way to the forefront like never before (it looks like OPEC can't get in the way this time, suckers). We're going to see out of work engineers put their heads together and create truly amazing technology and all sorts of derivative applications of that technology. This country is full of talented folks, we just sometimes have to be pushed a little bit. Things are ugly right now, but adversity may be the kick in the pants this country needs.

For me, all of this is fascinating. I love trying to figure this out and learning. If anyone thinks I'm wrong on any of this, share in the comments below, because, well.. let's just say it happens from time to time ;)

Is there any particularly good reason why O-Rock and 740 both disappeared?

Surely, it's a money thing.. but man oh man.. Orlando local radio suuuuucks. Real radio during the day is okay, but then you have a poor mans love line mixed with stereotypical dj cliches at night. It's like listening to an ongoing family guy joke. My brother and I were reminiscing about how Monsters used to make fun of those idiots all the time.. now they're the night time show. Awwkward.

And yes, 101.1 is still around, but if I wanted to listen to Nickelback... wait.. What am I saying.. I'd never want to listen to those hacks, nor do I want to listen to any of the other corporate trash that WJRR plays.

Do the radio station corporations own a chunk of satellite radio? Are they trying to make FM radio die a painful death? Or has Orlando just rapidly changed its demographics to the point where only Spanish, manufactured pop and cheesy over-produced lameo-rock stations are able to survive?

I guess I just don't understand the business behind local radio. I'm sure margins are tight and everything is pre-planned and digital now. It just sucks, that's all.

Thank god for my iPod and my tape deck connector.... New school meets the old.

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. ;)

I've been watching the "fascinating" Iowa Caucus coverage. The Iowa Caucus is an event that comes before their nomination convention, and winning it carries no immediate delegates. Basically, everyone shows up to a public place, stands next to the fold out table of their favorite candidate, and raises their hand. It comes across as one step above a straw poll, just held at a much more crucial time. I guess its a little more formal than that, but.. I feel sorry for the people who had to work tonight and couldn't attend -- basically, they get no voice.

We sure do put a lot of stock into it though. It's seen as the ultimate spring board into the New Hampshire primary (the first actual primary).

To give you an idea of just how small the Iowa Caucus actually is -- the total state wide turnout is less than just the Republican turnout in Miami Dade County in '06. Or try this -- there have been more absentee ballots requested in the state of florida by Republicans already for '08, than the entire turn out of both parties in Iowa. (I use republican numbers just because that's what I have access to, serves as an illustration for both parties).

Here's where it gets even crazier -- over $50 million was spent in Iowa just on T.V. ads. Compare that to 2004, when $9 million was spent on TV ads in Iowa. Most of the campaigns have hundreds of people on the ground in Iowa. Hillary Clinton's camp said they had 5,000 people just to drive people to the polls (I'm sure they were volunteers, but.. just pointing out the amount of focus put into it).

So much attention, and so much money, for absolutely zero delegates, with New Hampshire right around the corner (the 8th?). Only one candidate rejected the notion of Iowa outright -- Rudy. He spent today campaigning in New Hampshire and Florida instead of Iowa. In years past, this would have been seen as completely crazy. This year the primaries are so close together, it's only a little crazy. If it works, will Iowa start losing importance? I mean, the entire thing seems incredibly silly. Why are we still doing this in 2008? Isn't it supposed to be the future?

Anyway, the biggest story of today is that a black man won an Iowa Caucus. He didn't just win. He spanked Clinton and Edwards. Iowa is a state thats something like 95% white. We're not a perfect nation, we have our share of problems, but it would seem to me that we're certainly making progress.

The next story is Huckabee. Huck was outspent 10:1 in Iowa by the Romney campaign. Romney has been on the ground for over a year in Iowa and has spent the most money there. Losing after that much effort seems like it speaks volumes. We'll see if voters in New Hampshire agree.

Speaking of Huckabee -- Anyone see Chris Wallace call Ed Rollins (Huck's chariman) out onto the carpet? Ed went on about how Huck didn't go negative and how that helped him win, then Chris asked him if the blog post on townhall.com was true and that they were planning on going negative in south carolina but making it look like they weren't (sneaky politician crap). Ed admitted that the blog post was true, and then man, I thought Ed's head was going to explode. Chris basically proved that Huck's campaign wasn't all that innocent in how they went about the whole pulling-the-negative-ad-but-we're-still-going-to-give-it-to-the-press-anyway thing. As far as politics go, thats about as good of TV as it gets. I'm sure a dozen people will post it on YouTube tomorrow.

UPDATE: That was quick.

Jason Calacanis asked an interesting question today in regards to the economy.. Interesting times, indeed.

I spent a little time trying to catch up on the economic going-on's in the world on my flights this past week, and things are looking volatile if nothing else. Credit fears and overall consumer confidence levels are a drag, inflation concerns and the price of oil are putting downward pressure on the markets, and real estate is in the dumps.

I've posted before about the movement of money from one investment opportunity to another, and I still think thats the case. It's just.. When the market goes south, along with a hard asset like real estate, that largely leaves things like gold, CD's, t-bills and private equity investments, right? If interest rates are forced up from inflation, that doesn't make CD's all that appealing, but the Fed is looking like they might have to cut rates to spark spending -- I'm just not sure what a rate cut would do to consumer confidence. Wouldn't it be seen as more than an admittance of trouble ahead? I bet the media would at least spin it that way.

The other option is to move money overseas, which could lead to an even more unbalanced trade deficit/weakening dollar. Not necessarily a problem if we didn't have such profound budgetary concerns. Can't cover the overruns unless you can grow the economy faster than the debt. That won't happen if the money is invested elsewhere (the often overlooked exception to trickle down).

On the other hand, a month ago the Dow set a record high, factors like the unemployment index are fairly strong. June 2007's CPI was up 2.7% from June 2006, which seems to be about right (expectation should be 2-3% a year, correct?). The productivity index is up strong for the second quarter (over 2% 2nd quarter, compared to 0.2% for the 1st quarter of 2007). Many aspects of the economy seem to be not just healthy, but growing stronger. (follow along at home over at bls.gov)

I'm inclined to suggest that our overall confidence in handling the potential threats is what's dragging us down, and if there is a signal of good news somewhere, it'll cause a rebound. The threats aren't small ones, to be sure, but we're also surrounded by lots and lots of negativity driving down confidence. I'm not an economist, and I'm still trying to learn as much as I can about the subject, but it would appear that our economy is much stronger than folks want to give it credit for (hah, get it? credit?...ahem). It goes without saying that housing continues to be the biggest risk -- if we can avoid sellers panic, we may just pull through. Thin ice, though.

Thoughts?

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.

Technologists tend to be an idealistic bunch. Things are created with purity and community in mind. Eventually of course, the strictly business folks come in and wreck the place.

It happened with the BBS to ISP conversion, it happened on the web with nascar-esq advertising (banner overkill), it's happening with Google and the SEO masterminds (it can't just be me, but isn't it getting harder and hard to find things?), and it's starting to happen with the blogosphere and paid links.

Magazines taking bribes and the mainstream media outlets skewing the news both helped fuel many of the "early" blogging initiatives. That shared focus and identity, that blogging wasn't the mainstream, helped foster a certain level of community. Paid links, paid review sites, misleading advertising placements, affiliate program abuse -- the blogging world is quickly following a somewhat common theme. As it all becomes more and more mainstream, it only makes sense that the initial proponents of the medium start searching for someplace else to hang out.

After SxSW, I thought Twitter had officially run its course. It was fun before hand but at SxSW it became an important tool. It was only natural to expect a let down afterwards I guess. I have to say though, that it seems more and more of the conversations are taking place there. As one community slowly gets overcrowded and commercialized, it would seem that this might be where people are headed.

Twitter's usefulness by itself can be a bit limiting. 140 character messages can only take you so far, and in some ways, I feel like I'm writing on an old-school BBS graffiti wall or typing in a horribly disfunctional IRC channel. It's not so much that twitter is a "better" way to conduct this type of socializing, it's just still a bit more exclusive and its made up of the right people.

What are the take aways of the service itself though? Instant gratification maybe? The "convergence-interface?" The friendly API? Or is it simply something to tide everyone over until the real "next big thing" happens?

I can't count how many times someone points to the fact that it's cold outside as proof of global warming not existing (global warming is about extremes, not hot and cold). Almost all sides can admit that the world is entering some sort of period of change. The question isn't on that, it's whether or not we are making any meaningful contribution to it. I've shared my thoughts on this subject numerous times, but I'll do it again for good measure -- if it costs us little to nothing to change various practices and ensure that we are not contributing forces, and we benefit from these changes in numerous other ways, why not?

And what about the climate changes themselves? Nobody is talking about them. We're so busy pointing fingers and trying to make this issue a divisive political war instead of using it to unify an otherwise politically torn country. Examples of real world questions that need to be answered are insurance costs, costs of strengthening storms, potentially lost GDP from a changing business landscape, protecting inhabited low lying areas disrupted by melting glaciers, protecting countries dependent on fresh water that is quickly disappearing. These are all important, life altering possibilities. None of them are necessarily doomsday prospects, yet they all dramatically effect our national security and world stability. What do you think is going to happen when someone like Chavez runs out of water? What if we experience 2 or 3 more Katrina's? We can't even handle the first one.

Then again.. Brittany just shaved her head, and well, thats a lot more fun than talking about Al Gore screwing up our weather patterns.

I can't believe that it's been five years.

I was on campus at UCF later that morning and there was a movie screen set up in the student union. Thousands of kids gathered around watching it all unfold. The one thing that will probably always stick out in my mind (outside of the transparent horror that was evident on the faces of everyone there) were the military recruiters signing up lines of kids.

I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about that. I think if nothing else though, thats what really drove home the notion that things were going to be massively different in our lives than we had previously thought.

It's not just a series of events that occurred five Septembers ago. 9/11 didn't end that day. We're still in the midst of 9/11 now, and I believe our generation could very well spend our lives in 9/11. Every time I hear the media say "post-9/11", I question what that really means.

I hope that today, as the memorials and the tributes unfold, people remember their vow to "never forget". Everything that we've experienced isn't about revenge and retribution, it's about a philosophy. What kind of lives do we want our children to have, and how do we want to ensure that they have it? Is it through war? Discussion? Education? Diplomacy? Containment? Denial? The reality is that the answer isn't black and white and it won't fit into a campaign sound bite or a blog post.

What's surprising the most to me is that I'm not sure if this discussion has really even started to take place. We're 5 years away, and it feels like we're just as lost as we were the next day.

So that Emurse article by Kim Komando keeps getting picked up by a different metro papers. I'm not sure where it was yesterday, but a user mentioned to me that something ran in the Denver Post. For a site such as ours, getting paper coverage metro by metro is absolutely great. It helps us build mass in each of our target geographies. Something like the Komando article, which was unexpected/unsolicited, is a total blessing. Even a slight mention in an article, like the C|Net's Top Websites for Students, brings in a slew of traffic for us. I wonder if its directly proportional to how many words are written on us? ;) If we hire a publicity person, is that what they do? Get things written about us? No idea. Maybe one day we can have a "blog relations" person, with slight press responsibilities. I think that's probably more our speed.

Maintaining solid % growth day after day is a tough thing to do (linear and all), but between the excellent word of mouth and the coverage we've been getting, we're continuing to meet our goals. I think we've been spoiled by all of it to some degree. I heard the other day that Kiko, a site that garnered a ton of Web2.0 press within the community echo chamber, only had a few thousand users. Seriously?

I tend to remind myself that we're not really a web business. We aren't out to leverage the long tail or create a social network or do everything 100% automated. We're looking to fill the need of the every day job seeker, something that after 12 years, the web community has still failed to do. If we happen to strike a web2.0 chord along the way (like we've done with our use of Ajax), then rad. Bring on the hype. Other than that.. It's the traditional job seeking folks in Denver, reading their paper, that we'd like to attract ;)