Who is the largest exporter of oil to the U.S.?

Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of crude oil and petroleum products to the U.S., right? Nope. They are number 2. Canada is #1. Mexico is #3. Then Nigeria, Venezuela, and then Iraq. After that, the rest of the exporters each provide us with less than 20% of what Canada provides. As per the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), the top 15 exporters of petroleum (both crude oil and refined products) for March were:

1. CANADA exported 2.30 million barrels per day to the U.S. or  21.7% of U.S. imports
2. SAUDI ARABIA exported 1.54 or 14.5%
3. MEXICO exported 1.35 or 12.7%
4. NIGERIA exported 1.16 or 10.9%
5. VENEZUELA exported 1.02 or 9.6%
6. IRAQ exported 0.77 or 7.3%
7. ALGERIA exported 0.43 or 4.0%
8. RUSSIA exported 0.39 or 3.7%
9. ANGOLA exported 0.38 or 3.6%
10. VIRGIN ISLANDS exported 0.29 or 2.7%
11. ECUADOR exported 0.24 or 2.2%
12. UNITED KINGDOM exported 0.22 or 2.1%
13. BRAZIL exported 0.19 or 1.8%
14. KUWAIT exported 0.18 or 1.7%
15. COLOMBIA exported 0.15 or 1.4%

Exporters in North and South America accounted for over half or 52.2% of U.S. imports.

Top 15 exporters from the Middle East accounted for only 23.5% of U.S. imports.

Canada and Mexico constitute a full third or 34.4% of U.S. petroleum imports.

Total U.S. petroleum imports from the Top 15 exporters were 10.6 million barrels per day, which is down from the 2007 average of 11.3 million barrels per day and down from 11.7 million barrels per day in March 2007.

-- Jack Krupansky

The power of the independents

Now that Barack is the "presumptive nominee" and people focus more on the match-up between him and McCain, the role of independents becomes a central focus. For the record, I am an independent, but "we" come in all colors and stripes and flavors across the entire political spectrum. There has been plenty of discussion of the role of independents in Barack's camapign, but they have been more of a left-wing liberal form of independence (aversion to a centrist Democratic party) that does not have any appeal for or to me. Nonetheless, "we" independents are going to get a lot of attention over the next six months. An article in the New York Times by Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny entitled "Already, Obama and McCain Map Fall Strategies" offers some perspective on the role of independents in the upcoming race. The two parties will be stumbling over each other to paint themselves as more accommodating of the aspirations of independents and painting their opponents as less accommodating of independent aspirations. The Times tells us that:

Historically, independent voters have responded to specific issues and concerns, in particular an emphasis on government reform and an aversion to overly bitter partisan wrangling. Accordingly, Mr. McCain's advisers said they would present him as a senator who frequently stepped across the aisle, while portraying Mr. Obama as a down-the-line Democratic voter who is ideologically out of touch with much of the country.

...

Mr. Obama's advisers, meanwhile, intend to present Mr. McCain as a product of Washington who moved closer to the Bush administration to win the Republican nomination.

The Times is accurately reporting the facts here, but I can tell you that neither approach appeals to me. I am not as offended by "Washington" as so many of Barack's "cult" member profess to be, nor do I believe that Barack himself is as far-left wing as so many of his "independent" supporters are and as McCain will be trying to paint him as being. I think that both politicians have been forced to paint themselves as further from center than they really are simply to capture their respective nominations. I am disheartened by the extent to which McCain has only renewed and sharpened his right-wing credentials in recent weeks despite the fact that he is effectively the Republican nominee, but he still has to deal with holding his party toegther through the convention, and then maybe he can focus on broadening his appeal for the general election. If he fails to broaden his appeal after the convention, then he will be in trouble. Barack has similar, parallel issues but on the left rather than the right. I really do think that Barack has the potential to be even more centrist than Hillary, but so far he has not done so. We we have to see if he shifts after his convention. Whoever shifts more is more likely to win in November.

Both candidates have a lot of potential for broad appeal, but they are both susceptible to the "need" to appeal to and coddle their party's "faithful." Appealing to independents who happen to be aligned with the party faithful will only take a candidate so far. It is the ability to appeal to independents who are not aligned with the party faithful that is the central issue for both parties and both candidates.

-- Jack Krupansky

When will Hillary drop out?

By my calculations, Hillary won in Indiana by only 1.46% and lost in North Carolina by 14.81% or essentially 15%. That was a fairly weak showing. She should have been able to do better in both. The only bright spot is that she actually could have done a lot worse in North Carolina and only by campaigning vigorously in recent weeks did she "gain" enough to lose by "only" 15%. My estimate had been that she would have to lose in Indiana by over 10% and lose in North Carolina by over 15% and she did somewhat better than that overall, so she is technically still in the race. Still, given that she was unable to spurt ahead of Barack, the question remains of what it is going to take to convince her to drop out.

Actually that is an easy question to answer... Hillary will drop out when the money runs out, but as long as people continue to throw enough money at her to mount a moderately strong campaign there is no reason for her to drop out. Sure, people will chant something about "unity", but that is not really a factor until after the convention.

Although the Clintons can self-finance Hillary's campaign, it is her success or lack thereof at fundraising that will persuade superdelegates and party officials to support her or abandon her.

The bottom line is that it ain't over until it is over. And it can't be over until Barack figures out how to "close the deal." Sure, a 15% margin of victory is very significant, but why isn't he able to push that up to 20%, 25%, 30% or more? It is not quite clear what he is missing, but he is missing something.

-- Jack Krupansky

Would I vote for Barack or McCain?

Although I would prefer to vote for Hillary in November, my position has been that I will vote for whichever candidate is more centrist. I had expected both Barack and McCain to veer sharply to center after their respective primary campaigns were over, making it a real horse race as to who I would vote for, but so far I haven't see McCain move towards center at all, and he may in fact be moving a little further to the right. He still seems too happy with the U.S. being in Iraq. His daily emails have made appeals to conservatives and conservative values. The most recent email was a rant against "judicial activism" and calls for "judges who strictly interpret the Constitution." Another recent email referred to "conservative principles." I am sorry, but these are not efforts to reach toward the center where a lot of us are.

In short, if the election were held today, I would not be able to vote for John McCain. Sure, a lot can change between now and November, but he is currently still not even pointed in the "right" direction.

OTOH, his recent right-wing appeals may amount to simple pandering in an effort to raise campaign contributions. I suppose that if I were in his shoes, I actually would also focus on the conservatives right now since they will be much less likely to contribute later in the campaign when McCain does start taking a more centrist position in the actual campaign. We will see. For now, I would have to vote "No" for McCain.

That does not mean that Barack will get a free pass, but I think I already sense that he is a bit more centrist than his appeals to the left-wing of the Democratic party lets on.

-- Jack Krupansky

What will the margins of victory be?

As people have digested all of the late activity of the campaign and maybe picking up on whispering about how people voted, the Intrade Prediction Market is currently showing Barack with a 95% chance in North Carolina and Hillary with a 93% chance in Indiana. That is about what everyone has been expecting, but it tells us very little since it is the margins of victory (and defeat) that will determine whether today's results will be "decisive" in any way. Unless either candidate scores a "landslide" victory (extremely unlikely) or at least a dramatic margin of victory in both states, we will be left essentially right where we started after Pennsylvania, effectively a stalemate, with Barack still technically in the lead but still unable to "close the deal."

How is that for a universal bumper sticker: "Close the deal."

-- Jack Krupansky

Can Barack finally close the deal?

In less than 24 hours we shall finally get the answer to the question of whether Barack can finally close the deal. He needs to push ahead of Hillary in Indiana and really blow her away in North Carolina. Can he do it? Well of course he can, but the real question is whether he is going to focus and actually get his act together this time. Hillary even handed him a policy issue on a silver platter, her gas holiday "gimmick." If he can't turn that around and knock her out of the race, I am not sure what he is going to be able to do.

Barack is still sulking after being accused of being an elitist, while Hillary has been busy recasting herself as the proverbial working-class hero. Yes, that gas holiday may only be 30 cents a day, but that is no excuse for Barack to be so condescending to the trials and tribulations of working-class voters, for whom 30 cents is better than nothing and at least shows that somebody acts as though they really care.

In any case, I do wish him luck. No need to wish Hillary luck since she is having way to much fun to notice how steep a hill she has to climb.

My estimate is that Hillary will lose in North Carolina by 4% to 10% and that she will prevail in Indiana by 2% to 8%.

My estimate is that Hillary will only be "knocked out" if she loses in North Carolina by more than 15% and loses in Indiana by more than 10%. If she loses in North Carolina by only 10% and loses in Indiana by only 5%, she can probably continue to limp along.

My estimate is that the only thing that can really shift momentum into Hillary's favor would be an outright win in North Carolina and a win by 10% in Indiana. That would really take the wind of Barack's sails even if he does retain a pledged delegate lead.

-- Jack Krupansky

Fighting elitism - the master at work

When it comes to avoiding elitism, Barack is about as clueless as they come. What he desperately needs to do is take lessons from the master: Bill Clinton. Bill can spend hours on end talking to and about people in small towns without talking down to them or about them. He really does feel their pain, in a way that Barack and his supporters probably never will. There was an article in the Washington Post by Eli Saslow entitled "In Small Towns, Bill Clinton Finds A Campaign Niche" that vividly portrays how in-touch Bill is with average, working-class Americans. There are plenty of things about Bill Clinton that people can dislike or even hate, but when it comes to relating to average, working-class Americans in small-town America, he is clearly the master and maybe always will be. He may be a dying breed, but he is still a national treasure.

Maybe if Barack and crew would do a little less sneering at the Clintons he could learn something from them.

-- Jack Krupansky

Clinton sets her sights on energy traders

Finally, a leading politician has acknowledge the open secret of why oil and gasoline prices are so high. It is the energy traders. An article in the Washington Post by  Dan Balz and Peter Slevin entitled "Democrats Step Up Debate on Gas Tax - Both Candidates Focusing on Economy" informs us that:

Going after the oil companies was only part of Clinton's energy message. She accused energy traders of manipulating oil prices and called for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. "It is a fact they are manipulating the oil and gas market," she said.

Whether anything will come of this remains to be seen, but at least there is some public and high-profile acknowledgement of the problem.

Technically, I am not so sure that it is market "manipulation" per se, but simply the fact that in-house proprietary trading desks at the major banks, financial institutions, and hedge funds are simply swamping the real market for energy commodities. There is simply way too much financial speculation in commodities in general and energy in particular. I do not know of any illegalities, per se, but the markets are out of control and harming average consumers. Sure, the commodities markets are functioning properly in a technical sense that orders are being processed, just as the markets for mortgage securities and auction-rate securities were working just fine, but there needs to some government hand on the throttle to recognize when consumers are being seriously harmed and that it is time to place limits on financial competition in commodities markets by non-producers and non-consumers. Futures markets were designed to smooth out market conditions for both producers and consumers of commodities with plenty of room for traders and speculators to help add some additional liquidity, but the amount of money being thrown into commodity markets is now interfering with the normal price discovery process.

Exactly what machinations would be discovered remains to be seen, but certainly investigations are clearly called for. In fact, somebody needs to investigate the extent to which changes in Federal Reserve banking regulations a few years ago may have enabled the participation of banks and financial institutions in speculation in commodities in ways that are not in alignment with running a bank.

Put simply, the major banks, financial institutions, and hedge funds are abusing the commodities markets and are clearly harming consumers.

-- Jack Krupansky

Barack continues to struggle against the elitist label that sticks to him all too well

Barack continues to try to run and hide from his elitist leanings, but the more he struggles, the more the label sticks. From the Washington Post:

"I do think one of the ironies of the past two or three weeks is this idea that Michelle and I are elitist, pointy-headed intellectual types," said Obama, whose young mother became a single parent by the time he was 2. "The fact is, our lives more closely approximate the lives of the average voter than any of the other candidates."

Obama has made millions recently from his best-selling memoirs. His wife, Michelle, is a hospital executive whose salary climbed to $275,000 in the year before the presidential run. But when Obama moved to Chicago after college in the mid-1980s, he earned $1,000 a month as a community organizer.

Barack's own words amply illustrate how out of touch he is. The issue with elitism is not what your own background and financial situation is, but what values you project in your words and actions. Barack is wrong when he suggests that being "intellectual types" defines elitists. You could an intellect of the highest order and still be humble and look at the plight of the common man with empathy rather than condescension.

Technically, Barack and his wife may be financially less well-off than Hillary and McCain, but that is not the point. The point is not whether a politician's own personal life is "closer" financially to an average, working-class voter, but the attitude and values that the politician projects. Barack does a much better job of appealing to the interests and needs of elitists than to the interests and needs of average, working-class Americans.

Maybe some day he will get this right, but for now he does not seem to fathom the nature of his problem.

-- Jack Krupansky

Hillary refuses to pander to elitist economists

Hillary is sure getting a lot of mileage out of this anti-elitist stance and continuing to paint Barack as an elitist. I just saw a Reuters article by Andy Sullivan entitled "Clinton dismisses 'elite' economists on gas tax plan" informs us that:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the "elite opinion" of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal, using a term that has dogged rival Barack Obama in recent weeks.

Yes, Barack is technically correct that the gasoline tax holiday is technically "a classic Washington gimmick" and technically "You're gonna save about 25, 30 dollars, or half a tank of gas", but this is precisely how an elitist would look at a "pocketbook" problem of average, working-class Americans and of what to do in the short-term and fails to address the dynamics of addressing so-called "pocketbook isues" of average, working-class Americans.This demonstrates how out of touch Barack is with average, working-class Americans and how impecable his elitist credentials really are.

Further it clearly demonstrates that he is a lot more comfortable playing "old politics" and trying to smear his opponent with a negative attack rather than remain "positive" and promote his own policies on their own merit. He does in fact have his own policies, but he painfully aware that his policies appeal more to his fellow elitists rather than average, working-class Americans.

The article goes on:

Clinton raised questions about Obama's ability to connect with working-class Americans while dismissing economists who have said her plan to suspend gas taxes over the summer would do little good.

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.

"We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans," said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.

Critics have painted Obama as elitist for a comment he made about job losses causing some small-town Americans to become bitter and to cling to guns and religion.

That perception hurt the Illinois senator in the big blue-collar state of Pennsylvania, where Clinton won a crucial victory last month in the protracted Democratic contest.

Now, the big question is whether Barack is going to recognize his problem and compensate for it. So far, he has shown no sign of remorse for his hard-core elitist leanings. That offers Hillary an excellent opening that she will continue to exploit.

-- Jack Krupansky

How much change is enough and how much is too much?

Yes, Barack is top dog in the race to visibly and loudly lobby for change. But that is not to say that Hillary does not by her very essence represent a very fierce agent of change. The simple truth is that both candidates are serious agents of change. I would argue that Hillary is more likely to be successful at achieving a significant measure of change, although that is obviously a matter of great debate. I would also suggest that while Barack and his supporters, The Cult of Obama, really do want a lot more change than even Hillary wants or can deliver, it is likely that their ravenous appetite for change far exceeds the ability of the American people to stomach and tolerate such excessive change. The phrase "throwing out the baby with the bath water" comes to mind. Sure, there is plenty of pork and fat and grissle in Washington and Barack et al, and Hillary, are right to want to rock the boat and change the system, a complete, total, and 100% revolution in the form of government in Washington is unlikely to be palatable to more than a very small niche of hard-core activists. Even if people want certain forms of change, they may not be prepared to accept the consequences of those changes. The key is that it is all a balancing act, which Hillary deeply understands while Barack, et al are either unable or unwilling to comprehend, accept, or acknowledge.

The decision facing primary voters is whether Hillary does in fact represent enough change and more credible and palatable change or whether Barack is at serious risk of rushing headlong into too much change which may risk unpalatable consequences.

It is simply impractical to change everything in Washington overnight (or in four or eight years), but Barack foolishly and misguidedly insists that... "Yes we can!" How credible is that?

On Tuesday the primary voters (not all of whom will be true Democrats) in Indiana and North Carolina will have their opportunity to pass judgment on whether Hillary represents enough change and whether Barack may be seeking too much or too unrealistic change.

In truth, voters are torn, not having great confidence as to what minimum degree of change is needed and how much change and consequences they can actually chew and swallow and stomach. In some states it is almost an even 50/50 split, but at worst at least 35% to 45% of voters seriously disagree with the majority view on how much change is wise.

Of course, that is why we will have another election in four years, to give voters the opportunity to change their minds if they feel that they have made a big mistake.

One final caution to partisan Democrats: What appeals most to hard-core Democrats will not necessarily be what appeals to a majority of Aeericans. The election in November is for a president for all of the people, not just for Democrats or a niche of activists within the Democratic party. Think for one moment what degree of change willl be acceptable to the vast majority of American voters. Not just 50.001% or 52%, but at least 75% of Americans. Let us indeed have change, but change that most people can willingly accept and be proud of.

-- Jack Krupansky

Barack does not have a problem with phrasing

I'll admit that phrasing is an important aspect of effective communication, but I strongly disagree with Barack that poor phrasing is the root of some of his recent problems. Rather than accept personal responsibility for his beliefs and values, he implicitly blames other people and how they react to his so-called "phrasing." Today we had yet another round on his "bitter" comments. As recounted in a Reuters article by Caren Bohan entitled "Obama fights perception he is elitist":

Obama, talking to NBC's "Today" show, was yet again explaining his month of bad news led by Wright's inflammatory comments and Obama's own remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser that small-town voters are "bitter."

"The comments I made in San Francisco at the end of a very long day were very poorly phrased," Obama said. "I should have said 'angry and frustrated' instead of 'bitter.' I should have said, people 'rely on' their religious faith during these times of trouble, instead of 'cling to.'"

Sorry Barack, but there was nothing wrong with your phrasing at all and your suggested rewording does not change the underlying sentiment and your beliefs one iota. The phrasing was never the issue. Changing "bitter" to "angry and frustrating" and "cling to" to "rely on" does not change the underlying meaning in any significant manner. His beliefs were the issue, and he still has not changed or withdrawn his elitist, condescending beliefs. I guess I can't blame Barack for once again trying to change or "steer" the topic (from his beliefs to his phrasing), but we certainly should ding him for his elitist leanings.

His argument that he couldn't possibly be elitist since he grew up with less privilege than others is complete nonsense. Privilege is about the environment that you came from, while elitism is all about who you are now, regardless of where you came from. Once again, he is struggling to artfully "steer" the conversation away from his shortcomings onto different topic. Elitists love to do that, just to prove to everyone how clever and skilled they are.

-- Jack Krupansky

Going positive

It is one thing to be besieged by "distractions", but it is wholly another thing entirely to act distracted. Being a politician and being in the lead means inviting distractions. That is just the nature of the political process. They key issue is not whether there are distractions, but how a politician responds to those distractions. So far, he has been quite uneven and veered from one extreme to the other, either trying to use ridicule and blaming the messenger, or getting angry and upset and leading us to conclude that he feels that he is special and entitled to be free from distractions. A lot of this inconsistent behavior can simply be chalked up to inexperience and a learning experience. Now, the question is whether and what he actually is learning from this experience and whether he can truly begin to transcend the distractions and actually be positive about it all. I am sure that he can do it, but so far he has not shown a will to do it. His Philadelphia speech on race relations was an interesting attempt, maybe his best so far, but once again he was inconsistent in his follow-through, resulting in people feeling that they must be missing something and wondering when he will finish the story. He talks a lot about a "new politics", so the big question now is whether his advisers push him to go more positive and stay more positive or whether he falls back and aloows them to convince him to resort to more of the "old politics" negativity that we saw at the end in Pennsylvania. I hear him doing a lot of blaming of other people, but that is not the kind of positive that we need. Sure, his poll and financial numbers remain high, but that seems more a function of the hope of his supporters rather than his own reality.

The issue is not how to put distractions behind us, but how to realistically acknowledge them and figure out creative ways to accommodate them without yielding on our values. Only through transcendence can anything really appear to finally be "behind" us. Even Hillary seems to have figured that out, although she does not practice it consistently either.

Regardless of what tactics Hillary and McCain may have in store for us in the coming days, it will be interesting to see is Barack chooses to transcend it all and live up to his promises of not participating in the "same old game" of politics in Washington, played out "in a (political) theater near you."

The spotlight is now brightly upon him. He can do it. Let's see what he acutally does.

Meanwhile, Hillary has been on a rare positive streak. Let's see if she can keep that up without reverting to form.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cheers for Rev. Wright

As off-base and far-out and wacky as Rev. Wright may be, I still think he is a genuine, authentic American and deserves a lot more respect. How many true Americans don't harbor some kind of suspicion about something or believe in some sort of oddball conspiracy theory? At least Rev. Wright is being honest and direct, with absolutely zero attempt at "spin." Barack's Rev. Wright is definitely my kind of guy! I'd much listen to him than Barack. That does not mean that I agree with everything that he says, but I do appreciate his honesty and candor. Frankly I am a little bit offended at Barack's tone. He knew what Rev. Wright was all about, but it wasn't such a big deal to him, but now that he is running for president, in theory in pursuit of a "new politics", he belittles someone who is so much more honest and candid than himself. Shameful. I can more easily forgive Rev. Wright for his quirky beliefs than I can forgive Barack for saying that he, unlike Hillary, et al, is above it all, and then turning around and proving that he can play "old politics" with the best of them. What a fraud.

I would like to see Barack volunteer Rev. Wright to debate Hillary one-on-one. That would be a great match-up! They could sell tickets, and maybe do it in Vegas. Maybe Rev. Wright could invite himself. Or maybe Hillary could invite him.

I am sure that there are plenty of people in "the black church" and "the black community" who share Rev. Wright's believes and biases, just as there are plenty of whites who share beliefs and biases just as off-beat if not odious, but for Barack to try to spin his way away from his own past tolerance so cleverly seems to be an insult against a large number of people, not to mention Rev. Wright himself.

And remember, the issue here is not what Rev. Wright believes or whether Barack shares any of those beliefs, but the fact that Barack was so tolerant of those beliefs for so many years and only now has had a change of heart that he refuses to acknowledge. That is what critics are referring to. The issue is not for Barack to issue denials about beliefs today, but simply to acknowledge that he was so tolerant of such objectionable beliefs for so long. Personally, I suspect that Barack was simply doing the "politically" expedient thing to do years ago by politely and tolerantly listening.  But now, Barack refuses to own up to his own actions or inactions years ago, and that is the issue, not what Rev. Wright may do or say today.

I do wonder how "in touch" Barack is with even the core "black church" and working class black community in America. Sure, plenty of blacks support him, but how deep is the underlying cultural affinity? Was his passion for his church and pastor really that deep, or was it much more "practical" if not political in nature?

I think Barack's problem is that his "blackness" is only skin-deep. Even Bill Clinton has more "inner blackness" and connectedness to the core black community than Barack.

I still think Barack has a shot of getting past all of this, but he will have to do so by transcending all of these distractions rather than resorting to spinning himself away from his own history with a lot of clever, smart-mouth sound-bites or diversionary speeches. Transcendence requires deep candor, not spin and cleverness.

The ultimate problem here is that the underlying agenda of The Progressives is to defeat their foes, not to embrace them. Barack needs to embrace Rev. Wright and all others in America that he may disagree with, and simultaneously recognize differences and tolerances and then gradually and incrementally work through compromises and accommodations, but The Progressives' and Barack's own mockery of a "new politics" encourages spin over accommodation. Rev. Wright is not a core problem for Barack. What is a core problem for Barack is his own refusal to admit to his own humanity and to acknowledge a deep and passionate sense of humility. What we have instead is "Yes we can!" run amok.

Rev. Wright deserves an apology from Barack.

And the American people deserve an apology from Barack for his ongoing refusal to acknowledge that he is not just as much an "old" politician as the rest of them.

-- Jack Krupansky

What really defines the middle class these days?

During this presidential primary season, it is clear that the Democrats consider an income of $250,000 as marking the upper end of being "middle class." That seems high, but maybe it is not. I would have said something in the $85,000 to $150,000 range or say $100,000 or $125,000 to pick a single number. I suppose it depends on how you characterize the quality of life that comes with being middle class. Does it mean that you can afford to send three kids to "some" college, or send all three to the top ivy league universities?

To me, being middle class is more a matter of a sense of security than what you can technically afford. By my definition, very few people have truly secure streams of income. So many people who may have incomes above $100,000 today may be one pink slip away from falling a dozen rungs down the ladder.

I think we do need to distinguish at least lower-middle, middle-middle, and upper middle class. Sure, a couple of attorneys or professors might well be "struggling" on $200,000 per year, but that is an entirely different "class" of struggle than a household with an income of $35,000 and three kids. And each of these tiers probably has three sub-tiers. I would suggest that the middle-middle class ranges from $50,000 to $100,000, with some clear distinctions in lifestyle and choices between the $50,000 to $65, 000 range, the $65,000 to $85,000 range, and the $85,000 to $100,000 range. I freely admit that some people would insist that the $85,000 to $100,000 range should be considered upper-middle class.

Now, the question becomes whether the upper-middle class extends only from $100,000 to $125,000, to $150,000, to $175,000, to $200,000, to $225,000, to $250,000, or even beyond.

If we read the Wikipedia article on middle class, we find that the defining characteristics are no income or spending per se, but degree of economic independence and degree of social influence and power. The lower class has no economic independence and no social influence or power. The upper class has both economic independence and social influence and power. The middle class has a degree of economic independence but not a great deal of social influence or power.

I would draw the line between middle class and upper class as whether a household has to spend most (more than 75%) of its energy focusing on maintaining economic independence. If the household income is high enough, the household can spend most (more than 75%) of its energy either on other pursuits such as charity, social causes, etc. or pursuing additional income not because it is needed for economic independence but simply for the satisfaction or power that comes with it.

My 75% threshold is arbitrary. It could be 80% or 90% or 60% or even 50%. I would note that even households with very modest incomes manage to squeeze in some amount of non-economic social efforts such as volunteering, church, youth activities, charities, social organizations, etc. The issue is whether the household income is sufficient so that the household can choose to reduce income in favor of non-economic activities without feeling any significant financial pinch.

One could take the approach of defining upper class as a household than absolutely does not need to work to maintain its economic independence. So-called "trust babies" would fit this bill.

OTOH, there are plenty of households which have very high incomes but do not have the wealth to support a middle-class life style solely on income from wealth and investments. They may in fact be on a path to the upper class, but they have not yet arrived. I have argued that you need $50 million to be comfortably wealthy. Maybe we need another category called working wealthy which covers households which are clearly capable of living the lifestyle of the upper class, but only because they are working a very-high-paying jobs.

So, I am torn here by using the criteria of not needing to work for upper class while households with very-high incomes of $500,000 or more clearly do not have the same issues as the true middle class (e.g., whether they can afford to send their kids to top-tier universities or even private schools).

For now, I am going to suggest that my working wealthy should in fact be categorized as upper class.

Alas, that still does not finish the job. What about households earning between $150,000 and $500,000? Where do you draw the line? $250,000 seems rather arbitrary. I will suggest that the primary criteria is the extent to which the household shares the common middle class issues. I suggest that you are no longer even upper-middle class if you meet at least a few of these criteria:

• You can afford to send your kinds to private school
• You can afford to send three kids to top-tier universities without any financial strain
• You never worry about the cost of health care
• You can afford to own or at least rent a yacht
• You can afford to give each of your kids a high-end automobile
• You live comfortably enough on a single income that having significantly higher income from a second income in the household is not a significant incentive to do so

It is possible for investment bankers and hedge fund managers and high-end attorneys and doctors and professors to reach those levels of income that allow them to live a lifestyle comparable to those who are truly wealthy, but an average attorney or professor could well fail to meet more than one or two of my criteria for being working wealthy and hence on the bottom rungs of the upper class.

So, if we have a household with two attorneys or two professors earning over $150,000, the question is whether they really do need most of that income to maintain basic economic independence. There is a vast gray area since obviously they may "need" the income to afford a summer house and two high-end automobiles, but maybe they could live just as comfortably with a more modest summer cottage and mid-range automobiles. The extent to which they can freely choose to spend money on high-end luxuries gradually begins to phase the household from middle class to upper class. If they can only afford the luxuries with two earners, that says that maybe they are still middle class, but that they may simply be straddling the fence between middle class struggling to make ends meet for non-luxuries and upper class "struggling" to decide which luxuries to choose from.

In the end, I think it all comes down to degree of choice that a household feels that it has. The threshold for entering the middle class is that you have sufficient income to afford what a person with common sense would consider basic necessities for a modern household, such as not worrying how to pay for food, access to basic health care, can afford basic amenities such as cable TV, Internet access, annual vacation, etc. I would define the upper class as having the flexibility to take on a fair amount of non-financial activities without putting their financial independence at risk.

I am tempted to define yet another category that is not clearly middle class or upper class or even working wealthy. I will call it the working near-wealthy, where the households are clearly spending a lot of money on luxuries or other discretionary expenses or charities but not quite to the level of a truly wealthy household, and maybe they are only able to support this level of near-wealth by having two incomes.

Now the question becomes whether the working near-wealthy are in fact the highest rung of the middle class or the lowest rung of the upper class. Maybe they are in fact both, depending on the context of the question. I am tempted to define the working near-wealthy as the range $150,000 to $350,000. I do not think a household earning $125,000 would be considered "wealthy" by almost any metric and I think that a household earning close to $400,000 would clearly be considered in the working wealthy category. Again, these numbers are quite rough and arbitrary. It so happens that the midpoint of my working near-wealthy range is $250,000. That seems like a good compromise.

After all of this, I am still not sure where to draw the line between middle class and upper class, or between middle class and the working wealthy, other than that it is somewhere between $150,000 and $350,000. OTOH, this issue has only come up in the context of government tax policy. The issue seems to be that the lower tiers of the working wealthy, the working near-wealthy, very much resent being treated as if they were the same as those several rungs higher on the ladder. And the people at those higher rungs still have enough of a "work" mentality that they are happy to keep a few more of their bucks all because politicians want to salve the resentments of the lower rungs of the working wealthy (the working near-wealthy.)

The Democrats seem to understand the economics here and are using it as a wedge issue to separate the lower rungs of the working wealthy from the upper rungs. Giving a tax preference to those people earning $100,000 to $250,000 quiets most of the more intense resentment and assures that the Democrats can count on the support of those upper-middle class voters. Besides, those earning $100,000 to $250,000 are ideally positioned to make substantial campaign contributions. The "calculus" suggests that the number of people earning more than $250,000 is small enough to simply write them off and let them "go Republican."

Incidentally, $175,000 is the household threshold for the fiscal stimulus payments that are going out starting on Monday.

In short, I do not personally think that a household earning $150,000 to $250,000 is necessarily properly considered middle class or even upper middle class, but I can understand why the Democrats are targeting such households and labeling them as middle class.

-- Jack Krupansky

Is Barack being too cool?

I have to agree with a lot of what Bob Herbert says in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Heading Toward the Danger Zone" when he says of Barack that "there is such a thing as being too cool." He refers to:

... Senator Obama's strange reluctance to fight harder in public for the nomination. He may feel he doesn't need to, that he has the nomination wrapped up. But there is such a thing as being too cool.

Hillary Clinton may be behind, and she may lose. But she is now widely seen as the tougher of the two candidates, the one who is more resolute, who will fight harder and longer (and, yes, more unscrupulously) to achieve her desired ends.

An edge in toughness is hardly a good quality to cede to your opponent.

The big issue in this campaign is the economy and jobs. But if you were to ask most voters how Senator Obama plans to fight for them on this crucial matter, you're likely to get a blank stare.

He should be pounding that message home with a jackhammer. Give the voters an economic program to wrap their arms around. Let them know: "I'm for you! And this is what we're going to do!"

Some Democratic officials who were worried about having Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket in November are now expressing concern about Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton's bar-brawl tactics have raised her negatives sharply, but they've also raised doubts about Mr. Obama. Is he a fighter? Is he tough enough to take on the G.O.P.?

One of Senator Obama's favorite phrases is "the fierce urgency of now." There is nothing more fiercely urgent for him right now than to reassure voters and superdelegates that an Obama candidacy will not lead to a Democratic debacle in November.

Yeah, I agree with all of that, but the real bottom line is that Barack and his campaign and his "progressive" supporters really do not see things this way. They see all of this as an "old politics" that does not interest them other than that they seek to replace it with some sort of new and unspecified "new politics" that is somehow above it all.

It is still not too late for the Democratic party and the good people of Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon, to wake up and recognize that they need to decide what the party stands for in the here and now rather than the idealistic "vision" of an activist wing of the party or the agenda of one man.

The line that really stands out for me is:

The big issue in this campaign is the economy and jobs. But if you were to ask most voters how Senator Obama plans to fight for them on this crucial matter, you're likely to get a blank stare.

It is not that Barack has not offered an economic "plan", of sorts, but that this level of "wonk" policy is simply not a significant component of the platform of The Progressives. They are still hung up on Iraq and see the non-progressives and centrists of the Democratic Party as being as much the enemy as President Bush and Vice President Cheney and al Qaeda and Iran all put together.

The simple fact is that The Progressives have their own agenda and their focus is on them winning the Democratic nomination so that they can celebrate the victory of seizing control of the party. To them, winning in November is actually secondary to winning control of the party. After all, if they lose in November all they will have to do is wait another four years, but meanwhile they can focus on solidifying their power grab.

I do not think Barack considers himself a true Progressive. In fact, he is probably closer to Hillary than he is to the Progressives, but he has decided that for the purposes of his own winning of the nomination he is willing to align with The Progressives. There is the usual caveat about making a pact with the devil.

The Progressives are in fact seething over the fact that Barack has a "strange reluctance to fight harder in public for the nomination." This betrays the fact that the true agenda of The Progressives is not that they are really committed to a new politics that really is better, but that they want to see themselves positioned to influence the levers of power in Washington.

The scary thing here is that I am not sure if Bob Herbert is evolving to my position or if I am evolving to his.

-- Jack Krupansky

Plenty of room for skepticism about Syrian nuclear plant

There is plenty of room for healthy skepticism about the administration's "message" about an alleged nuclear plant that Syria was allegedly building. In chief:

1. This facility was under construction since 2001. This is not a new development and did not necessarily repreent an imminent threat.
2. It is not clear whether any work on the facility was performed in recent years. I suspect that if there was recent work, that fact would have been very highly touted in the leaked reports.
3. It is not known when the supposed video was taken. I suspect that if the video was fairly recent (last two years or so), that fact would have been very highly touted in the leaked reports.
4. The Israelis are our primary source on this "intelligence." They have lead us astray before. Heck, they even spy on us! They are not our friends when it comes to pursuing our security needs and concerns in the Middle East.

Recall that the justification for "liberating" Iraq included a lot of old "intelligence", a lot of which concerned efforts that had ceased a number of years before the allegation that there was a "rising" threat.

In short, even if this is (was) a nuclear facility and even if the North Koreans were assisting them, lack of evidence about how recent those efforts were should leave us all highly skeptical.

One question I have: If the video in fact shows that the facility was very, very similar to a North Korean Facility, what leads anyone to believe that it may not simply be based on a video of a North Korean facility?

-- Jack Krupansky

Time to reconsider reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel

Since it now appears that nuclear energy has a very bright future, partially due to the fact that it does not spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and cause global warming and climate change), it makes a lot of sense to reconsider our moratorium on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The goal of the moratorium was to deter "proliferation" and development of nuclear weapons programs, but I have always been dubious of that "benefit." Failure of the U.S. to reprocess spent fuel does not appear to have deterred North Korea (and Iran and Syria?) or Pakistan or India in any way. We are simply shooting ourselves in both feet. We need to reconsider reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for two purposes: 1) decrease the cost of producing large quantities of new fuel and 2) dramatically reduce the magnitude of the radioactive "waste" that needs to be stored.

Actual radioactive "waste" in spent nucelar fuel is really only about 3% of the weight of the original fuel. The vast bulk is simply unenriched uranium. There is some residual enriched uranium as well as some plutonium. The remaining 3% or so are the nasty "fission products" that do need to be separated and stored. See: Chemical Processes and Nuclear Reactor Fuel:

Spent fuel from nuclear reactors still contains considerable amounts of ²³⁵ U but now has generated significant ²³⁹Pu.  After 3 years in a reactor, 1,000 lbs. of 3.3-percent-enriched uranium (967 lbs. ²³⁸ U and 33 lbs. ²³⁵U) contain 8 lbs. of ²³⁵U and 8.9 lbs. of plutonium isotopes along with 943 lbs. of ²³⁸U and assorted fission products. Separating the ²³⁵U and ²³⁹Pu from the other components of spent fuel significantly addresses two major concerns. It greatly reduces the long-lived radioactivity of the residue and it allows purified ²³⁵U and ²³⁹Pu to be used as reactor fuel. (Courtesy of the Uranium Information Center)

Reasonable safeguards can be put in place to reduce the chance of proliferation even if the risk cannot be reduced to zero.

Given the new anxiety over carbon emissions, nuclear energy is once again a relatively safe and very sane energy choice to be given serious consideration. And given concerns about waste storage, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is really the only sensible route to go.

-- Jack Krupansky

Time to reconsider reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel

Since it now appears that nuclear energy has a very bright future, partially due to the fact that it does not spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and cause global warming and climate change), it makes a lot of sense to reconsider our moratorium on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The goal of the moratorium was to deter "proliferation" and development of nuclear weapons programs, but I have always been dubious of that "benefit." Failure of the U.S. to reprocess spent fuel does not appear to have deterred North Korea (and Iran and Syria?) or Pakistan or India in any way. We are simply shooting ourselves in both feet. We need to reconsider reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for two purposes: 1) decrease the cost of producing large quantities of new fuel and 2) dramatically reduce the magnitude of the radioactive "waste" that needs to be stored.

Actual radioactive "waste" in spent nucelar fuel is really only about 3% of the weight of the original fuel. The vast bulk is simply unenriched uranium. There is some residual enriched uranium as well as some plutonium. The remaining 3% or so are the nasty "fission products" that do need to be separated and stored. See: Chemical Processes and Nuclear Reactor Fuel:

Spent fuel from nuclear reactors still contains considerable amounts of ²³⁵ U but now has generated significant ²³⁹Pu.  After 3 years in a reactor, 1,000 lbs. of 3.3-percent-enriched uranium (967 lbs. ²³⁸ U and 33 lbs. ²³⁵U) contain 8 lbs. of ²³⁵U and 8.9 lbs. of plutonium isotopes along with 943 lbs. of ²³⁸U and assorted fission products. Separating the ²³⁵U and ²³⁹Pu from the other components of spent fuel significantly addresses two major concerns. It greatly reduces the long-lived radioactivity of the residue and it allows purified ²³⁵U and ²³⁹Pu to be used as reactor fuel. (Courtesy of the Uranium Information Center)

Reasonable safeguards can be put in place to reduce the chance of proliferation even if the risk cannot be reduced to zero.

Given the new anxiety over carbon emissions, nuclear energy is once again a relatively safe and very sane energy choice to be given serious consideration. And given concerns about waste storage, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is really the only sensible route to go.

-- Jack Krupansky

Maybe money isn't really the determining factor

Barack proved one of two things in Pennsylvania, either 1) Hillary is extremely popular and a much better campaigner and that only a massive over-spend of money was able to dent that popularity and political campaign skill, or 2) money is not everything and that you cannot necessarily buy an election even if you out-spend your opponent by two-to-one. If the former is true, it shows a big weakness in Barack's story. If the latter is true, all of the chatter about how much more money he can raise than Hillary is completely irrelevant.

Either Tuesday's results in Pennsylvania prove that Hillary is still very much in the game or that a massive over-spend of money is  grossly over-rated. Either conclusion is a good thing.

The win on Tuesday proves that Hillary does not need to raise even half of what Barack raises.

A lot of commentators were claiming that Hillary is essentially out of money and therefore will soon be forced to exit the race, but they neglect to mention the possibility that donors have decided to give her money only as she racks up wins to prove herself worthy of additional donations. On Tuesday she proved she could win even without the extra money.

The $6 million question is now how much money she needs to spend in Indiana and whether spending any money in North Carolina and Oregon other than the minimum required for a modest "air war" and moderate "ground war". Yes, she does need to spend some money, but Barack has proved (either way) that dumping large amounts of cash into states where she is way behind is neither required nor necessarily beneficial.

I personally am less gratified by her win itself than the simple fact that she won despite spending half as much as her opponent. This is great news for those who still believe that ever-rising expenditures of money are neither required nor a sign of winning.

Personally, I think the media gives plenty of coverage to her campaign and it is sufficient for her to simply be out there "on the stump" and continue to give the media a steady stream of sound-bites. And a few debates don't hurt either.

I personally would really prefer that she stay far away from negative campaigning, but it may simply be a reality of "the game." Even Barack, the so-called agent of change and opponent of "the same old game" of politics as played by Washington insiders was completely unable to resist going negative. So much for his positive and hope-filled rhetoric. He ability to enact change is grossly overrated. As he himself said in his speech Tuesday night, change cannot come from the top, it has to come from the bottom up.

In short, Tuesday seems to tell us that money is not really the determining factor in politics. Let us hope that donors "see the light" and donate conservatively to her campaign, just enough to keep her in the game, but not enabling any over-spending. And, let Obama donors increase their donations and let his campaign increase its spending to continue to prove that amassing huge campaign warchests and massive over-spending cannot buy elections in America. To me, his fundraising seems to prove that his story about "changing the game" is an outright fraud.

The Intrade Prediction Market show Hillary as having a 70% chance of winning in Indiana and Barack having a 40% chance of winning. Barack has a 95% chance in North Carolina and 90% chance in Oregon. Hillary has an 80% chance in Kentucky and an 86% chance in West Virginia. Barack has an 80% chance for the nomination. Hillary has only a 19% chance for the nomination, but that has been inching up over the past few weeks even as Barack was cutting her poll lead in Pennsylvania.

-- Jack Krupansky

A little less confidence in Barack in PA

I have not seen any election results or exit polls from Pennsylvania yet, but over on the Intrade Prediction Market I see that the chance of Hillary winning in Pennsylvania has moved up from 91% to 95%  since last night. And the odds for Barack have moved down to 7%.

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary will win, but wth no conviction as to what the margin of victory might be.

-- Jack Krupansky

Hillary's chances perking up a little

The Intrade Prediction Market is once again giving Hillary a 15% chance of capturing the democratic nomination. That is not great, but it is trending back up. The market give her only a 9% chance of getting elected in November.

The market gives her a 91% chance in Pennsylvania, a 63% chance in Indiana, an 87% chance in West Virginia, and an 80% chance in Kentucky. Not bad for someone who is basically being written off. I'll refrain from offering the relevant Mark Twain quote.

Her chance in North Carolina is 7%, 10% in Oregon, and 15% in Montana.

After Pennsylvania, a strong showing in Indiana could actually give her a shot at convincing people (e.g., superdelegates) that Obama is not a slam-dunk shoe-in.

-- Jack Krupansky

Good luck to everybody tomorrow

Good luck to all of the Democrats tomorrow. It is the chance for the voters of Pennsylvania to finally have a real say in who might be running for president in November. I am not a Democrat, so I have no direct stake in the outcome. If the good (but oh so bitter) voters of Pennsylvania want Barack to be their standardbearer, so be it. If they choose Hillary, so be it. Let the voters prevail regardless of what the pundits and "supporters" of either candidate may feel or what they may say in their ads.

It sounds as if Hillary is expected to win with a modest margin (3 to 7%), but I would not bet very much money on any of these polls. It is very possible that she could lose by 7% or maybe even win by 12%.

Oops!... I am doing too much calculation, which is bound to offend some people.

Imagine... in less than 24 hours the polls will be closed in Pennsylvania and within 27 hours from when I write this we will have "the answer" and be able to shift our focus to Indiana where voters are really up for grabs.

-- Jack Krupansky

How dare Hillary use calculation against Barack!

The horror. How dare she? Barack today informs us that Hillary is using calculation against him. How could she? A piece in USA TODAY by Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence entitled "Obama responds: Says Clinton is using 'fear and calculation to divide us'" informs us that:

... a TV ad just released by Barack Obama's campaign is its response to the spot she started running earlier today about who can best "stand the heat" when things get tough.

...

The Obama ad asks, "who in times of challenge will unite us -- not use fear and calculation to divide us?" The Obama campaign's answer would be that he's the uniter.

Huh? What on earth does it mean to use calculation against someone or some group? Why can't these people speak in plain and simple English rather that the cryptic notions of a Professor of English from Chicago?

According to my dictionary, one meaning of calculation, is "cold heartless planning to promote self-interest." I presume that this is what Barack is getting at, kind of. But it still does not ring clear as a bell and make any sense in the context of a political ad targeting normal voters. In essence, all political strategy is calculated, including his own. If it is not calculated, then it does not amount to being strategy. Duh! But strategy calculation is what happens behind the scenes. It makes no sense to refer to a political campaign artifact as being a calculation. At least not to voters. Maybe the ad was designed simply to appeal to the creators of political ads.

I suspect that the real truth here is that "calculation" is some kind of insider-politics jargon code word that is misguidedly being slipped out into the general media. Maybe Barack is referring to political calculation, but as if it is somehow in and of itself bad. But why be so cryptic? Maybe he is hoping that voters will be frightened by such a long word, especially those less well-educated and "bitter."

Besides, it is patently obvious that Barack's decision to go negative late in the campaign shows clearly that he himself is not above "cold heartless planning to promote self-interest."

I also suspect that this kind of talk is more common among Progressives chattering among themselves.

What this bizarre language usage shows once again is that Barack and his campaign and supporters really are elitists and out of touch with everyday citizens.

-- Jack Krupansky

Quixotic campaign

I am not sure exactly why, but this word-of-the day seemed rather apropos of the Democratic primary campaign:

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day

April 19

quixotic

 

\kwik-SAH-tik\  

adjective

Meaning

    *1 : foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action

     2 : capricious, unpredictable

Example Sentence

     Marta has been desperately trying to convince her friends to give up their cars and computers and return to nature on Earth Day, but it has been a quixotic crusade.

So, who is leading the more quixotic political campaign, Hillary pursuing what many believe to be a lost cause or Barack with his lofty and romantic but impractical ideals?

Well, in less than 36 hours the esteemed and belittled bitter voters of Pennsylvania should have an answer for us.

-- Jack Krupansky

Poor Frank Rich

Wow, you would think that doomsday was upon us the way New York Times Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich goes on and on in a piece entitled "Shoddy! Tawdry! A Televised Train Wreck!" about "the" debate last week. Poor guy. I hate to see even a seasoned journalist suffer so. All I can do is to give him some friendly advice: the end is not near, the sun will come up tomorrow, a Democrat will be elected president in November, and that he should just chill, get over it, and move on. The debate really was not such a big deal... except to those who of full of themselves.

-- Jack Krupansky

Ending the Long War

Is either Barack or Hillary committed to officially ending the so-called Long War, the concept that the so-called War on Terror could last for a generation? Leaving Iraq will not by itself end the Long War. I do not think Hillary is ready to make such a commitment, but I am not exactly sure where Barack stands. Unfortunately a willingness to "fight terrorists" is tantamount to making a commitment to the Long War.

What I am really looking for is a decision to revert to treating terrorism as primarily a law enforcement matter. Sure, we might occasionally resort to a surgical strike here or there for special threats, but what is really needed is to stand down and demobilize the very concept of a Global War on Terror.

So, now, the question is whether Barack is in favor of or opposed to such a demobilization and reversion to treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

I am thinking of something more along the lines of fighting drugs and organized crime, both of which have both domestic and international aspects. Sure, there are some war-like aspects to these efforts as well, and certainly intelligence gathering, surveillance, and undercover operations, but as far as the general public would be concerned, we would no longer be "at war."

I took a quick glance at his web site and could not get a quick and clear sense of his overall view of the "War on Terror." He did not have a separate issue bullet for terrorism, but terrorism comes up under several other bullet points.

There is a link to his speech entitled "The War We Need to Win", which suggests that he does still believe in the fight against "extremism" as a long war. He even mentions "taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan" and that "There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America", suggesting that although Iraq may have been a mistake, he does not view the overall War on Terror as something that he as president needs to declare an end to. He uses strong language to promote the U.S. as "the relentless opponent of terror and tyranny", but fails to back off from the now-entrenched support for the so-called Long War. When he uses language like "The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists", it is difficult to imagine that Barack opposes the so-called Long War. He also talks about sending more troops to Afghanistan, failing to recognize that military action is no more a solution in Afghanistan than it was perceived to be in Iraq. He also lapses into the rhetoric of "They are plotting to strike again."

Barack says that "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.", but that sounds a lot like a continuation of the Long War rather than a commitment to ending it in the near term.

I would also like to see the so-called Department of Homeland Security disbanded, with each of its organizational units reassigned to their former homes in the federal bureaucracy. Yes, we need better cooperation within and across agencies on intelligence and security matters, but those issues were not automatically resolved by tossing organizational units into one big soup bowl.

Now I know that Hillary is not committed to my vision, but is Barack really offering a vision that is that much better? It appears that the answer is no.

Declaring an end to the so-called and misguided Long War is an urgent need for the country, but it appears that none of the candidates for president are committed to pulling to plug on this dangerous diversion of blood and treasure and attention.

-- Jack Krupansky

Family political dynasties?

One of the political undercurrents this year that keeps poking up its ugly head is the mythology of family political dynasties. It is a completely nonsensical concept. It ranks right up there with the worst of conspiracy theories. Here is the latest example I ran across in an Associated Press article entitled "Philadelphia suburbs hold key to Pa. primary":

"It's nice to be inspired by a politician," said [Name deleted], 34, as he kept an eye on customers entering his arts and crafts shop in the center of town. [Name deleted], among two dozen Delaware County voters interviewed by The Associated Press this week, switched his registration from Independent to Democrat so he could vote for Obama. He said he feared the emergence of White House family dynasties.

"Since I started voting, it's been a Clinton or a Bush," he said.

Where are otherwise-sane people getting this kind of crap from? I think it is a viral theme that is being pushed around the Internet by people who should know better but who also know that there are a lot of gullible people who fall for this kind of stuff. These are clearly the kind of people who cannot comprehend the distinction between correlation and causality.

It is hard to believe that some people somehow see the Bushes and Clintons as the same. Unbelievable. The words "blinders" and "gullible" come to mind.

The telltale sign here is his statement that "It's nice to be inspired by a politician." That is the giveaway clue. Some people are simply clueless and need someone to lead them around with a ring in their nose. They need to be "inspired." They should seek inspiration in religion, nature, community, arts, crafts, sports, or anything but politics. Politics needs to be above all else practical. In the 1930's in Germany we saw what can happen when people allow inspiration and passion be their primary guide to supporting a politician. We need to say no to inspiration and passion as our primary guide in politics.

Inspiration and dynasties. What an interesting combination. I am an independent too, but it really scares me that so many other "independents" are really way off the scale in terms of how they view politics. Even scarier is the fact that Barack tolerates and courts such political extremism. The American people vote as they see fit. To somehow distort their collective wisdom into the concept of a "dynasty" is quite scary indeed.

-- Jack Krupansky