Explosive Expressions

Fergie, you always find the best toons….

As most everyone knows, the former Secretary of the State, Colin Powell, has endorsed Barack Obama for president. This is a pretty significant event for a number of reasons. Powell is a well-known retired Army General who played a key role in both the first and current Iraq war. He is known for preferring diplomacy to outright war, earning him the title of “The Reluctant Warrior.” He is well respected by members of both political parties, and was even rumored to be a possible opponent to Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election. To say that Powell is an influential figure is an understatement, at best.

On October 19, Powell officially endorsed Obama. He explained his reasoning which seems to boil down to a few items:

• Obama is reaching out to everyone, not a targeted group
• He thinks Obama is a “Transformational Figure”
• He is troubled by the way McCain’s campaign is trying to insinuate that Obama is Muslim or a terrorist, instead of talking about the issues

He said a few things that really resonated with me, marking him, at least in my book, as a true patriot. Specifically he said the following about the insinuation that Obama is a Muslim :

“But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.”

That’s an incredible statement. Seriously, who cares if he’s Muslim, Christian, or Atheist. At the end of the day, do you feel he can lead the country, and do you agree with the agenda he has set forth. If you do, then his race, religion, or whatever is secondary. I’m not sure who said it, but I heard a quote on the news today. It went something like this. Noone is asking you to like Obama. Noone is asking you to be his friend. We’re asking you to look at what he wants to do for the country and vote based on that. If you believe in what he believes in, then you should vote for him.

Others want to continue muddying the water. Let’s take a well-known political mouthpiece, Rush Limbaugh. Rush had this to say:

“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail. “OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”

What an asinine thing to say. Of course, he defends his statements:

“So what if it’s race?” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “Why is it so hard to admit that it’s race…What’s so problematic about admitting it?”

The problem is, I’m not so sure it is about race. Sure, Powell is black and so is Obama. But, umm… I’m white and so is Limbaugh. I wouldn’t vote for Limbaugh just because he’s white, would you? Oh, right.. we’re the majority… Yeah, so I guess that doesn’t hold water. Regardless, I think it’s stupid to immediately assume that the endorsement is because of skin color. We’re talking about a well-respected Republican breaking ranks and endorsing a Democrat. This doesn’t happen every day, you know.

Oh, and as for Powell? Well, he had already mentioned the race thing anyway:

“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president.”

That’s a far cry from claiming his endorsement is race-based, though. But who cares if it is race? I don’t believe anyone is hiding the fact that Obama isn’t exactly white. But, jumping up and down and screaming about his race isn’t going to help anything. In fact, I think the way he’s been handling everything is incredible. Instead of making this about race, and playing on the race card constantly, he has ignored that completely and made his campaign about the issues. In the end, it’s the issues that count. And, as can be seen by the steady self-destruction of the McCain campaign, people want to hear about the issues.

Seriously, I don’t care about Mr Ayers and his ties to domestic violence in the 60’s and 70’s. Although, for the record, I completely agree with his 2001 statements. The situation was different back then, and to regret his acts would be to disavow what he was trying to accomplish.

I don’t care if Obama was Muslim, or even if he still is. And I’d probably understand if he was hiding that fact, given the current anti-Muslim climate in America. Though, of course, that wouldn’t help his campaign much. But so what. This is government we’re talking about, not a church.

So let’s try and pull this country together and make decisions like grownups, not like petty little children who have nothing better to do than pick on people.

Thanks Fergie…

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

You can always tell when an election is near, the political ads get worse and worse. It’s pretty stupid, really, when you have to sit through a 30 second video that bashes the hell out of a candidate and then spends 1-2 seconds, at most, telling you that “so and so has approved this message.” Ok, so candidate X is an asshole and shouldn’t be elected. Great. But, who the hell is candidate Y? They approved the message, so they must be against everything they bashed the other candidate for, right? Well, I have no idea! Candidate Y didn’t bother to say a damned thing about themselves…

Are humans wired in such a way that the only way to influence them is to point out the negative aspects of “the other guy?” Have we fallen that far into depravity that we cannot decide who should rule us based on positive input from the candidates? Perhaps the human race deserves what it gets. Perhaps we deserve to be in the situation we’re in with finances and war.

McCain and company have fallen even deeper into the well with their latest attack on Obama. Did you know that Obama has associated with a man by the name of William Ayers? Mr Ayers was a member of a radical movement in the 60’s and 70’s called the Weather Underground who were known for violent demonstrations against the government. I don’t know his entire history, but in the end, he became a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois.

Ayers is apparently a supporter of Obama, and even held a fundraising event for him. When Obama first started in politics, and was fighting for education reform, Ayers was there with him. Because of this, McCain has started bashing Obama for “associating with known terrorists.” But let’s get serious here… First of all, how often are people in shock and disbelief when they find out that someone they’ve known for years is actually a bad person? How often do you see people on TV who knew serial killers, rapists, etc., exclaim how those people were “upstanding citizens” and “great neighbors?” Assuming outright that Obama even knew who Ayers was, beyond his career at the college, is ludicrous. Does McCain take the time to delve into the background of every single person he associates with? And besides, these are events that happened 40 years ago, when Obama wasn’t more than a boy.

But if we believe McCain, then we also have to believe that Ayers is polluting the minds of the students he teaches. They’re taking his class, so obviously they are being taught by a known terrorist. Right? Shouldn’t he be fired immediately? Hell, let’s send him to Guantanamo with the rest of the “known” terrorists.

Or, we can take a look at what Mr Ayers does today and realize that perhaps he has changed his mindset. He made statements in 2001 about his part in the bombings and the violence. He stated that he did not regret what he did, and perhaps that he didn’t do enough. He also said that he wouldn’t discount the possibility of doing the same thing if he had it all to do over again. A lot of controversy surrounded those statements, especially in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But you have to look at the mindset of the time and realize that he was fighting what he thought was injustice. He was doing exactly what the founding forefathers said to do. He was doing what he could to abolish a government that he felt was no longer effective. And he wasn’t the only one. Perhaps he took the wrong steps to fight injustice, but he felt those steps were necessary.

Today, Mr Ayers is a professor. He fight for education reform, and is a leader in his field. He has written many books on education and ethics. To say that he is a terrorist discounts all the he has accomplished to date.

I think, however, that McCain is playing on the fears of the American citizen. For the past 7+ years we have been told that terrorists are out there. They’re everywhere, and they want to kill us. We have been told to watch out for them, report anything unusual, be vigilant. We have allowed the government to take away our liberties and subject us to insane procedures to ensure our safety. We have heard the rallying cries of “Think about the children” and “We must keep America safe from terrorism.” In short, we have become so afraid of this perceived threat that we are willing to give up anything. And now, McCain is trying to associate his opponent with terrorism in an attempt to sway voters.

Unfortunately, I think that most mainstream Americans are too stupid to realize that this is nothing more than a ploy. A ploy in bad taste, I might add. We have been brainwashed by the leaders of our country and now they own us. We have been told that we are in a financial crisis and that we have to do something about it. The government asked for more power, and we gave it to them. We were told that terrorism was a threat that we needed to fight. So we let the government start wars over it. We were told that we needed to give up our liberties in order to be safe, so we did. We are sheep. Sheep being led to the slaughter. And even when we see the writing on the wall, we choose not to read, but to move forward blindly.

Perhaps Ayers wasn’t too far off all those years ago. Perhaps we do need to rethink our government. I don’t think we need to run out and start bombing things, but we definitely need to do something to change the tide. We need change. Will Obama provide that? I honestly do not know. But I feel that McCain is nothing more than another Bush and we definitely can’t handle another 4 years of that. And if he died in office? Well, then Palin would step in. I don’t know about you, but the thought of her running thing scares the shit out of me…

So it looks like I’m not the only one who thinks the bailout should be dropped…

I had been taking some time to pour through the version of the bailout bill that the House voted on, but the Senate threw a wrench in that by releasing another version. This new one is 450+ pages! I just don’t have the time to read something THAT large…

As I mentioned the other day, the bill the House voted on grew by a few pages. My first perusal was a quick one, intended to figure out what the deal was rather than digging into the nitty gritty. Now, however, I want to understand it a bit more. So, here are my current thoughts.

First and foremost, all the brouhaha about executive pay, I would like to go on the record by saying that this is nothing more than a big fat RED HERRING! Look, executives get paid a lot. They get all sorts of bonuses and end up getting massive payouts, even when companies fail. The current wording in the bailout bill (in the senate version too) really doesn’t block anything.

But, let’s look at it another way. First off, you need to understand what a golden parachute is. Simply put, it’s a guaranteed payout that top executives get *IF* the company fails or is taken over. In short, unless that executive loses their job, there is no payout. The purpose of the bailout plan is to prevent companies from failing, which means that executives wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the golden parachute anyway. Also realize that the provisions in the bailout bill are only in effect for companies that are assisted, and only for as long as they are assisted. Sure, there’s a chance that some companies will still fail, but even if 10 failed, and the average parachute was $10 million, that’s only $100 million. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to how much this bill is going to lay on the line… So let’s stop pretending that executive pay is the only issue here.

This bill also gives the Secretary of the Treasury an unprecedented amount of power. There are so-called checks and balances in the form of justifications, but if he wanted, he could easily sink a company, purely by stating that they were a risky investment, as if any of them aren’t… That is a fairly large amount of power to put in the hands of someone who used to run one of those companies. As I mentioned before, he may be a stand up guy, and he may have the best of intentions, but the temptation is definitely there.

The rest of it is pretty much everything that has been in the news. Insurance, paid by the bailed-out institutions, public reporting, oversight, etc. One important note is the modification of existing mortgages. The only mortgages that can be modified are ones from companies that get bailed out. If your bank doesn’t take part, you are out of luck.

The new bailout bill, per the senate, has some additional “stuff” in it.. Let’s see… Tax breaks for motorsport facilities, a bunch of energy stuff, disaster aid, etc. The list just goes on and on… So much for bailout, this thing is loaded with crap. I’ve heard estimates of $150 billion or more in extra junk. It’s unreal how large these bills can get in just a day or two…

Well, we’ll find out what happens next.. The bailout just passed. 263 to 171.

Shit.

Current score? 205 Yea to 228 Nay. Of course, both sides are blaming each other, as expected. They’re like a bunch of unruly children… “It’s not my fault, it’s their fault.. We did our job…” Bunch of whiners…

Regardless, I, myself, view this as a win. Maybe those fat cats on Wall Street can get off their asses now and work towards a solution. They won’t, though, because the government keeps telling everyone that they WILL pass something. What a great excuse to fall back on… “Sorry the bank failed, but the government said they would help and they haven’t…”

The latest version of the bill can be found here. An additional 3 pages, based on page count alone. I haven’t had a chance to digest it yet, though…

Meanwhile, golden parachutes are floating from the sky…

Seriously.. Are we kidding here? This chick wants to run the country?

It’s out. Read it here. It’s early enough that we don’t have a full handle on everything in it yet. What is know is the following:

• Insurance covering any assets purchased by the government
• Oversight by the government via the Financial Stability Oversight Board (members of which are not to be additionally compensated)
• Money will be dispersed in stages, starting with a $250 billion disbursement
• The Secretary of the Treasury gets to sell off these assets when and however he wants…
• Provisions to help homeowners (including owners of rental properties) keep or refinance their mortgages (Apparently the HOPE for Homeowners program is highlighted)
• Wording to prevent golden parachutes, but it looks like there are likely ways around this. So this seems to be working just to make certain partied happy as opposed to a definite prohibition. (Warning! This looks like a red herring!)
• All information related to assets purchased by the government will be made public within 2 days of the transaction
• A report on the current state of regulatory reform has to be submitted by January 20, 2009…. This is a report to congress, however, and will not necessarily become public.
• It appears that in 5 years, upon the expiration of this bill, if there’s a shortfall, that shortfall can be recouped from the companies benefiting from the act.
• Financial experts and consultants can be brought in for advice (presumably in paid positions)
• The treasury can, optionally, take an ownership in any company participating in this bailout.

This is a lot here. The plan has expanded a tad from a mere 3 page proposal to a 106 page draft. I’m still skeptical of this entire process, I’m of the opinion that the market will right itself given time, but as far as a bill goes, it doesn’t seem too bad … Though I am not a lawyer and I don’t completely understand everything in the draft.

One thing I would like to point out is that this bill gives an insane amount of power to the Secretary of the Treasury. At the moment, that is Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. I don’t know much about this guy, but regardless, this feels like an awful lot of power for someone with such ties to the financial community. I could, of course, be wrong, and this may be the perfect person to handle this. But there are a number of provisions within the draft to prevent the limitation of the power of the Secretary… I’m not sure that’s such a wise decision.

Regardless, there it is. I’m sure there will be a lot of talk over the next few hours, possibly days. And I’ll bet that the wording will change, probably significantly, prior to it being accepted… And, unfortunately, as much as I’d like to see it fall flat and not get passed, I can almost guarantee that it will pass.

In just a few short weeks, the most powerful financial cornerstones in the world have been reduced to rubble. But has the carnage ended? Or is there more on the horizon? And dammit, how did we get here?

Lets get one thing straight, first. This is *my* take on what’s going on based on information gathered from news outlets on the web. I am not a financial guru, economist, or really anyone who should be trusted with investing money at all. I’m writing this because I can, and I’m trying to make sure it’s as accurate as I can. I will come back and edit if need be. That said, lets move on.

Since about 2000, the housing market has been booming. Prices have been rising steadily, reaching all-time highs. Mortgage lenders offered subprime mortgages, a truly stupid way to make a quick buck. Subprime mortgages worked something like this :

Joe wants to buy a house, but Joe doesn’t have very good credit. This could be because Joe is new to the financial world, or because Joe made some bad choices in his past. Either way, he doesn’t fit the criteria to be offered a standard loan. But, not wanting to turn a potential customer away, the bank decides to offer Joe a subprime loan. Subprime loans are great, says the bank, because they allow you to buy a house today and help fix your credit over the short term. Then, in a few years when your credit is better, you can re-apply for a normal loan!

So, Joe opts in for the subprime loan. The bank will give him a loan for his new home, and all he has to do is pay interest payments for the next 5-10 years. Of course, since the bank is doing him this huge favor, at great risk to themselves, there are some conditions. If Joe is late on a payment, he’ll pay a pretty hefty fee. And in 5-10 years, the subprime interest rate he’s enjoying today will be switched to an adjustable rate. But that’s 5-10 years in the future, plenty of time to deal with that later.

Ok, so what’s the problem here? Joe will surely fix his credit and be able to get a better loan in 5 years, right? Well.. maybe. 5 years go by and Joe is still having some financial trouble. Nothing huge, his mortgage payment is always on time, but those damn credit cards are killing him. Oh well, no way to get a better rate and re-finance his mortgage. And suddenly, Joe’s mortgage payment jumps up by a pretty hefty sum. Why? Because he’s past the interest-only payments, and needs to pay on the actual mortgage balance now.

Now we have a problem. Joe can’t afford all of this, so he delays paying the mortgage until he has the full amount. Of course, this makes the payment late, which then adds a late fee. More money that Joe doesn’t have. This starts a rather vicious cycle which typically ends in Joe’s credit being completely destroyed, the mortgage defaulting, and the house being foreclosed upon.

This started to happen quite a lot in about 2007 causing the mortgage industry to start a slow collapse. First to go was New Century Financial which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April, 2007. In the months following the initial collapse of the subprime market, the heavy hitters of Wall Street, who dealt in mortgage-backed securities, started trying to sell off their subprime mortgage assets. Of course, noone wanted them because they were now worthless, a horrible investment guaranteed to lose money. CNN has a great definition of a mortgage-backed security:

Banks lend money to homeowners through home mortgages; these loans are then bought from the banks and sliced up and repackaged into securities that investors buy and sell just like stocks. Those investors make money off the homeowners’ monthly interest payments. The nation’s housing crisis has forced many Americans to skip payments, or worse, foreclose on their homes, so investors don’t get the interest payments. That’s why the securities become toxic assets to have on a company’s balance sheet: nobody wants to buy them, and there’s no market for them. Thus, all those institutions that hold these mortgage-backed securities — and they’ve got a lot of them! — are in big trouble.

So the investment bankers start feeling the heat and are unable to get rid of these so-called “toxic” assets. The value of these assets begins to plummet causing the value of some investment banking companies, who had a large stake in the subprime market, to drop. Bear Stearns, one of the largest, was particularly hard hit and had to apply for an emergency loan in March of 2008 in order to stay afloat. Later that month, they agreed to merge with JP Morgan Chase, effectively ending the existence of Bear Stearns.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government sponsored enterprises, controlled upwards of 50% of the mortgage market at the beginning of 2008. When the floor fell out from under the subprime market, these companies found themselves unable to cover the resulting losses. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to fail and were quickly placed into conservatorship by the federal government. The government will allow both entities to continue to guarantee all loans, as well as grow their loan portfolio in the coming months.

Following this, additional companies began to fall. Lehman Brothers, a financial services company, suffered greatly from the subprime collapse and filed for bankrupcy on September 15th. The next day, Barclays plc, another financial services company, agreed to purchase what was left of Lehman Brothers. Following this, the American International Group (AIG), an insurance company, began to collapse. Investors noted that both AIG and Lehman Brothers had similar mortgage portfolios, but that AIG had them valued much higher. As a result, investors began selling off AIG stock in an effort to distance themselves from the company. On September 16th, the Federal Reserve bank agreed to loan the company up to $85 billion to bail the company out. In return, AIG agreed to give the Federal Reserve a 79.9% stake in AIG.

On September 19th, the Federal Government announced a plan to avert the financial crisis. The government would make available a minimum of $700 billion to cover the purchase of mortgage-backed securities from failing companies. The government would purchase these assets, effectively saving the companies involved from any losses, and sell them at a later date. The intention is to save the market and make the money back later when the assets are sold.

But, the carnage doesn’t end there. The last two Investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, both saw their stock prices plummet. On September 22nd, they both agreed to convert from investment banks to traditional bank holding companies. By becoming traditional bank holding companies, they have easier access to credit, including the government-sponsored bailout, thereby increasing their chances of making it through the current financial turmoil.

And that is about where we stand today. Congress is currently debating the bailout proposal, weighing the options and determining a course of action. President Bush addressed the nation last night, explaining his position and the intended bailout. All said and done, this bailout may cost upwards of $1.8 trillion, which includes money already spent on bailing out companies like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.

But is this the correct course of action? Should the Federal Government provide an out for these companies? Companies, I might add, that manipulated the system just to make a quick buck? Many economists disagree with the current proposal. Some of the reasons cited include a lack of oversight on the use of the bailout money, displeasure at the amount of control the government is asking for, and a belief that the government sale of the assets will be unable to cover the cost of buying them.

From my own view, I don’t see this as the domain of the government. These are private companies that made bad mistakes. The fault of these mistakes lies both on the companies as well as the investor. Simply put, if you cannot afford a mortgage, you have no business getting one. Owning a house is great, but do you want the own a house at the risk of complete financial ruin? While there’s always a risk, minimizing that risk is the job of the risk taker.

The banks offering these types of loans should bear a good bit of the blame as well. In some cases, loans were pushed on unsuspecting consumers without fully explaining the risks. Regardless, I still don’t see how a bank can justify offering a loan to a high-risk borrower. I understand the frustration of the high-risk borrower, having been one myself at one time, but blindly offering loans to anyone asking for one can only end in catastrophe, as we are seeing today.

So what can be done to fix this? Well, I definitely don’t believe the government should be bailing these companies out. If I understand the proposal, the companies that caused all of this will, in the end, take almost no loss and suffer no consequences. On the other side, the government assumes the burden of dealing with those bad loans, and the cost associated will eventually be put on the taxpayer. In the end, the responsible taxpayer suffers because the big financial players got greedy.

Personally, I say we let them suffer. Let them figure out how to fix the system. It’s often amazing to see what solutions will pop up when the pressure is great enough. They’ll likely lose a great deal of money, and much of the financial sector will feel the crunch, but those of us who are responsible will likely be ok. Sure, my 401K will take a hit, probably more than it has already, but in the end, I’m willing to bet it will balance itself out.

So let this be a lesson to you.. Making stupid decisions can lead to disastrous results…

So, the Obama camp has decided on a VP candidate, Joe Biden. So who is this guy and is he a good match for Obama?

Senator Joe Biden started his career back in 1971 on the Wilmington, Deleware County Council. A mere two years later, he ran for Senator and has been in the Senate ever since. He has served under 7 presidents during his career in the senate. He has also run for president twice, once in 1988, and once earlier this year, 2008. In both cases, he withdrew from the race. Biden has been a key member of both the Judiciary and the Foreign Relations committees.

On the Judiciary committee, he worked to pass laws such as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA), the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act (RAVE), and wrote the laws that established the post of Drug Czar.

The VCCLEA provids for additional police officers, funding for prisons, and funding for prevention. It also includes a ban on assault weapons, adds additional crimes that could be punished with the death penalty and removes the ability for inmates to apply for educational grants.

VAWA provides funding to help investigation and prosecution of violent acts against women. It also allows law enforcement to detain the accused longer before trial, and allowed victims to seek restitution if the crime went unprosecuted. The latter part of the VAWA, dealing with restitution, was deemed unconstitutional in 2000.

The RAVE act is an anti-drug act, seeking to stop the use of drugs such as Ecstasy and date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol. Essentially, the law provided guidelines for prosecution of individuals who profit from making premises available for drug use.

Finally, the post of Drug Czar was created in 1988. The term “Drug Czar” refers to the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The ONDCP is responsible for establishing drug policies within the United States, and overseeing the anti-drugs efforts.

In the area of Foreign Relations, Biden has been a strong supporter of stopping hostilities in the Balkans. He also stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security and that he needed to be dealt with immediately. He went on to support the use of military force on Iraq, effectively supporting the start of the Iraq war. He did, however, support a resolution to use diplomacy first. That resolution was rejected by the Bush Administration.

Biden has supported copyright law preventing individuals from recording and playing back Internet and Satellite Radio. He also supported a bill that would make it a felony to “trick” a device into playing “unauthorized” music, or running programs that were not “approved” for it. He has shown himself to be a strong supporter of DRM and copyright in general, siding with the RIAA and MPAA.

When it comes to privacy, Biden has proven that he is more interested in preventing it rather than protecting it. In the 1990’s, a series of bills, sponsored by Biden, aimed to restrict encryption and add a “back door” into secure communications equipment. These two bills, the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, and the Violent Crime Control Act, spurred Phil Zimmerman into action and he created a program called Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) to allow secure, military grade encryption for email communications.

Biden was also instrumental in passing the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994. CALEA requires that telephone companies, and more recently, Internet Service Providers, install remote wiretapping capabilities into the telecommunications equipment. While warrants are still required for wire tapping, this made the process much easier as law enforcement no longer needed direct access to the phone equipment to tap a line. And, as we’ve seen more recently, this allowed for easy warrant-less wiretapping as well.

With respect to terrorism, Biden introduced the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act in 1995. This act expanded FISA, allowing “secret” evidence to be used in court, and defined the crime of terrorism. As per section 202 of the act,

`(v) TERRORISM DEFINED- As used in this Act, the term `terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.’

While the Omnibus act was never enacted into law, it was the predecessor to the Patriot act, which was drafted and passed into law in 2001. Biden voted for the Patriot act in 2001, and for the renewal of the Patriot act in 2006.

Biden’s views seem to change, somewhat, in 2007. With the presidential race looming, and his hat already tossed into the ring, Biden changed his tune. He attacked the president’s warrantless wiretapping program, and asked for the resignation of the Attorney General. More recently, he voted against the FISA bill which contained provisions allowing for telecom immunity.

I find it odd that Obama would choose such a person as a running mate. While Biden definitely has more foreign relations experience, the rest of his career seems to fly in the face of what Obama stands for. Obama blasts old-school politics, but then picks up a 30+ year veteran. Obama supports civil liberties, and was trained as a civil liberties lawyer, but Biden seems to have no interest in civil liberties.

And so I find myself at an impasse. I am not a fan of McCain, nor his new attack dog. But, voting for Obama means voting for Biden. And while I appreciate Biden’s candidness, I am not a fan of his policy. I’ve all but lost faith in the system… If the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils, then the system has truly failed.