The Twilight of Our Idols

[this article was originally posted to my Facebook page in June 2015]

I can remember hearing, on my car radio in 1997, of the death of actor Jimmy Stewart.  Two things immediately came to my 29 year-old mind:

* "I kind of thought he would live forever"
* "I feel sad for my parents' generation"

Today, nearly 20 years later, we learn of the death of actor Christopher Lee. It has been a long time since I could forget that even famous people pass away.  And the sorrow I feel this time is for my own generation's loss.

We see them now a little more often than we saw them before, don't we?  The online posts about heaven gaining another angel.   It could be a pet.  It could be a classmate.  It is, with increasing regularity, a cherished relative of the previous generation or a parent.

And, here we are: the 40-something masters of the universe, agog and bewildered that the people we all looked up to for so long are turning over the keys to the kingdom, increasingly, to us.  I marvel at how many of us announced their children's graduations from high school this year.  We have now produced a new generation of adults that look up to us the way we looked up to our parents (whether that's been clear over the previous several years or not).  Many of them will have felt, on learning of the death of Christopher Lee, the way I felt when learning of the death of Jimmy Stewart.

So, besides evoking a sense of poignancy with these observations, what is my point?  Simply this: Life waits for no one.  We, the remnants of the Baby Boomers and the vanguard of Generation X, find ourselves, finally, in the driver's seats of our worlds.  No more hand holding; no more training wheels.  We are now "they", "them" -- "those people" who, increasingly over the next two decades or so, get to say how our families, our neighborhoods, our governments, and our society will go.  There is no longer the shadow of someone greater than us hiding us from our moment in the spotlight.

Seize the scepter - lay hold on the empty throne.  Our idols have grown frail and are abandoning us.  We 'get to say' now; it is our turn to be looked up to.

Do Talk To Strangers

In November 2014, two children belonging to Alexander and Danielle Meltiv were picked up by police officers while walking home from a park a third of a mile from their home at 5 p.m. The authorities did not contact the parents about the whereabouts of their kids until three hours later and would only release the children into their custody after they had signed a "temporary safety plan" promising not to leave their children unattended.[1]

There is a big problem with perception vs reality in the United States today. I'm talking now, specifically, about the misinformed and idiotic trend toward reporting, arresting, and charging parents with child endangerment for allowing their kids to play outside unsupervised. Given the reality of the risks involved, this embarrassing state of affairs constitutes a true tyranny of ignoramuses in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

In the US, a child aged 14 or younger is more likely to die of a sudden, unexpected heart attack than to be abducted by a stranger. We have 60 million kids in this age group[2] and, in the latest year of compiled statistics, 115 of them were abducted by strangers.[3] That works out to a 0.00019% chance that, in a given year, a child aged 14 or younger will be abducted by a stranger. In fact, you are more likely to find a child dead of accidental drowning in a bathtub than you are to have him or her abducted by a stranger in any given year.

The most laughable (and tragic) misunderstanding of these odds is that many people feel that exposure to society is more dangerous for kids today than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. But this is not the case. From 1990 to 2007, for instance, "substantiated cases of child sexual abuse have declined 53% and physical abuse substantiations have declined 52%."[4] Rape, attempted or completed, against children fell a further 43% from 2003 to 2011.[5]

I could launch here into an exposition about why more people today are more likely to imagine that American society is more dangerous than it was in previous decades. But I'm not going to do that. It would only give a false air of legitimacy to the perpetrators of this trend. In the end, it is an uninteresting mystery to solve -- in the face of the active curtailment of liberty that is going on due to the breathless intervention of uninformed busy-bodies.

It really just comes down to this for parents: are you going to be influenced more by the true facts of the world or by fear of looking bad to people who are going to judge you regardless of how well you take care of your children? And to law enforcement, the courts, and the various child protective services agencies out there we need to say, "Enough is enough." What happened to the Meltiv family in Maryland should never happen to any family.

[1] Slate.com story about the Maltivs
[2] 2013 US population numbers by age range, US Census Bureau
[3] May 2013 Washington Post opinion piece by the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hamshire
[4] Trends in Childhood Victimization, Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hamshire
[5] Free Range Kids.com crime statistics page

Why Does A Higher Minimum Wage Lead To Higher Prices?

The main reason why prices tend to rise with wages is that public corporation stock prices are tied to their quarterly/annual earnings. Corporations that desire their stock prices to rise are always looking for ways to increase their profits and show earnings growth.
Increased wages raise expenses for a corporation by a factor of its total workforce affected by the wage increase. This lowers earnings/profits, and causes a chain reaction (via analyst downgrades) that results in their stock price declining. An obvious candidate for making up for the lost profits is to raise prices and/or find cheaper labor (Asia/Mexico) and cheaper materials/ingredients.

One complicating factor is that a general workforce with higher wages has higher purchasing power. Yet, as the workforce exercises this power in the market place, it signals higher demand which tends to trigger both higher prices from current suppliers and the entry into the market of alternative suppliers who try to compete on price and volume.

Not saying any of this is good or bad. Just pointing out the general mechanism. Perhaps someday we can return our society back to a 1950s/1960s business mentality when "maximizing shareholder value" wasn't the A#1 priority of corporate CEOs.

On Obamacare and the Free Market

Many of my contemporaries are posting and blogging about the PPACA, also known as "Obamacare", which rolled out its public health insurance marketplace in October. The most consistent complaint I read about the program is that it sets a new precedent of governmental intrusion on private citizens by requiring us all to purchase a product, namely: a health insurance policy. The law is set up this way so that the economics of heath insurance underwriting will work -- healthy individuals' premiums today cover sick individuals' costs today and provided a reserve for the costs of tomorrow.

It is worth considering how we as a county find ourselves crossing this precedent of intrusion. You would think (wouldn't you?) that industries operating in a free market would police themselves from a standpoint of enlightened self-interest so as to not require regulatory intervention. But in case after case, industries have failed to do so.

Take the revelations about the US meat-packing industry in 1905 that led to the founding of the (precursor to) the FDA. Or the 1910 phosphorus match industry study that produced high taxes, forcing the industry to innovate a safer technology for their workers. When the harm done by an industry flying the free market banner outweighs the benefits of waiting for the unseen hand to remedy the situation, governments have acted and always will act.

You may not be of the opinion that there was a crisis in healthcare access (via premium inflation or underwriting restrictions). However, a sober survey of business articles from 2003 until the housing crisis shows that US health care costs were consistently cited as one of the top problems threatening the US economy.

When you consider the trend of US demographics going forward toward the next 30+ years, it becomes less surprising that the PPACA is the new FDA or SEC of our time.

New Year's Eve - Or Is It?

We Interrupt This Holiday To Bring You A Special Announcement:

The calendar is a useful fiction, meant to serve us - not to be our master. In fact, the earth is not exactly where it was 365.25 days ago, because the Sun is also falling through space as is the Sun's star cluster and the Milky Way itself. It is not December or January or 2012 or 2013. It is "Now": the only time you will ever have.

Two immediate practical consequences of this observation are: You don't ever have to put your life on hold, waiting for a date on a calendar to come around in order to have a new start. And, you're always only as old as you feel you are.

You may now return to your celebrations with the people you love who imagine there are weeks and months and years to pay attention to.

Back to My Center, Politically

I'm not really sure which post or image I first responded to on Facebook that made me start sounding like a perpetual Barack Obama supporter the last couple of months. The truth is that I am not. I just felt it was important to take a stand against obviously slanderous information. I guess there's just something in my DNA that rages against intentional misrepresentation. No one may say I have not done the same for Romney when I saw similar distortions.

But I identify most closely with the Libertarian point of view: "Lord, save me from those who try to help me, I can handle my enemies by myself." If the Republican party had had the balls to nominate Ron Paul, I'd be all over that. In the end we need less centralized power, not more. Just think of it - instead of one convenient place for corrupting, pandering lobbyists to go (Washington, DC), just think if they'd have to spread out across all 50 states Capitols. Or, even better, thousands and thousands of county seats. Alas, I may not see that come to pass in my lifetime.

But I know that a Republican party yes man is also not what this country needs in the White House. The Neo-cons still control the Republican party and it is thanks to them we had the runaway spending of the Iraq war and the erosion of our civil liberties in the form of the so-called Patriot Act, warantless wire-tapping, the TSA, etc. If I must choose between a tax-and-spend Democrat or a borrow-and-spend Republican, I will go for the guy who's gonna at least bankrupt us peacefully.

Which brings me to our role in global affairs. I've said it before, I'll say it again: We cannot preserve our Republic while we try to maintain an Empire. The problem with maintaining a Superpower-class military long after the Cold War has ended is that you end up looking for excuses to get a return on your investment. I'm all for strength, but "larger than the next 10 militaries combined" is at least seven or eight times too large. Continually bleeding debt money for this - as well as the Federal entitlement programs in their current forms - will certainly force the hard choices, in a more painful way (like in Greece today), than if we made them today, intentionally.

Frittering Our Lives Away

Today I saw an amusing picture someone shared on a social media website of a zebra clinging to the top of a giraffe's neck, peering over its head into the far distance. The caption asked, "Can you see Friday yet... ?" It seems that all around us, there are messages about wishing we were at some other time or some other place than where we are right now. Like candy, these mental bon-bons are harmless enough as occasional sentiments. But, also like candy, it is easy to over-indulge, leading to consequences one might not expect or prefer.


Used Courtesy of MyCommentSpace.com
Where does this desire not to be "here", "now", come from? How is it that we can live week to week, month to month, year to year, always yearning for some other day or situation to arrive? A good bit of this tendency no doubt comes from our environment. We grow up hearing our parents, relatives, and friends bemoaning their circumstances. We get sent to school where we come to feel that homework is a chore and that looking forward to Friday and the weekend is a normal emotional state. To resist these attitudes is to risk alienation from a vital circle of society. The path of least resistance is to go along with it, adopt the outlook, and mimic acceptable catch-phrases, such as, "Thank God it's Friday!" Well before the weekend is over, it hits us - Monday is coming! Soon, whatever joy we may have been experiencing gets overshadowed by the dread we've learned to affect from those we love. By the time we join the working world, it is almost a competition, at the coffee break, to be the first one to exclaim, "I hate Mondays!"

But not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of our acquaintances and institutions. Some of us take the ball and run considerably farther. We learn that we can distinguish ourselves by the thought and creativity we pour into our expressions of elation or vehemence over the periods of time approaching in the near future. There's a cost to doing this, however, and that cost adds up. Expressing ourselves in these ways tends to define us, in the minds of those we spend time with as "John, the guy who loves Fridays" or "Maria, the girl who hates Mondays". And, having trained others to see us in those ways, we tend to then reinforce that image as part of our own search for meaning and belonging. We can be counted on to say or create or share ever-cleverer expressions of ourselves as people who somehow get by in life based on the promise of a better day to come - like the caption on the photo of the zebra.  In time, we believe this definition ourselves.

You have undoubtedly asked yourself some form of the age-old question, "If I could go back in time to a specific point in my life, which one would I choose to make it all turn out differently?" The mind loves contemplating hypotheticals like this. And yet, the joke is on whoever asks that question because doing so virtually guarantees you will ask it again in the future and come up with: the current period in your life. Why is that? Because to contemplate it at all is a form of escape that steals your focus away from the present moment. It robs you of the presence of mind required to soberly assess whether your current situation and activity are steering you toward the kind of life you would rather live. And just now we have gotten to the heart of the matter. Escape. Somehow, many of us have bought the message that we're just supposed to press forward in a life filled with circumstances and situations we never would have chosen if we had known better the first time around. Contemplating all of the disruption and energy it would take to press the "Reset" button, face the stark, naked unknown, and escape the gravity of expectations from all the loved ones we've trained to accept us in our default form just seems so... daunting. So we take our minds off of the subject. We distract ourselves with gadgets, amuse ourselves with content, numb ourselves with substances, and press on. No wonder Thoreau made the observation (still true today), "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."  Living such a life is unpleasant, so we find ways to not notice that it's happening - chiefly in the form of occupying our thoughts about the past or the future.

I have come to believe that the attitude one has toward life is the most precious mental commodity he or she possesses. More valuable - by far - than a sharp wit or a quick memory. Intellect and recall will always serve to the best of their ability. But the thing that they serve - the one who calls the shots - is your attitude. The good news is, unlike your other mental faculties, attitude can be changed. And yet, how rare it is to meet someone who actively works to improve his or her attitude toward life in adulthood! I heard someone once define "personality" as "the set of social strategies for survival you came up with in Middle School." Are you the Joker in your group? The leader? The cynic, the quiet one, the critic, the facilitator? When was the last time you examined the fundamental building blocks of how you respond to life and asked the question, "Does this way of expressing myself really serve me anymore?" If the answer is, "Longer than a year", I suggest it's time to get your journal out, jot the question down, and let it work its magic. You'd be amazed at what you come up with when you take yourself seriously enough to call yourself on your own assumptions and allow what is really important to come up to the surface.

A surprising and delightful benefit of learning to focus in on the present moment is that life seems to slow down considerably. A lot of the mental chatter you needed to sustain in order to distract yourself from your former sense of drudgery just melts away. The daily commute is no longer an unpleasant necessity for getting from point A to point B. Instead, it becomes a fascinating adventure that's new each day. You stop avoiding "certain people" and take on the outlook that you're going to deal with them as if you were meeting them for the very first time. You give that restaurant another try, even though they messed up your order once upon a time. And so on. Perhaps some of this sounds far-fetched or even naive. People who have invested their lives in cleverly pointing out snarky angles and flaws in every situation might make fun of you. Friends who've known you for years might wonder what the hell has gotten into you. I guess there are trade-offs for every path one may take. But for me, the price has been worth it.

I get on the elevator at work. A co-worker I've never seen before exclaims, "Thank God, it's Friday!" The door opens at my floor and I reply, "Oh yeah - Friday is one of my favorite days of the week!" I step out of the car then I turn and add, "Just like Monday." The look on his face as the door closes: Priceless.

Weighing Separate Wisdom Paths: Business Choice 2010

It's springtime in the American economy - time to plant seeds of enterprise that may, with some luck and a good bit of determination and skill, bring forth a bountiful harvest as the recovery kicks into high gear over the next few years. And I've been reading and listening to a lot of great business educational material lately. I find that there are two broad categories of advice with regard to the choice of a business.

The first wisdom path is the "Do What You Love And The Money Will Come" school of thought. This line of reasoning dates back at least as far as Confucius (500 BCE) who was the first person we know of to write, "Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life." It is tempting to take this advice just to prove to myself (and to my slice of the world) whether or not it is really true. If, as Deepak Chopra writes, I choose the path that I would have chosen anyway (were I already rich), the path that most completely matches my gifts to the needs of the world, I would unhesitatingly choose to become an author and speaker in the field of personal development. (AKA "Motivational Speaker") I've got a great life story that already sounds like something you'd read in a movie script and it lights me up to pass on the wisdom that had made such a dramatic difference in my life. Any of my close friends could attest to the truth of these assertions.

I've recently gone far enough along this path to create stubs for chapters of a book that I think would be timely and relevant to America's current economic situation. It's entitled, "How To Thrive During The Recovery". It has specific, practical advice about how to take advantage of our developing economic upturn - whether the reader is interested in employment, business, real estate, or stock investing. I've also created the opening portions of a free, 90-minute seminar that I could give in cities as the book is launched to help introduce it to the public. (as well as enroll people in future advanced seminars offered for pay)

The drawback with pursuing the first path is that I'm currently a completely unknown commodity to the public. Even though I feel confident in the value of what I have to say, I'd be starting from scratch without the benefit of having created a "brand" as a person of well-known or easily researched accomplishments. To say it more plainly, it would be a heck of a lot easier to put butts in seats and sell my books if I'd already developed a certain level of authentic celebrity. There would be hard work involved either way but there's nothing wrong with having as many factors as possible in your favor when you attempt something big.

The second broad wisdom path says, "Find out what the market wants, crunch the numbers, and then choose the opportunity with the best bottom line." Jim Rohn would say something like: Don't worry so much about discovering your passion; find a great opportunity and then pour your own passion into it. When I crunch the numbers, it is obvious that the field of wealth management offers me the greatest upside potential for financial success given my marketable skills. While it is true that I'd be starting as an unknown commodity in this field as well, the rewards of doing well over time dwarf the rewards I could reasonably expect from a speaking career or even starting up a new tech company. My close friends could also attest to my skills in the stock market, so I feel some confidence in my abilities here. I'd have a lot of growing to do to sell and market my services successfully, but I view that as a growth opportunity, not a problem. And I'd need to develop these skills for the motivational speaking career anyway.

It's by no means a done deal, but the second wisdom path looks more and more attractive to me. Assuming I created a wealth management practice and did well with it, I could use that track record later as the marketing springboard for the motivational speaking/writing career. Although this seems to be common sense, I have an innate sense of aversion to anything that looks like putting a dream on hold for a mythical "someday" when one is finally ready to get started on it. So I'm still percolating on these things. Maybe this time around the lesson will be to overcome that aversion and go with the practical path for a change. No matter which one I choose, I intend to devote my sole focus to that choice for at least the next decade or longer. This is why I'm sitting with the question for now... The outcome of this process will mean saying "No" to something I'm very interested in pursuing, whichever choice wins out. And (simply as an acknowledgement of my lack of omniscience) until I decide, I am open to discovering an even better path than the ones I'm currently considering.

I don't intend to take long to decide. Springtime doesn't last forever. One is better served by planting seeds and getting some crop than by staring at the field for too long wondering which crop would be best.

Back On The Horse

Yes, yes, I've been neglecting my blog, but it's never too late to get back on the horse. I got so used to updating my status on social networking sites that I got away from posting "big picture" articles here. But I intend to create the kind of structure in my life that supports taking care of both.

Thanks for reading, and staying with me!

Not-As-Bad No Substitute for Good

After leaving my full-time job in September, my inital inclination was to immediately relocate to a faster growing city. This notion was influenced by two major hypotheses: 1) If I start a business, I want to do it in a market with plenty of demand for my products or services. 2) If I invest in real estate, I want to buy in areas where the rents will produce great cash flow even after paying for the mortgage, taxes, and repairs. Orlando has a lot going for it, but it's been hit pretty badly by our current recession. No. I reasoned that since I had nothing tying me to Orlando, I should select the best US metro area I could find, start from scratch there, and allow its rising tide to lift my boat as well.

A funny thing happened on the way to relocation-ville. As I researched cities according to their US Census Bureau growth statistics and monthly unemployment rates, I got a bit sidetracked from my primary criteria by the noise of the data. At first Atlanta looked attractive due to its high population growth from 2000 to 2008. When I discovered it had a higher unemployment rate than the national average, however, its luster faded. More recently, Austin, TX seemed promising due to its combination of high population growth and lower unemployment rate.

But digging deeper into Austin's data has revealed that while unemployment is lower there, it is still increasing on a monthly basis. "Slower slowing" is not the criterion I started with. I require growth. Data published on USA Today's website from Moody's economy.com shows that it may be well into 2011 before Austin or, indeed, any sizeable US city shows significant jobs growth. This correlates pretty well with our last recession: the market topped in 2000, it bottomed in 2003, and jobs began to return about 18 months later. In the current recession, the stock market topped at the end of 2007, hit bottom in March of 2009 and here we are, waiting for the jobs to show up again.

Let me mention why this is so important. Jobs are what fuel the kind of population increases that are attractive to real estate investors. As jobs grow and populations rise, people become willing to pay the kind of rental rates that can cover mortgage payments, taxes, and repair bills. Ultimately it is the prosperity of an environment like this that creates healthy growth in property values, since more and more people go for the dream of owning a home. On the other hand, when an area is simply losing jobs more slowly than others, you end up with less people in the area than there are rental units. Now your rental property is compared to others solely based on price and nobody wins in that environment.

My strategy remains the same. I will ultimately relocate to a major US metro area based on its growth in population and jobs. However, I'm not going to try to guess in advance which city that will be. I'm going to keep my finger on the pulse of the monthly data and allow candidate cities to emerge in their own sweet time. The second halves of recessions are like that: months and months of seeming inactivity, and then, POW, the heavens seem to open, corporate budgets are expanded, and jobs look like they're falling out of the sky.

A final note. I may yet relocate in the near term. But if I do, it will likely be because there was a better reason to hang out somewhere else during this current non-growth period of time than here in Orlando. I'll keep you posted.

Taking My Measly 17% Gain

One of the Asian gaming stocks I bought at the end of March was up 30% two days ago. Yesterday, however, a sell-off occurred and almost half of that paper profit vanished.

I watched the stock intermittently through the day as I was working. Near the end of the trading session, I had a decision to make: should I sell it? (to lock in the 17% gain that remained) or hold on to it? (hoping for a recovery in the future) It was an especially tough call to make because the trading volume was essentially equal to the previous day's volume. If the volume had been lower, that would have indicated more clearly to stay in the stock. If it had been higher, indicating a "distribution" day, that would have indicated more clearly to get out.

4:00 PM drew ever closer. The volume was neck-and-neck - how to make the call? Well, I had recently listened to a podcast interview by Bill O'Neil on investors.com. He had made a casual comment about having good sell rules that stuck with me. He said, "Stocks are kind of like people, when they act strange there's usually something wrong at a deeper level." Dropping 13% in a day, even on equivalent volume to the previous day, qualifies as acting "strange" in my book.

At 3:56 PM, I sold my shares and confirmed that the order had gone through. 17% locked in. I slept well last night.

As these things sometimes go, the stock rallied this morning. It is up to what would be a 24% gain if I hadn't sold it. Due to the rules of trading in this account, I can't just buy back the shares I sold - three business days have to pass for my sell order from yesterday to clear the system. Did I get "shaken out"? Was I hornswaggled and bamboozled by superior market operators who manipulated me into doing what I shouldn't have done?

Nah. I'm just a lucky mug who got to enjoy what would be the ride of a lifetime for most people - a 17% stock market gain in two weeks' time. Can you see me grinning like the Cheshire Cat? That's my sad face for the profits I "lost".

Late to the Rocket Launch

I'm a guy who likes to give advice. I'd like to believe that, over the years, I've mellowed from coming across as a know-it-all to becoming a person who gives advice back to pay off the good advice I've recieved.

Be that as it may, Friday marked an event that illustrates how easy it is for one to neglect one's own advice. I've been sharing a "hot tip" with the stock investing community for over four years regarding stem cell research companies. One of George W. Bush's earliest actions as president was to ban most stem cell research. It was as clear as clear could be to me that one day that policy would be reversed and a whole raft of companies specializing in this research would rise with the swelling tide of progress. On Friday, a West Coast company won FDA approval for the first-ever study of a treatment based on human embryonic stem cells. I have watched this company closely and have traded in and out of it several times in the last year.

When the announcement came out, the stock shot up over 50% between Friday and Monday. Was I already in this stock on Friday? No. Was I in any of the other stem cell stocks I've been watching for the last three years? No. I had recently moved my holdings to cash in the aftermath of the financial crisis, (a good move) but had unwisely allowed the other cares of this world to distract me from keeping tabs on the market.

This is a good lesson to learn: It's not enough to see an event coming, you have to be sure to set yourself up to benefit from it should your prediction come true. As Lao Tzu wrote in the Tao Te Ching, "People usually fail when they are on the verge of success. So give as much care to the end as to the beginning; then there will be no failure". How hard would it have been to bought on some shares in the days before President Obama's inauguration? Answer: not hard at all. So why didn't I take care of this in time? As my mentor, Jim Rohn, would put it, "It was also easy not to."

Luckily, I'm in on the secret that there is no lack of wonderful, exciting opportunities in life. I guess I feel the "missing" of this opportunity more strongly because I've been mentally invested in its eventuality for what seems like a long period of time. Practically speaking, the long term upswing for stem cell stocks in general will almost certainly dwarf the gains my favorite stock made on Friday and Monday. As the market would have it, the stock's price has pulled back on lower volume from it's lofty Monday highs and I have picked up a number of shares. All of this is well and good.

Nevertheless, I intend to be aboard the rocket beforehand the next time I forsee an inevitable blast off.

The Bigger Big Picture

One of the things I love about the age of the Internet is that we are no longer beholden to a single version of any given story. One who pays attention to this dynamic over a period of time comes to the conclusion that there is no one truth, no really objective voice out there. Unless you want to be content being spoon-fed by your favorite information provider, curiosity and intellectual rigor are required in order to come to reasonable, satisfying conclusions.

Take the current so-called economic "crisis". I have heard Barak Obama and other Democrats say that Republicans' penchant for deregulation has been the root cause of the irresponsible lending and opaque securitizing that led to our present difficulties. Interestingly enough, Republicans tried repeatedly in the last 15 years to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be blocked at every turn by Democrats. Why would Democrats block stricter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises? They blocked regulation because they felt they had fought hard to ensure fairer mortgage lending to Americans through the various incarnations of the Community Reinvestment Act. Tightening Freddie and Fanny's capitalization requirements would have required stricter lending policies which were seen at the time to be a euphemism for denying credit access to under-served portions of the population.

Why were Democrats concerned that stricter lending policies would put fair house ownership opportunity in danger? Because stricter lending laws _had_ been used for this purpose in the past. The Community Reinvestment Act was sponsored in 1977 to counteract the practice of something called "redlining". Until then, many lending institutions would literally draw lines around low-income communities on municipal maps in red pen and automatically deny mortgage applications from these areas. This lazy, crude strategy for financial risk management meant that lower income whites were able to get loans that middle or upper income blacks and latinos could not obtain. Which tends to piss you off if you happen to be in the latter category.

Obviously, we could continue further back in history to see more examples of this kind of back and forth, but these two snippets are enough for the point I'd like to make: In both of these cases (lenders unfairly redlining and politicians being unwilling to effectively regulate) we have a group of people who were paralyzed from doing what was clearly reasonable due to an irrational fear that any movement in the "opposite" direction would cause some kind of cascading domino effect to an undesired outcome. What is ironic is that, in both examples, it was not the perceived enemy, but their own misguided obstinance that produced an outcome they were hoping to avoid.

Bankers have no one to blame for disruptive community organizations like ACORN but themselves. Indeed, they produced them. And Congressional Democrats could do well to take to heart the words of one of their own, Rep. Arthur Davis of Alabama, who recently said, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."

What I am interested in is that we as a nation (and as a species) make progress toward noticing this tendency to irrational obstinancy and interrupt the pattern. It is not sufficient in any particular circumstance to say, "This is the situation I find myself in, I guess I'll just perpetuate it." It takes guts and a determination to transcend the mental paths of least resistance so that we can create the kind of world we'd all rather have. But nothing less that this makes anything worthwile of us.